[TEPaul]

On a recent topic discussing if Fazio disparaged the "Golden Age" architecture in his recent book, Mark Fine mentioned that even Tillinghast implied that golf architectural strategies may not apply to golfers who don't have the golf skills to use or apply them.

Furthermore, Mark Fine may have stated or implied in the past that a vast majority of golfers (maybe in the 90th percentile) either don't have the skills, don't really care or maybe aren't really even aware of the subject of strategy at all. He may have even implied that Fazio is aware of that and designs courses primarily for other reasons that might even minimize strategy. I must say I haven't noticed that!

Mark Fine may have an excellent point there! A large amount of people at my own club seemed unaware, uncaring or dismissive of the need or use of strategy on our golf course when I tried to mention the ramifications of it to them.

So are the strategies we talk about all the time on here for only a very small percentage of golfers?

I do recall a few of the great writers and designers of the past mentioning that there is no reason to put bunkers and such in odd places because golfers who constantly hit their ball in odd places have brought enough of their own problems to the course and the designer really doesn't need to add to their problems. Is this an implication of an architect only designing for the good player?

So are there any or other strategies or other kinds of them for the vast 90% or so who don't seem to notice, care or play classic golf architectural strategies? Or does it really matter?

The architectural placement of various tees would seem to be about the only major strategic consideration given to that 90% or so. What other strategic considerations are there for them?

How about the greens? It would seem that many more at least have the interest and ability to notice, play and enjoy the clever strategies of a really good green? That area certainly doesn't require strength and the green is indeed the "pay-off" area.

Everybody can sink a really complicated chip or putt now and then but not everybody can hit the ball 250yds across a good cape carry. Are there any designers who have talked about how to include the less capable golfer into the world of architectural strategy?

Again, Mark Fine might even be implying that Tom Fazio might be implying that strategic considerations are minor today compared to other architectural considerations. I'm not that familiar with many Fazio courses but a few of the ones I've played have some good strategies on a number of holes--certainly a course like Galloway does.

We talk about options, risk/reward, angles to approach from, distance choices etc, etc. But what other kinds of strategies have we seen on good golf courses for those who don't have a good game or a big game? Pitching, chipping, putting? How many architects think these areas through strategically for the golfer who doesn't have much else to work with? Is it worth it to try to convince the hacker that really good strategies are important although they may come into play for him with only one or two shots a year?

Is basic course managment of any kind some form of strategy? Even for a hacker could an architect create strategies just through the creation of extemely random features?

Might real width and randomness be the key? Is this another reason why TOC has been so special for so many over the years?

[GeoffreyC]

Tom

Shame on you.  It's hogwash to assume that strategy doen't apply to higher handicap players.  Look in Thomas' book, The Spirit of St. Andrews, Tillinghast's articles and so on.  In each of them they diagram well thought out golf holes where a line of play for the high handicap player to have a chance at par or at worst bogey is very realistic IF they take what the hole gives them strategy wise.  You hit it on the head when you spoke of course management. Of course this is strategy for the higher handicap player the same as it is for the low handicap player. A well thought out golf hole presents challenges and strategy for all players.

[TEPaul]

Geoffrey:

I've read them all and you've got some damn good points there. I was hoping for an answer though from Mark Fine.

Where has strategy for such as mentioned gone then? Why do so few appear to care or notice? What's happened to the type of hole that Thomas and Tillinghast diagramed and wrote about? Why doesn't somebody build the hole that MacKenzie won the MacDonald Lido Prize for? Have you seen it? I have no doubt that any level of golfer in the world could look out from the tee on that hole and see a way to go with his own name written on it in a Long Island second!

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I agree that many golfers do not consider strategy in their games. However handicap is not the key variable to me. It is an awareness of the need for course management and how effective use of this ie stategy can dramatically improve your handicap and appreciation of the game.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I'm inclined to think Mark Fine is correct.

Very few golfers I meet express much interest in golf course architecture, especially Americans.

