Strategic-school vs Penal design - Which do you prefer?

[evemccc]

Which course-design philosophy do you prefer, and why?

Do you like courses and holes where everything is laid out in front of you and good shots are rewarded / bad shots penalised, or, where strategic decisions need to be made due to cross bunkers at a distance where a ‘good’ drive would land?

 

[WGCRider]

About 10 years ago I played a Westerham. It was fine - never been back.
One of the holes was a downhill dogleg left par 4. I remember I hit 8 iron off the tee and a 5 iron from the fairway. I think about that hole more than any other hole I've ever played. It had a big open fairway looking across the course just tempting you to try hook a wood round the corner but my brother said nope - 8 iron. Just a really clever hole design.
Also played West Surrey - nice course. There's a hole there where there are bunkers in the middle of the fairway at about 200yds. It's just stupid. It punishes a good shot from average golfers. I aim for the rough and hit my approach from there rather than dice with the bunker.
So to answer your question neither - I like holes that make me think rather than just driver, 8 iron. But cross fairway bunkers where a ‘good’ drive would land are, in my view, the worst design feature on a course.

 

[jim8flog]

The one thing I know is that I would not like a home course where every shot is difficult.

I reckon courses should have a good mix 6 difficult, 6 medium and 6 easier.

All holes should have some degree of difficulty.

I play an old fashioned course which was built before WWII. A lot of the bunkers from when it was built are still in place and are poorly positioned for the modern game. EG some of the bunkers are there purely to deceive the eyesight eg 20 -30 yards short of the green and are irrelevant with the GPS and yardage books used today. Two holes were originally par 5s now par 4s with cross bunkering to suit they now only catch a really poor second shot so effectively you get penalised two shots instead of one.

 

[Orikoru]

I'm not sure I know the difference between what you've said. I like courses though that may not be the longest but you have to pick your spots to lay-up and avoid hazards etc. Don't like courses where you just have to hit loads of long, straight shots. So if I haven't read it wrong.. I prefer the second one from your question?

 

[evemccc]

I'm not sure I know the difference between what you've said. I like courses though that may not be the longest but you have to pick your spots to lay-up and avoid hazards etc. Don't like courses where you just have to hit loads of long, straight shots. So if I haven't read it wrong.. I prefer the second one from your question?

I believe you prefer the first..?

In my understanding, gleaned mostly from Tom Doak’s first book and reading numerous course reviews, strategic design is making you think about club selection, hazards, lay-ups, risk-reward, rather than just pounding your driver

 

[Imurg]

A lot depends on how far you hit the ball.
Ellesborough has plenty of holes where I have to think about my tee club where Fragger and CVG can get the driver out without the need to ponder about hazards..

 

[Mel Smooth]

We had a par 5 where you had to hit an iron off the tee - maybe a 5iron, no way was a wood an option. The amount of people that visited the course and said how ridiculous it was not being able to hit driver on a par 5. But, you had to get that iron in a critical position to make the 2nd shot easier and take a load of water out of play, and also leave yourself a short iron to the green. It was a great hole. They eventually built a tee further back so it's probably a 3 wood off the tee now, still a good hole though.

This is it before the new tee went in, as you can see, double dog-leg. Water and OB right on the 1st shot, water on the left on the 2nd and 3rd. The wind would also swirl in the trees, just to add to the confusion. ;-)

 

[Mel Smooth]

I'm not sure I know the difference between what you've said. I like courses though that may not be the longest but you have to pick your spots to lay-up and avoid hazards etc. Don't like courses where you just have to hit loads of long, straight shots. So if I haven't read it wrong.. I prefer the second one from your question?

I think the question is, do you prefer holes like the one I've just shown, or ones where you can bomb the driver, but might get caught out in a bunker / hazard etc.

But maybe I don't know the difference either.

 

[clubchamp98]

The best golf hole at my club has no bunkers.
You need to shape your shots and land in the right spot.
If you get it wrong your in the ditch on the right as the land is all left to right.
The worst has a huge bunker right on the tiger line left, but nothing on the right were most bad shots go.

I like tight strategic courses that make you use all the clubs in your bag.
Not just driver wedge.

 

[Orikoru]

I believe you prefer the first..?

In my understanding, gleaned mostly from Tom Doak’s first book and reading numerous course reviews, strategic design is making you think about club selection, hazards, lay-ups, risk-reward, rather than just pounding your driver

I meant the second one from your post. You said them the other way round than you did in the title. Or I'm just confused.

 

[Ethan]

Good designers build holes with good shot values. Easy bogey, hard par (or easy par, hard birdie, depending on ability), that sort of thing.

There should always be a way for an average player to play the hole. One of the modern vogues is for generous driving areas, but the line nearest the hazard/bunker/crap gives the best approach, and the green complexes are more difficult, so you can choose to risk it of you have the skill, for a chance at a reward later.

My pet hate is the 275 yard par-4 which allows longer players to have a poke, but has a river, pond etc that means you otherwise have to hit a 7 iron.

