Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 14:29:59 GMT -5
After a recent design flaw that put many of my Back deck Par 5's in the category of unreachable in two shots I started thinking about club selection on these three shots.
On my 9th hole(Par 5) of Storm King, if you don't clear a fairway bunker than you can't clear the water and need to lay up with wedge with a long third shot to the green. I'm wanting to discuss the stigma that each shot should be successively shorter and players should have to lay up a second shot with a wedge on a Par 5, or worse yet - lay up off the tee with two long shots to the green.
The question is. Why not?
On a long Par 5 - why must the first shot be a driver, to a fairway wood or long iron, to a wedge in for the third shot? This feels very restrictive to me.
I'm now dying to design a Par 5 that has two options off the tee. A lay up in front of the tee with a wedge - with two long shots to the green. Or a heroic carry over a hazard that may allow a shot that can roll the second onto the front of the green for a long putt.
From watching reviews and how-to-design videos I'm getting the feeling that forcing a wedge off the tee of a Par 5 is not acceptable. Consider the three design options below for a Par 5....
Shot 1 - Shot 2 - Shot 3 (the stigma) =================== Driver - 3 Wood - 9 Iron (makes the world normal) Driver - 9 Iron - 3 Wood (restrictive and frustrating) 7 Iron - 3 Wood - 3 Wood (outright unacceptable)
How is it that the first option is usually the default design strategy? If you have to play three shots to the green then isn't it a little odd to be forced into a box of longest to shortest clubs in that journey from the tee to the green?
Yes ideally you don't place any restrictions on club choice but sometimes water or wasteland hazards can take some club options out of consideration.
Any how. I'd be curious to know if you can think of any Par 5s where laying up to a short-iron is an option, if not, why do you think not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 16:17:41 GMT -5
As a player - I can tell you that your idea is bad. Terrible bad.
A good rule of thumb: never force the player to any shot, and never force a club out of the players hand. It is quite okay to make a drive hard - but if you do, you need to reward that shot if it is made. And as for forced carry - I would like to point out that this is generaly bad design. It is usualy much better to provide a narrow landing area (can also be done with slopes) that have risks - quite fine with water both sides for example, rather than force a carry. If the player can carry - good for them (the player has bypassed the risky area) - but usualy if you force a carry, that is forcing clubs out of the players hands instead of giving the player options.
|
|
|
Post by lessthanbread on Jul 18, 2020 16:59:44 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with giving the safe option of hitting a shorter club and then needing a longer one into the green. However in my opinion it should always be an option and not a requirement. I like to design where the longest club is always an option but a riskier one as you get longer and longer and closer to the green. You can create what you’re talking about while still not forcing it. Basically make an iron off the tee the best/realistic option while still giving a heroic wood/driver landing where if the golfer misses it they’re dead. My favorite par 5s also test placement with the driver rather than club selection. Hole 11 on Green Inferno is my attempt at this concept. You want to drive the ball as far right as possible if you want a chance at the green in two. The safe play is left but hitting it there will almost ensure a layup 2nd. Par 5s are my favorite to design because you can bake in so many options. Why telegraph a specific way to play the hole when you can let the golfer get themselves in trouble?? All the more fun
|
|
|
Post by 15eicheltower9 on Jul 18, 2020 17:31:00 GMT -5
What's keeping me from trying to carry the bunker? It's the same result as laying up. Everyone will pull driver out of the bag every time. Then the second shot becomes routine if you dont carry or for some reason layup. No matter what, if you don't carry its a forced layup. There are no options to this hole. Its all in the hands of the designer. Which your question suggests. Your asking if d,pw,4ir (or whatever) is a good way to design a 3 shot par 5. No, you should never think about what clubs a player is using like that. If you want d pw 4ir to be an option, leave those areas wide open. But don't force that. A player should be able to advance the ball as far as possible with increasing risk and increasing reward.
|
|
|
Post by 15eicheltower9 on Jul 18, 2020 17:46:15 GMT -5
Erm.. I must have had this tab open for a while before responding. Those other guys are right too. Sorry if it seemed like I was piling on.
But as Joe did its always easiest to reference your own work. Number 3 at Alphasand Dunes is a 2 shot par 5. But if you don't want to challenge the bunkers on the drive, or find yourself in trouble. The second shot plays as a long iron all the way down to a wedge of you wanted. The fairway gets increasingly wider (up to like 200 yards) and you get further away from the fairway bunkers that protect the approach.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 18:34:34 GMT -5
Thanks for all the quick replies! A couple of thoughts on the replies...