Forget about strategy.  Show them something that looks great and you've captured more than ninety percent of the market.

FYI, not long ago I hosted a Golf Digest rater who told me he had seen 89 of the top 100.  He couldn't pronounce the word "redan", but was at least modest enough to admit he didn't know what it meant.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Is this not the perfect post for allowing all to see how badly the game has evolved?

I think it was Thomas that said, "Strategy is the soul of the game." And if that doesn't allow us to view the differing golfers; the non-"core" golfers who don't even have an idea about the game, let alone, the basic rules, just how is the game to survive?

Mark Fine, if you really love the game, get off your duff and start educating people with the information "that you know," and not teaching them "how you know." I spend a lot of time working (wearing) on people that think they have a clue, because they bought expensive clubs, go on expensive golf vacations, play expensive places, and yet, look for help when it comes to getting a ruling on a ball in a water hazard.

Its sad. This is the same group that doesn't care if the USGA says it is illegal. It doesn't matter as long as it is a Callaway product.

Try explaining to these people the strategy of a golf hole?

Simply put, they don't know how to play the game!!!!!!! And......Don't you actually think that Tillinghast, the brash iconoclastic character that he was was, is saying the same in that quote?

***Screw-it! The damn Hickory Stick Hi-lob wedge is staying in the garage!

[Mike_Cirba]

This past Friday, my Dad and I played with two fellows in their 30s, who fancied themselves golfers.

Each had a set of clubs that would retail at over $1,000.

Each talked about the number of courses they had seen, and cited particular ones they didn't like that "penalized their good shots".  

Of course, they rode in a cart, despite athletic builds and not a sign of physical problems while my 74 year old dad and I walked the somewhat hilly site.

Not once did I see either of them repair a ball mark, replace a divot, or have a clue whose turn it was to hit.

On every non-par-three hole, the driver was the weapon of choice invariably.  Their swings were made up of 100% strength and 0% thought, and looked to be an exercise in how hard and fast they could possibly rotate their bodies.  The taller fellow had a duck hook that made mine seem like a high fade, and invariably his ball travelled 50-150 yards left of target.  The stockier fellow stood further from the ball, and his slice cleared course boundaries on multiple occasions.

They left 3 foot putts short.  

Between them, I'd estimate that they lost 15 balls apiece, at minimum.  

At the end of the day, they claimed to have each shot in the 90s.

The only strategy they seemed to employ was to tell their friends that they had played the newest CCFAD in NJ, and spent a heck of a lot of cash and 5.5 hours to do so.

By the way, they did like the course because "it had great views, and the greens held".  

Perhaps Tom Fazio knows his market afterall.

[brad_miller]

Sad but true, many more of these guys than the ones that fix multiple ball marks on every green. Mike, that must have been some hook!

[TEPaul]

Lots of interesting discussions, remarks and opinions on some recent threads that seem to center on strategy, naturalness, the likes of Coore and Crenshaw (Doak, Hanse etc), Rees and Tom Fazio; This seems to be the general concensus;

1/ Real interest or awareness in golf archictecture, classic architectural principles and architectural strategies doesn't exist much with the vast majority of today's golfer.

2/ Good looking golf holes matter to most of today's golfers more--the photogenic, the "experience" etc.

3/ Tom Fazio sets out to build 'The World's best golf course everytime out if the client wants to go that far.'

4/ The goal of most of Tom Fazio's clients is to have a course in the Top 100, some in the Top 20.

5/ Tom Fazio has been in the business a long time, he certainly understands the business, he's a very effective construction craftsman and he knows what today's golfer will accept and he knows what they won't accept, and he builds for them and his clients accordingly.

6/ Even those who appear to be otherwise supportive of the type of golf courses Fazio builds hope he'll stay away from redesigning or rennovating the "classic" course. (That's the way he made is reputation though--is that a reasonable hope?).

7/ Tom Fazio by his own admission does not believe in 'borrowing' concepts from classic architecture, he believes in building 'unique' golf holes.