Yes, 10th at Brabazon, I am talking about you. Similar hole at Remedy Oak. Both awful holes which should be bulldozed.

 

[WGCRider]

We had a par 5 where you had to hit an iron off the tee - maybe a 5iron, no way was a wood an option. The amount of people that visited the course and said how ridiculous it was not being able to hit driver on a par 5. But, you had to get that iron in a critical position to make the 2nd shot easier and take a load of water out of play, and also leave yourself a short iron to the green. It was a great hole. They eventually built a tee further back so it's probably a 3 wood off the tee now, still a good hole though.

This is it before the new tee went in, as you can see, double dog-leg. Water and OB right on the 1st shot, water on the left on the 2nd and 3rd. The wind would also swirl in the trees, just to add to the confusion. ;-)

That looks like a good hole. I think if I stand on the tee and see water I try avoid it - if I see a bunker I probably just roll the dice.

 

[Mel Smooth]

That looks like a good hole. I think if I stand on the tee and see water I try avoid it - if I see a bunker I probably just roll the dice.

Some great holes on the course to be honest, another one that fits this topic is the 12th, water left, then water right.
Big hitters could attempt to carry the water on the left, but for everybody else - if you can - aim for the bunker and try to get a little draw so you roll between the water hazards.
If you end up out right, and short of the bunker, it's 150 yards of carry all over water. OB all down the left as well.

Stroke Index 4, so a shot hole for the vast majority- but when you stand on the tee, why do we all only think about making par?

 

[cliveb]

I'm easy either way. But I'll tell you what I really hate: holes where there is NO way to play it. Any shot, no matter what you try, is punished. The 12th at Pinner Hill, for example.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

I believe you prefer the first..?

In my understanding, gleaned mostly from Tom Doak’s first book and reading numerous course reviews, strategic design is making you think about club selection, hazards, lay-ups, risk-reward, rather than just pounding your driver

Doak courses are marmite, he has some strange ideas. I'm not a fan of his generally I prefer the 'classic' designers like Colt and Simpson.

 

[WGCRider]

Some great holes on the course to be honest, another one that fits this topic is the 12th, water left, then water right.
Big hitters could attempt to carry the water on the left, but for everybody else - if you can - aim for the bunker and try to get a little draw so you roll between the water hazards.
If you end up out right, and short of the bunker, it's 150 yards of carry all over water. OB all down the left as well.

Stroke Index 4, so a shot hole for the vast majority- but when you stand on the tee, why do we all only think about making par?

That hole could actually do without the bunker. It looks like the further right you are the harder the 2nd shot would be over the water. Surely the bunker just shortens your tee shot - then you are not playing your 2nd over the water it's to the right?

 

[Mel Smooth]

That hole could actually do without the bunker. It looks like the further right you are the harder the 2nd shot would be over the water. Surely the bunker just shortens your tee shot - then you are not playing your 2nd over the water it's to the right?

Yeah, I've been in that bunker and tried to go for the green, 9 times out of 10, you then duff one into the thick rough between bunker and water. It's then a horrible shot from heavy rough which usually ends up in the water anyway. The percentage way to play the hole would be 5 iron, 9 iron and flick one on the green, and hopefully make nothing worse than a 5.

If I could still get on my HDID stats my average on there would be nowhere near a 5.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I was a bit like @Orikoru and not quite getting the difference. Ultimately though I like courses where you have to plot your way around. Courses that make you think. Hitting short of a bunker just for the sake of it is not necessarily thinking.

 

[Pathetic Shark]

Also played West Surrey - nice course. There's a hole there where there are bunkers in the middle of the fairway at about 200yds. It's just stupid. It punishes a good shot from average golfers. I aim for the rough and hit my approach from there rather than dice with the bunker.

I played the Surrey Mid-Age there a few back and my coach said the way to play the hole was just hit a normal driver and take your chances. Both times I hit the back face of it. I could have killed him.
But I do actually think it is a clever idea - do you go left or right where the landing zone is small, play short and leave a much longer second shot, or try to carry it? As a one-off, it's a novel design.

 

[evemccc]

I played the Surrey Mid-Age there a few back and my coach said the way to play the hole was just hit a normal driver and take your chances. Both times I hit the back face of it. I could have killed him.
But I do actually think it is a clever idea - do you go left or right where the landing zone is small, play short and leave a much longer second shot, or try to carry it? As a one-off, it's a novel design.

I don’t know that course or hole, but yes, generally I like holes and the design philosophy where the golfer is asked to make decisions - I think a good golf course is not solely a test of ball-striking (you could see who the best ball-striker is on an indoor Trackman) but of nerve, fortitude, clear sighted thinking, self-awareness, responding to the rub of the green and lucky / unlucky bounces etc.

Eg if a cross bunker is at 220 -230 yards then a good tee-shot could well be a 5 iron that runs out at 205-210. A great tee-shot would be a 250 yard carry. And a straight drive of 225 yards would in this instance be a poor shot

This type of hole and course design is also a test of golfing ability, including cognition and self-awareness