- forced carries aren't going away in modern golf and in the real world, the physical obstacles may require them for routing. I do however agree that leaving golfers with various options is the best. So maybe I make 150-300 yards a series of minefields and risky ventures if I want to leave the short club an option off the par 5 tee. - However, I do agree that most players, regardless of the obstacles ahead, still try to squeeze a driver off every tee. During competitive rounds, they may think twice if the reward isn't worth the risk of throwing away a lead.
One thing that I've started realizing from casually plays my own designs or watching others play it is that there needs to be some accommodation for recovery on Par 5s. A par 5 uphill over 600 yards long (which I've designed) becomes extremely punitive if you even role into the rough or god forbid, land in a bunker. It may quickly become a struggle to reach the green in regulation - which can be frustrating. The same goes for the 500+ yard par 4. The problem is the game makes it too easy to have a two-shot range of nearly 550 yards- so getting a true 3-shot Par 5 means going out to 600 yards.
I like big fairways and it seems the game demands thin fairways to compensate for the consistent long-hitting bias. So maddening
|
|
|
Post by jacobkessler on Jul 18, 2020 18:46:32 GMT -5
Personally agree with the others that it can be an option, but shouldn't be required. That said, the 9th at my club used to be like that, although it was redesigned a few years before I moved to the area and became a member. Always thought it was a unique hole: The landing area is a little over 200 yds. away. You may be able to cut off the lake at 220-230, but any further than that the trees block it off. From there, it was about 350 in, so no chance of hitting the green in two. The problem is it doesn't really give the player a chance to think- it's just an iron into the fairway and that's it. The way it plays now, it's a short par 4 with the tee boxes around where the landing area was when it was a par 5, and the tee shot plays as, the further right you go the better angle (usually, depends on the pin location), but the closer you get to the bunkers. That's not to say you should automatically turn a hole like that into a par 4, but rather just turn it into a hole that makes the player think, rather than, "oh, I'm gonna have to lay up on my second shot, so there's no point in trying to hit close to the water". Just my thoughts, anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2020 18:57:53 GMT -5
This is a great question @greenside because you are touching on the ultimate distinction between Golden Era Architecture and the modern Target Golf Architecture. Being a fan of both schools of thought, I will try to give you my perspective on why it's hard to compete with the Golden Era Architecture approach(no pun intended) to this comparison of design styles. I will do so by comparing two par 5's, one from each school of thought, and hopefully will be able to show why one is clearly better than the other. Modern Target Golf Architecture: Par 5 - Hole 3 - Aristea Skies Golden Era Architecture: Par 5 - Hole 18 - Pebble Beach Golf Links On Aristea Skies' third hole I decided to chop the fairway up into three segments to force the player to make three shots. Essentially only giving the player the option of which clubs they wanted to use when laying up on their first two shots, and totally taking a heroic two shots to reach the green out of the picture. This approach was made to give the shorter players a chance to not lose a hole early in the round to the longer hitting players. This is the heart of Target Golf Architecture. As a designer, I took away the players' choice to use their own course management approach, and forced them to play the hole in one certain manner. While I accomplished the initial goal of allowing a level playing field for shorter hitting players, I also diminished the ability of a shorter hitting player to beat a longer hitting player due to better course management by missing hazards the longer hitter ventured off into. On the other hand, we have the final hole of one of golf's most cherished courses, Pebble Beach Golf Links. The 18th hole allows the player to choose the course management. If a player is trailing the leader by a single stroke when stepping up to the tee, and wants to walk away with a win by reaching the green in two and sinking the eagle putt, that option is available. If that same golfer wants to just sink a birdie putt and move on to playoff holes, that option is also available, albeit with a much higher percentage of possibility. The two shot reach requires the player to thread the needle between water to the left and a tree to the right off the tee, and then hit a green well protected by bunkers and water on the second shot. The three shot reach allows the player to carefully select clubs that will put him in the best position possible for each successive shot on the way to birdie town. The morale of this long winded tale is that a big part of the enjoyment of playing golf is the freedom to make decisions on course management depending on what the moment calls for. If a designer takes away that course management aspect and forces the player to play holes in a certain way, some of that enjoyment for the game is lost. This has actually become a very common methodology for some modern course architects, and therefore leads to questions like your's about why it is so "wrong". I personally do not feel that it is "wrong", but even when comparing my own Target Golf Architecture hole to a classic Golden Era Architecture hole, I'll take the later every time. So... why did I say I am a fan of Target Golf Architecture as well as Golden Era Architecture? Golf video games and fantasy courses. To truly get immersive in an environment while designing fantasy courses for video games, it's often easier to ditch well rounded designs that give multiple options for every shot in order to force people in a certain spot to check out your totally awesome waterfall. Is this good in a sense of golf course design? No. Does it achieve the goal of focusing on the fantasy environment? Yes. Again, this is not saying that Target Golf Architecture is superior by any stretch of the imagination. I'm simply saying that going down that path may achieve the goal of showing off some pretty awesome waterfalls, but immediately puts the design into the fantasy realm where Golden Era Architecture value is lost. Is anybody still reading this?!?! Probably not.....
