or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Courses and Architecture › Tee shots that force a particular ball flight... Good / Bad design?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tee shots that force a particular ball flight... Good / Bad design?

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 

I've come across a few holes that even from the member's tees, you almost HAVE to hit a draw or fade, sometimes severe. This is usually due to a narrow shoot through trees within the first 50/100 yards of the ball flight.

 

I loath this. I can shape the ball decently enough in these circumstances at times, but I don't believe forcing weekend golfers to due so is good design.

post #2 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaffertyDaniel View Post

I've come across a few holes that even from the member's tees, you almost HAVE to hit a draw or fade, sometimes severe. This is usually due to a narrow shoot through trees within the first 50/100 yards of the ball flight.

 

I loath this. I can shape the ball decently enough in these circumstances at times, but I don't believe forcing weekend golfers to due so is good design.

 

Why? Is being able to shape the ball a little not a golf skill that can reward or punish? Just as length, or ability to hit the ball high (or low), or accuracy, etc.?

post #3 of 23
Thread Starter 


I guess I should have said for your average golfer. From a design standpoint, I get it for the back tees. But forcing the forward/member tees to shape a ball is asking a lot. But I suppose you don't agree.

post #4 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaffertyDaniel View Post


I guess I should have said for your average golfer. From a design standpoint, I get it for the back tees. But forcing the forward/member tees to shape a ball is asking a lot. But I suppose you don't agree.

There are plenty of golfers that don't have enormous length who relish a bit of a challenge and have the skills to negotiate a tough course, just not the length to play 7,000 yards.

If a course is too difficult for someone, they should probably look at one that better suits their skill. Moving up a set of tees should shorten the course. It shouldn't necessarily take the challenge out of it.
post #5 of 23

I prefer that to fairways with a side hill slant that funnel the ball into the rough. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything really. There are a few holes at various courses around here that I play as a par 5 that are actually par 4s. My scores are lower on those usually if I just accept that I will hit three seven irons rather than go par dbl dbl etc.

post #6 of 23

I think it depends in part on the options the hole presents.  Do you only have to bend the ball if you hit in normal driver distance or would a straight shot, say 150-175 yards down the fairway be playable?  If you have to bend even a 150 yard shot, then yes, this seems to be asking a lot of a weekend duffer.  OTOH, if you only have to bend a 225+ shot to shorten a dog leg, then no, this in and of itself isn't too severe.

 

Generally speaking, one of the difficulties with golf course design (as well as pin placement, green speed and length of rough) is who is your target golfer.  Sure, a really well designed course can be a challenge to a +3 from the back tees while not being a total nightmare for a 33 from an up set of tees, but this is not always so easy to accomplish (especially when a course does not have the room to extend itself to over 7,000 yard).

 

Guys like Erik and David likely want a more challenging course overall (not just distance) than you and you likely want a more challenging course than a 30+ capper.  Even among golfers of similar skill level, some would prefer a push over, while others like to torture themselves.  So who should the course be set up for? 

post #7 of 23

I think its a great design feature although I hate it because Im not able to hit a fade or draw on command.

post #8 of 23
I can tell you how to hit draws and fades on commmand . Don't change your swing.. visualize your intended target line ...if fading use the far right of tee box or draw in general use the left side.
Stand like you want to hit it straight then open or shut club to where you need to work the ball. Trust it.
These are the shots you need in your bag to get out of trouble after a bad t shot behind a tree etc.
So your club face will be pointing right or left where you want your ball to end up at ...u need to regrip after you open or shut it
Swing to your feet line of course practice this first
post #9 of 23

Most holes that I've seen that seem to force a fade/draw from the tee will also allow someone to just miss the trees on the inside of the bend with a straight shot and still be okay, might be in the rough on the other side, but still playable. If the bend is more severe than that, it's a layup to the dogleg.

post #10 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaffertyDaniel View Post


I guess I should have said for your average golfer. From a design standpoint, I get it for the back tees. But forcing the forward/member tees to shape a ball is asking a lot. But I suppose you don't agree.

I'm not going against you here or contesting what you're saying, but I stand by the belief that every golf shot is possible. On any course that meets regulations, Par is able to be accomplished. Now, whether you have the skill to achieve Par is another totally different beast.

These players would have the option of not playing there, similar to saying "The annual tourist loses too many balls at TPC Sawgrass.... thus this is a bad design". The course may not be tailored towards the weekend golfer, but demand a casual to solid golfer's skill level.

Many holes where people immediately see "350 yards" from the box with a dog-leg 100 yards out, immediately assume they need to fade or draw as well. I watch my father play and I just smile as he pulls out his 8 or 9 to lay up to that dog-leg, or shoot over the corner of it with height, followed by a low hybrid into the green or near it. The opportunity is there, but it does not mean that creativity and thought can't prevail as much as a worked/forced shot.

post #11 of 23

I have no problem with it, if there is a hole were you need to draw it and you can only fade it, then figure out a way to play the hole that way. There are plenty of guys on the PGA who only play one shot shape, and they do fine on golf courses.

post #12 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

I have no problem with it, if there is a hole were you need to draw it and you can only fade it, then figure out a way to play the hole that way. There are plenty of guys on the PGA who only play one shot shape, and they do fine on golf courses.