8/ Fazio Co. claims that technology is so good today and they are so efficient that they can produce a finished product from scratch in 120 days. Tom Fazio is probably considered by most golfers (and maybe most potential clients) as the #1 architect in the World today (for what they want and need).

9/ As evidenced by some of his recent products Rees seems to be altering his design style away from his previously recognizable style.

10/ There really does appear to be a "renaissance" movement in arcthitecture today back to many of the principles and appearances and playabilities of the "Golden Age" era that is picking up steam and gaining in popularity. There appears to be a good half dozen architects involved in this "renaissance" direction. Tom Fazio is definitely not one of them. Is Rees maybe starting to go somewhat in that direction?

Is either direction right of wrong? Probably not. Is there a distinctive difference? Definitely!

Personally, I think difference is good!

[Chris_Clouser]

Here is an example of a hole similar in nature to the famous Mackenzie hole at Lido.

Done by Ron Kern at Purgatory in Noblesville, Indiana.
http://www.purgatorygolf.com/Popuptour/18tour.html

[brad_miller]

Tom, seems to be a great summary, lets hope the "golden age design" concept continues to pick up speed, C&C projects like FH will only help. Further one can only hope that much of todays restoration work being done by Hanse, Doak, DeVries... will continue beyond just greens and bunkers and get at the trees! WF west sure looks and plays great after their tree removal project.

[brad_miller]

Tom, seems to be a great summary, lets hope the "golden age design" concept continues to pick up speed, C&C projects like FH will only help. Further one can only hope that much of todays restoration work being done by Hanse, Doak, DeVries... will continue beyond just greens and bunkers and get at the trees! WF west sure looks and plays great after their tree removal project.

[THuckaby2]

It is sadly true that the VAST majority of today's golf-playing public (I just couldn't type the word "golfers" there) are exemplified by the twosome the Cirbas were paired with.  That is golf today, like it or not, at least on the public side.  Strategy is left to the football field.

BUT... there are tiny rays of hope.

I witnessed such this past Friday at a Tommy N. fave, Alhambra GC, formerly known years ago as Almansor.  This course measures 5200 yards from the BACK tees and plays to a par of 70.  There are at least 5 par 4's that are reachable off the tee for the stronger player, and all 3 par 5's are reachable in two... IF ONE IS WILLING TO TAKE SOME RISK...

You'd think that one and all would be just flailing away, waiting all day, trying to reach these...

That was not the case.  The course was quite crowded, so I got to witness all sorts of shots... and there was strategy being utilized all over the place.  Irons off tees giving proper angles... layups to proper spots back... it was cool to see.

Meanwhile I myself was flailing away, waiting all day, trying to reach each one - but that's not the point!

Strategy lives, at a tiny course in Southern California.

TH

[Evan Fleisher]

I too, have to agree with many of the comments above.  I do believe that strategy and course manamgent are at the center of good golf...and that can be had by any golfer of any skill level on any course.  It is simply a matter of managing YOUR game to YOUR own ability level...whether that means shooting par or shooting 100.

No matter the design of the hole, there are "right ways" and "wrong ways" to play it.  I will concede, however, that certain design aspects (and their subsequent placement) may make a particular golf hole play completely different for varying levels of skilled player (i.e., hazards or bunkers that have been "placed" may never come into play for the high-handicapper, etc.).  But that does not mean that the high-handicapper cannot enjoy/appreciate the intended design of the hole.

Granted (as stated above)...too many of today's golfing public have very little clue when it comes to golf course architecture, design, tradition, etc., and pretty much tee it up, take out the driver, and wang away.  It is unfortunate that more folks don't step back and take a second to digest the hole, it's layout, and decide on the most prudent way to play the hole based on their skills and abilities...especially when faced with playing that "special" course where they figure "I'm only here once, so what the hey."