|
|
|
Post by 15eicheltower9 on Jul 18, 2020 23:37:45 GMT -5
Personally agree with the others that it can be an option, but shouldn't be required. That said, the 9th at my club used to be like that, although it was redesigned a few years before I moved to the area and became a member. Always thought it was a unique hole: The landing area is a little over 200 yds. away. You may be able to cut off the lake at 220-230, but any further than that the trees block it off. From there, it was about 350 in, so no chance of hitting the green in two. The problem is it doesn't really give the player a chance to think- it's just an iron into the fairway and that's it. The way it plays now, it's a short par 4 with the tee boxes around where the landing area was when it was a par 5, and the tee shot plays as, the further right you go the better angle (usually, depends on the pin location), but the closer you get to the bunkers. That's not to say you should automatically turn a hole like that into a par 4, but rather just turn it into a hole that makes the player think, rather than, "oh, I'm gonna have to lay up on my second shot, so there's no point in trying to hit close to the water". Just my thoughts, anyway. That hole probably played awesome when those trees were just planted behind those houses. Reason number 1246 why trees suck.
|
|
|
Post by 15eicheltower9 on Jul 18, 2020 23:39:07 GMT -5
Actually that development doesn't look that old. Just axe them b%&es and have yourself a great golf hole.
|
|
|
Post by tpetro on Jul 19, 2020 0:05:19 GMT -5
So... why did I say I am a fan of Target Golf Architecture as well as Golden Era Architecture? Golf video games and fantasy courses. To truly get immersive in an environment while designing fantasy courses for video games, it's often easier to ditch well rounded designs that give multiple options for every shot in order to force people in a certain spot to check out your totally awesome waterfall. Is this good in a sense of golf course design? No. Does it achieve the goal of focusing on the fantasy environment? Yes. Again, this is not saying that Target Golf Architecture is superior by any stretch of the imagination. I'm simply saying that going down that path may achieve the goal of showing off some pretty awesome waterfalls, but immediately puts the design into the fantasy realm where Golden Era Architecture value is lost. Love this take, but I think the definitions are a bit too broad. The Big Three of design right now - Doak, C&C, and Hanse are as far as you can get from target golf. You're thinking Nicklaus and Rees Jones and those chumps. Want an example of why Jack's target golf is annoying and hurts efforts to grow the game? Turn on the TV and tell me if you could ever hit the green on that stupid 12th hole at Muirfield Village. Or any hole there. That said, I think you've nailed exactly what we, as video game designers, are all thinking. Most of us - including the last 10 or so contest champions - put options and strategy first, yet we all know that to be compelling and challenging, courses need a splash of fantasy stuff. This includes some unrealistically difficult target golf - remember, LiDARs get shredded by even casual TGCT players. We have the unique ability to create environments and alter land significantly, but we need to do so in a way that keeps the phrase "have to" out of design philosophy. My favorite example is 18 at Sawgrass (I know it's a par 4, bear with me). Seems like target golf, right? The player is presented with a fairway no wider than 25 yards, with water down the left and trees down the right. However, since the fairway is continuous, it presents a myriad of options that stretch from long iron all the way to driver. There are several clubs you can get away with hitting off that tee, but the hole's design does not eliminate the option of hitting any specific yardage, thus not forcing you to pick from 2 or 3 "options". If there was a massive bunker 305 yards from the tee, the hole would be overly restrictive for both the shorter pros and the resort golfers. At 18 at Sawgrass, you don't "have to" do anything: you're free to hit any club, though easier tee balls may present more difficult approaches.