 

Truth. I like challenging courses that make golfers think about how to approach and play each hole.

post #13 of 23

Depends what is meant by "force". If that means to take full advantage of a hole like playing a draw on the 13th at Augusta that's fine. A hole that offers the opportunity to lay back with a shorter club without a draw or fade is OK. 18 at Augusta is another example. You can hit a straight shot short of the traps or a riskier fade to the right of the traps. As long as there is an option it's OK to me.

post #14 of 23

Even holes were its a severe dog leg, were you have to hit it a certain number to have a shot at the green, that's ok with me. I played a course in Hilton Head that did that, about 4 holes were short  par 4's, but you needed to hit the ball 200 yards out, then you would have a short iron into the green. It took the driver out of the bag, and forced you to think about what your doing.

 

One of my favorite holes is the two par 5's on TPC sawgrass. 16, and i think its the 2nd. Both require a draw to take advantage of the hole. The first i hit a pull cut, clipped a tree, and had to punch out down the fairway to a long iron 3rd shot. Number 16, i crushed a draw that fit down the left side of the fairway, had a 7 iron into the green, never had to worry about the water on the right side. Two similar driving holes, one played the wrong way, one played the right way. Both holes i really liked.

 

On a side note, if you think number 17 is scary, that is a piece of cake shot compared to the tee shot on number 18. Because if you bail out right, the whole green runs away from you to the water. If you actually go back to were the pro's hit it, man i just stood there and though, "HOLY SHIT, i would not want to have the lead teeing off on this hole", there just seem like no way you could even get the ball to aim down that left side.

post #15 of 23

Normally I think great designs allow two choices with a reward for the more challenging selection.  However, some holes are designed so that one particular shot is the main defense of the hole and, if you sort of understand the designer's idea, it is fun to play these holes.  It could be the drive or the approach but the challenge is set before you and you are asked to execute the shot.  Great designs normally do not do this for shots requiring exceptional length but more shot shape control.  I do not like greens that slope away from you, for example, but there are holes that have this characteristic and typically they simply require a high slight cut (which by the way is not my favorite shot.)  I agree with a poster above who dislikes overly sloped fairways where you are asked to land a ball in the rough just to keep your shot in play.  My all time unfavorite design is a par four that demans a shorter tee shot than approach shot.  That seems wrong to me but my old university course had just such a hote.  It always seemed pointless and a waste of time, but it could ding your card with a bogey if you were not careful.

post #16 of 23
Then why design doglegs in the first place? What if every course was like Firestone- barely a dogleg in the lot. "Most" doglegs were/are designed be played by bending the ball in the direction of the dogleg. OR, if you have the muscle and the opportunity, you can play OVER the corner. Take it a next step- What about the classic "Redan" holes. Par 3's meant to take a specific shot shape to test your mettle. Sure, you COULD power a HIGH soft drop shot into the pin, but that requires pinpoint accuracy and distance control. They were designed to take a lower rolling shaped shot to get close to the 'Sunday' placements they have tucked in the back. It's no fun to get to one of these "classic" designs and find the flag sitting in the front location. Even second or third shots into some greens aren't designed to be attacked with a straight shot. To get the risk/reward, many may require a shaped shot of some kind to get close while avoiding trouble. Again- you could TRY and hit that high soft lander, but the precision required is much stronger than if you can hit a fade/draw that will roll into position. You hear the commentators or the players mention 'bail out areas" or "safe spots" all the time. If the pin is tucked in a corner, behind a hazard, players will try and hit that fade to get there. They will aim "just left of the trap", or "just right of our tower" and work the ball into position. If they don't fade it correctly, they wind up on the green anyway but further away. You can certainly PLAY to the hole with straight shots, but the use of a draw or fade increases the rewards if played correctly.
post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC View Post

Normally I think great designs allow two choices with a reward for the more challenging selection.  However, some holes are designed so that one particular shot is the main defense of the hole and, if you sort of understand the designer's idea, it is fun to play these holes.  It could be the drive or the approach but the challenge is set before you and you are asked to execute the shot.  Great designs normally do not do this for shots requiring exceptional length but more shot shape control.  I do not like greens that slope away from you, for example, but there are holes that have this characteristic and typically they simply require a high slight cut (which by the way is not my favorite shot).  I agree with a poster above who dislikes overly sloped fairways where you are asked to land a ball in the rough just to keep your shot in play.  My all time unfavorite design is a par four that demands a shorter tee shot than approach shot.  That seems wrong to me but my old university course had just such a hole.  It always seemed pointless and a waste of time, but it could ding your card with a bogey if you were not careful.

Well said and there are at least two of us that think the tee shot demanded shouldn't be shorter than the approach.  Lay up off the tee with a hybrid and hit the approach with a 3-wood makes little sense to me.  Admittedly I am a much shorter hitter than many Sand Trappers but idea is the same for everyone else: lay up with an 8-iron and hit a 5-iron to the green, etc... 

post #18 of 23

In my opinion, good design should allow holes that favor one shape of shot over another but shouldn't require only one shape.  If you hit a fade a dogleg right may favor you to the extent you have a shorter approach shot.  But the penalty for (properly) hitting a draw or a straight drive should be a longer 2nd shot - not an impossible one. 

 

And add me to the list of those who dislike a longer 2nd shot than a properly hit drive.  Played one course for a season where #11 required a short to mid-iron off the tee (7-8) and a 5 or 6 into the green.  Just didn't seem right.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Courses and Architecture
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Courses and Architecture › Tee shots that force a particular ball flight... Good / Bad design?