I personally don't have the skills to pull off most of the great shots (haivng an index in the mid-14s right now), but I can surely look at a golf hole and appreciate the layout for what it is, and imagine in my minds eye what was intended in terms of strategy...that does not necessarily mean it will be MY strategy, given the distances I hit the ball and the current skill level I am at.

I think the example Mike Cirba gave just above is all too typical of today's modern golfer, and it plain makes me sad...but how do we change it???  For those who don't think about strategy, design becomes a "I didn't like the layout because it penalizes good shots" type of attitude.  If there are pretty things to look at, lush conditions, and little trouble for wayward shots then the course must be good.  Not so, as we all well know...in my opinion, having to think your way around a course is the highest compliment the architect and his design can receive.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

That's a really perceptive synopsis of "what have we learned today", based on a lot of the sometimes heated discussion of the past few weeks.  

See you naysayers...we really do get to learn good stuff here and cries about some universal GCA "bias" are pretty much a massive overstatement.  

Brad,

Do you say that simply because you've personally witnessed MY duck hook?  

Actually, this guy's was a thing of marvel.  Unlike my duck hook, which at least has the humility to stay low to the ground in shame, this fellow hit the highest, hardest pull hooks I've ever seen, with a hang time of 6-10 seconds, while drifting further and further off course at about a 75 degree angle.  The physics involved were worthy of serious study.  

His playing partner did essentially the same thing with his "duck-slice".  Together, they formed the antithesis of good "cart golf", and on most holes, their drives were a good short par four apart, both out of play, and probably in separate counties.

If there was a strategy employed out there, it may have been simply to encourage economic growth through golf ball sales.  

[Mark_Fine]

Just got to this thread and I'm happy Tom posted it.  It looks like a few agree with me and a few don't.  I wouldn't expect much different.  Let me add a few comments.  Despite playing the courses I've played, I grew up playing public golf courses.  Even today, I can still have as much fun playing with my buddies at one of the local muni's (which are about a 3 on the Doak scale) as I can playing Merion or Oakmont.  Some of you might be surprised to hear this since you probably think I'm some pompous country club type.  But just to be able to play golf on most any course is fun and interesting to me.  I might be spoiled where I get to play, but it's the game itself that I really love.  

Of course the blood gets flowing when I tee it up at one of the top ranked courses.  But I can feel a similar adrenaline standing on the tee of a marginally interesting 370 yard par four with little if anything "strategically" going on. I might be a 2 or 3 handicap, but I still manage to find ways to make holes like this interesting (if you played with me you'd know why   ).  My belief is that most golfers feel the same way!
 
When it comes to the greatest golf courses, without question, stratagy is a vital criteria.  But for the guys teeing it up with their buddies every Saturday morning with their $2 bets and the trash talk flying, it has much less importance.  

Give most golfers the chance to play golf anywhere and they will play.  Give them something really pretty with great conditions and you've got the far majority more than satisfied.  Guys like Fazio know this very well!

Mark

[RJ_Daley]

The only strategy I am seeing here unfortunately, is to pose a general question of strategy and who appreciates it; then use the question to launch a running commentary against Fazio and Rees.  Tom, while I may tend to agree with much of what you are saying, isn't it getting a little too focused on these two archies when you come back with 10 points and 8 of them have to name Rees or Fazio, when the question really applies to all involved in designing and playing relative to strategy?

I much appreciate Chris Clouser's link to an example of strategy borrowed from the old Lido prize hole and Kern's effort to incorporate the concept in his modern work.  I recently played two days in a row at a newly opened Lohmann course where he has no less than 3 dual fairway (Lidoesque) presentations where very different and dramatic consequences occur depending upon which route one takes both off the tee and multiple approach avenues to wild greens as another example of renewed awareness of strategy in design.  