|
|
|
Post by jacobkessler on Jul 19, 2020 0:13:36 GMT -5
Actually that development doesn't look that old. Just axe them b%&es and have yourself a great golf hole. So, abbreviated history of the club. P.B. Dye is the designer, and I believe the design process started in 1991 (the course opened in 1993). He knew there would be houses there, but the neighborhood wasn’t actually built until a few years after that (historical imagery on google earth shows a bunch of dirt there in 1994). Now, at the time I was an 8 year old kid living in a different city, so I had literally no clue about this club then lol. But using the measuring tool on Google Earth, it was 310 to carry the creek, so at that point in time nobody was getting over. Still, if you really wanted to, you could’ve cut the corner; it was only 260 to a decent landing area, although it was over a bunker. So it appears that the hole was intended to play different, but the development changed a bit- the creek is rerouted a bit, and the bunker became that lake you see above. Unfortunately the google imagery jumps from 1994 to 2002, but looking at 2002 if you hit a slight draw and didn’t mind going over someone’s backyard, you could carry the creek at 280 yds. The tees look like they were moved back in 2003, though, and from there more and more trees were added to the point where it would take 295 yards of carry and 300 feet of curve to get it across. Anyways, I went out on a bit of a tangent there... but interesting to dive into that hole. The rest of the holes have remained pretty much the same throughout the course’s history, but 9 has changed a lot. If you want to check it out for yourself, the course is called Heritage Golf Club and it’s in Hilliard, Ohio.
|
|
|
Post by b101 on Jul 19, 2020 4:22:14 GMT -5
In part seeing as it was my playthrough that prompted this, I’ll chime in. I firmly believe that forcing a layup is generally poor design in real life and even more so in TGC. By all means make going for it fraught with danger and the layup prudent, but give me the choice. Unlike many others here, par fives are my favourite holes to design because of the risk/reward and sheer variety of options you can build in when going for the green in two should be inherently risky. If the second shot is just lumping it up the fairway because you have no other option you lose a huge amount of playing interest. That is different to saying you should hit the green every time, as well - it’s a subtle distinction.
Beyond that, I’d say the true three shot par five is the hardest type of hole to design, as all three shots have to matter and be interesting whilst working in a variety of wind conditions. For me, the trick is to make the second shot really matter for placement into a green designed to reward a shorter shot from the correct position. I think Ainsdale 13 is the best example I’ve managed so far from that point of view (with Joe’s help).
Now of course all of those ‘rules’ can be broken if you really know what you’re doing, but far more often than not, they’re principles I’ll abide by.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2020 5:00:47 GMT -5
So... why did I say I am a fan of Target Golf Architecture as well as Golden Era Architecture? Golf video games and fantasy courses. To truly get immersive in an environment while designing fantasy courses for video games, it's often easier to ditch well rounded designs that give multiple options for every shot in order to force people in a certain spot to check out your totally awesome waterfall. Is this good in a sense of golf course design? No. Does it achieve the goal of focusing on the fantasy environment? Yes. Again, this is not saying that Target Golf Architecture is superior by any stretch of the imagination. I'm simply saying that going down that path may achieve the goal of showing off some pretty awesome waterfalls, but immediately puts the design into the fantasy realm where Golden Era Architecture value is lost. Love this take, but I think the definitions are a bit too broad. The Big Three of design right now - Doak, C&C, and Hanse are as far as you can get from target golf. You're thinking Nicklaus and Rees Jones and those chumps. Want an example of why Jack's target golf is annoying and hurts efforts to grow the game? Turn on the TV and tell me if you could ever hit the green on that stupid 12th hole at Muirfield Village. Or any hole there. Muirfield Villiage is going to be changed and they are starting the work right after the players step off the course today. Jack Nicklaus is not happy with many of the holes - and I thought to dwell some on two of the holes on this course: Lets have a look at two quite similar holes on Muirfield Village - 5th and 11th. Two par 5, water stream on the left of the fairway that comes to the greens so you have water in play on layups and approach shots. The main difference on these two holes are the tee shot. On the 5th, you have a dogleg right with the stream on the far side of the tee shot. The stream is not in play since players are forced to play either a fairway wood or long iron because of the dogleg. Compare this to the tee shot on the brilliant 11th - a straight tee shot with the water stream on the left in play all the way - any hook will be in there. The fairway gets gradually more narrow as you get futher down the fairway. On the 5th, you want to be more to the right of the fairway for best angle for the approach shot - not so on the 11th. You get the best angle the more you are to the left and flirting with the water. If you land too much right on the 11th, you will be blocked by trees and you have the option of fading around them, which is very risky with water all the way on the left side of the green - or layup. I know many fantasy designers here would be tempted to put a fairway bunker in the middle of this fairway - and that would be a mistake similar to the 18th on Sawgrass. You ruin the tee shot. The narrow landing area on the middle to left side is still there without the bunker, but having a bunker there would eliminate a great risk/reward option for the player - forcing a layup. Important to note how the green slopes on these two holes - right to left towards the water. This is important, because you can use the slope on the approach to get the ball rolling towards the pin (important to make that left side the best on the 11th) - and also serve as a way to have that fade shot stay on the green. And the slope makes any miss too much to the right a hard chip down the hill from the rough - making the approach shot a more risky shot with limited landing area. The 5th has more water in front, so it is better to come from the right. The slope on the green also makes spin control important on layup approach. Since you on the 11th must layup on the left fairway, spin control becomes important as your shot is across water onto the slope. Too much spin can make that ball roll back into the water. I know that we don't have the correct spin physics in the game - and I believe it to be due to too firm greens even on soft settings. But in real life - this becomes an important aspect of the strategy for the layup. The player needs to choose correct distance on their layup. Jack Nicklaus is not happy with the 5th - and the reason is that the hole has forced the driver out of the hands of the player. The tee shot is just bad design. So this hole will be changed to a par 4. A correct decision in my opinion. A very good example on how forcing a club out of the players hands is bad design.