So to answer the question Tom, from my perspective: Those who play golf often or are in tune with the game, I believe, do think of strategy, whether they have the skills to pull off shots that utilize their creative thinking or not.  Design (good design) may not initially effect the duffeses and golf dolts that Mike C and others elude to as being oblivious to the game or its rules and traditions.  They are the ones that the wow factor of pretty and framed design as the dominant characteristic is aimed at.  But, good design that incorporates attempts at presenting real strategic choices should be attempted even for the beginer or those currently oblivious to it.  Because, if those currently oblivious to good design keep playing those well designed strategic courses - they will most likely have an epiphany or revelation that there is more to the game... and that is when they are really hooked and join the ranks of those who care about this stuff...

[Mike_Cirba]

RJ & Chris Clouser,

The mention of Ron Kern's imitation Lido brought to mind recent news that Stephen Kay will attempt to recreate Mackenzie's "Prize Winning" hole at a new course opening next year in south Jersey.  Thanks for the link, Chris.

Beyond that, I think multiple fairway holes are sort of like "Strategy 101", subtitled "Strategy so obvious even the oblivious can't miss it".  Choices that are THAT clear are a good thing, but hardly subtle.  It's sort of like RTJ Sr.'s most widely used definition of strategy, which was not about horizontal strategy at all, but all about vertical strategy (i.e., do I lay up or go for it?, ergo the "heroic school").  Strategy, yes, but complex and thoughtful?  Probably not.

I think there will always be thinking golfers who will try to understand and effectively use strategy, and there will always be players who are like the two in my example.  Lest one thinks I count myself among the former, I am merely an eager student of strategy, a work in progress, and one who appreciates it when he sees it far more than a practicioner with my own game and course management.

[Ron Kern]

Very interesting thread...

Strategy is very important in any good golf design - a good architect should always incorporate alternate routes for players of all skill levels, a variety of hole locations on a putting surface protected by a variety of features (bunkers, grassy hollows, contours, angles, etc.); and the course should always challenge a player to execute shots he currently is not skilled enough to play.  The degree of difficulty that is incorporated into a design is typically a function of the market that in which the course is being constructed.

The discussion that 90% of the golfing public doesn't understand the strategic components of good golf design is apparent in all facets of our society.  Some choose to appeal to the masses, Michael Jackson, and some follow their muse while experiencing life along the way and incorporate their life experiences into their art, John Hiatt.

We'll always have Ansel Adams vs. Ralph Eugene Meatyard, Thomas Kincaid vs. Picasso, Kenny G vs. Thelonious Monk, Garth Brooks vs Wayne Hancock, etc., etc...   I've made my choices as to what enriches my life and the only way I can change anybody's mind about their seemingly shallow choices, is by example and exposing them to the alternatives to mass popularity.  Appreciating the alternative to mass popularity usually takes time effort, thought and spirit  - commodities in short supply these days in our pop culture.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ron Kern,

Bravo!  Beautifully stated and at the heart of so many of our recent discussions here on multiple subjects.  

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, yes I can see your point about dual fairway holes being so obvious in their first impression of 2 choices that it is strategy 101 to that extent.  But, such hole presentations if done very well and set up consequenses in the differing LZs that are somewhat subtle (like differing graded lie angles not so apparent from the tee) or dramatically different second shots, where greens are guarded by bunkering from one fairway choice and offer while challenging the low running shot from the other, and have multiple pin positions on greens to flip flop those consequence scenarios, are not so easy to design.  When the initial choice of two fairways off the tee is first presented to those that aren't too savvy into the game, it introduces them to strategy like a 101 course.  We can't expect the novice golfer to "get it" right off the bat (unless they are in MacWood and Goodale's league)  

So, strategy in design that has both subtle and overt features should be like an investment in the game, and lie in wait for when the novice returns however many times it takes to have the light go on.  There is an old haiku progression that goes something like this:  

"If the cuckoo doesn't sing - kill it!  
If the cuckoo doesn't sing - make it!  
If the cuckoo doesn't sing, wait until it does..."  

[Tyler Kearns]

It is most likely true that the majority of golfers are unaware of the strategic possibilities of golf course design. Many of them, just enjoy a good walk and beautiful scenery (to some i'm sure, the actual game is secondary). Nonetheless, strategy is the essence of golf, and in order to uphold this tradition, architects must continue to provide alternate routes to the green. Options make the game much more interesting and enjoyable, and to ignore this vital aspect of golf course design is a detriment to the integrity of the game.

Personally, my understanding and interest in the strategy of golf course design has developed over many years. Quite frankly, in order to improve my game, i had to learn course management which is intrinsically related to strategy. Could it be, that due to the recent popularity of golf (that has brought thousands of young people to the game), many simply haven't been exposed to the game long enough to acquire a burgeoning interest in strategy? Or do they just not care? (Hopefully it is the former).    

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ron,

Well said, and better yet, well designed.  Purgatory is a course I would like to have my name on!  However, I do (and I am sure you do) remember that the 17th was posted here a year ago, under a title like "Is this too much?"

Critique is fine, but as far as I can tell, this course has strategy, golden age features galore, a rough, tumble and brown look, etc. that everyone here favors, and yet it was heavily bashed.  I recall closing a post to Tommy N. with, "If it's done past 1935, it can't be good, right, Tommy?"

The point being, getting away from Fazio/Rees bashing will only solve half the currently percieved problem here - it will just move many over to bashing modern courses of other architects! Fire away!

As for the original question, my take on it is very personal now.  I have a 13 year old getting to be quite a good golfer.  I am trying to teach him to read a course to improve his score.  At one point, I had to laugh to myself, though, as I thought of all the times that I played a hole well strategically, only to miss the short putt for birdie anyway, or end up three putting for bogey.  The lack of results over time does tend to diminish the strategy of golf, for me, and I presume others so inclined. I watch Andrew (in awe) bang away first putts, not yet burdened in his mind at all the misses that are sure to come over a lifetime of golf.

I agree that the 18th at Purgatory really qualifies as heroic, not strategic, as the tee shot choice and reward is so distinct. I also think course management is a better term than strategy for todays game.  In Scotland, the frontal opening really meant something, because you flat out couldn't reach and hold the green if you had to carry a bunker.  Today, if you come over a bunker rather than across a frontal opening, it really means you go half a club up, rather than half a club down, which may leave you a better uphill birdie putt!

Jeff

[RJ_Daley]

I'm sorry, I still got too sidetracked and didn't make a point I wanted to emphasise.

What does design that incorportates strategy do for those that don't think about it?  I think this goes to the question of the pretty and stunning design approach VS strategy and clever subtle design.  Not only does this address the concept of the visual appeal, but the consideration given by the architect of how much the design will cost to build in the pretty sense VS the strategic sense.  If one designs for the pretty, we may see the use of expensive features like waterfalls, and garden areas within the golf course, and all the typical eye candy stuff that cost lots and thus gets passed along in green fees.  Not to say that water features can't be strategic.  But, the stuff that goes into the "wow factor" typically cost more than the subtle design features of finish grading and modest but well placed bunkering that have just as much to do, and more, with strategy of play.  The subtle strategy on a natural site can be offered ideally at a lower cost and therefore can be afforded by a wider number of people.  The begining golfer may be more likely to return multiple times to a subtle yet strategic course with modest green fees than to pay the big green fee for the eyecandy (not so strategic as much as pretty) golf course.  Good design and strategy on the subtle and affordable end can do much for those that initially don't get it, because it offers them many opportunities to return and get it, eventually.  That is where strategy and design can play the most important role in growing the game.  

[Ken_Cotner]

Ron Kern,

John Hiatt mentioned in a GCA post?  Now I HAVE to get to Purgatory!

Great topic.  It must be a difficult challenge to design holes with choices which apply to players who hit the ball dramatically different distances.

Isn't the challenge to get the course developers to understand the appeal of strategic principles?  If they "get it", people will be exposed to "it".

KC, trying to think of a Hiatt line to go with this...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()