|
|
|
Post by jacobkessler on Jul 19, 2020 10:49:24 GMT -5
Love this take, but I think the definitions are a bit too broad. The Big Three of design right now - Doak, C&C, and Hanse are as far as you can get from target golf. You're thinking Nicklaus and Rees Jones and those chumps. Want an example of why Jack's target golf is annoying and hurts efforts to grow the game? Turn on the TV and tell me if you could ever hit the green on that stupid 12th hole at Muirfield Village. Or any hole there. Muirfield Villiage is going to be changed and they are starting the work right after the players step off the course today. Jack Nicklaus is not happy with many of the holes - and I thought to dwell some on two of the holes on this course: Lets have a look at two quite similar holes on Muirfield Village - 5th and 11th. Two par 5, water stream on the left of the fairway that comes to the greens so you have water in play on layups and approach shots. The main difference on these two holes are the tee shot. On the 5th, you have a dogleg right with the stream on the far side of the tee shot. The stream is not in play since players are forced to play either a fairway wood or long iron because of the dogleg. Compare this to the tee shot on the brilliant 11th - a straight tee shot with the water stream on the left in play all the way - any hook will be in there. The fairway gets gradually more narrow as you get futher down the fairway. On the 5th, you want to be more to the right of the fairway for best angle for the approach shot - not so on the 11th. You get the best angle the more you are to the left and flirting with the water. If you land too much right on the 11th, you will be blocked by trees and you have the option of fading around them, which is very risky with water all the way on the left side of the green - or layup. I know many fantasy designers here would be tempted to put a fairway bunker in the middle of this fairway - and that would be a mistake similar to the 18th on Sawgrass. You ruin the tee shot. The narrow landing area on the middle to left side is still there without the bunker, but having a bunker there would eliminate a great risk/reward option for the player - forcing a layup. Important to note how the green slopes on these two holes - right to left towards the water. This is important, because you can use the slope on the approach to get the ball rolling towards the pin (important to make that left side the best on the 11th) - and also serve as a way to have that fade shot stay on the green. And the slope makes any miss too much to the right a hard chip down the hill from the rough - making the approach shot a more risky shot with limited landing area. The 5th has more water in front, so it is better to come from the right. The slope on the green also makes spin control important on layup approach. Since you on the 11th must layup on the left fairway, spin control becomes important as your shot is across water onto the slope. Too much spin can make that ball roll back into the water. I know that we don't have the correct spin physics in the game - and I believe it to be due to too firm greens even on soft settings. But in real life - this becomes an important aspect of the strategy for the layup. The player needs to choose correct distance on their layup. Jack Nicklaus is not happy with the 5th - and the reason is that the hole has forced the driver out of the hands of the player. The tee shot is just bad design. So this hole will be changed to a par 4. A correct decision in my opinion. A very good example on how forcing a club out of the players hands is bad design. Oh, there changing 5? Probably a bit of an unpopular opinion, but that’s disappointing. Like, that’s literally one of my favorite holes in the world. I mean, I guess I don’t really care what they do with the tee shot as long as the green complex and creek remains similar. It’s such a beautiful hole- attending the Memorial every year, it’s always my favorite hole to sit by the green and watch.
|
|