I am experiencing quite a lot of Internet Communication Frustration ("IFC") caused by the difficulty of getting into any kind of conversational ebb and flow. It seems that every time I ask a question I fail to get an answer. If I try to simplify the question, I get an evasive answer, at best. Probably a problem with the way I am asking my questions, but frustrating none the less. As opposed to abandoning the line of questioning altogether (as I have done in the past) I will presumptuously provide the answer I think would have been given had the question been answered, and continue on. I am positive I will be corrected if my presumptions are incorrect.
Whether I am correct or incorrect, I have a feeling that by posting as I do below I will at least gat an open and direct response.
Rich
I asked "Is the intentional distortion of the golfer's perception an aesthetic characteristic or a strategic characteristic?" You answered:
"As for your specific question, IMO any attempt to distort the golfer's perception by the architect is neither aesthetic nor strategic, per se. It can be either or both or neither, depending on the skill of the architect and/or the perception of the golfer. Is that a great non-answer or what! I shoulda been a lawyer......."
I agree . . . this
is a great non-answer, and you should have been a lawyer-- I didn't realize my question was so ambiguous. Let me try to read between the lines and see if I can find an decipher an actual answer. I assume when you say "it can be either or both or neither depending on the skill of the architect and/or the perception of the golfer" you are acknowledging that, at least sometimes:
A skillful architect's intentional distortion of the golfer's perspective can be somewhat strategic.I also asked "Does your ability to block out 'aesthetics' and focus on the hole give you a competitve advantage over golfers who are unable to do the same?" You answered
My "blocking out" abilities are highly exaggerated, particularly from those like yourself who saw me play my "A" game at an A+ venue. Many on this site have seen my B, C, D and unmentionable games.......I do tend to play better in Open competitions at unfamiliar venues than the average player, but that may just be because I am such an all around good person.......
This is perhaps a better non-answer than the first. Again, reading between the lines, and ignoring the additional variables you brought into the question/answer (my perception of your game, others' perceptions of your game, your ability in Open competitions at unfamiliar venues, and your undisputable goodness as a person) I conclude that, while you may not always be successful at blocking out aesthetics (you say your "abilities . . . are highly exaggerated"):
When you are able to block out "aesthetics," you have a competitive advantage over those who cannot do the same.Here is my problem, if I have accurately transformed your non-answers into answers, then I really don't understand where you are coming from on this thread, and others, when you characterize certain features (such as the bunkers on CPC 5) as "eye candy" with no strategic merit. If they alter the choices different golfers make, then they have strategic merit. Just because you ignore or block out a feature doesnt mean that everyone does.
In fact, that you are able have more success than others by mentally blocking out the architect's slight-of-hand is not only a testament to your ability to concentrate, it is also a testament to the strategic merits of the hole in question. Two groups of somewhat equally situated golfers (in this case you vs. your opponents) view the same hole and see multiple paths to success, and therefore adopt different "plans of action." (Yes, I am treating state of mind as a path to success.) What else could a "strategic golf hole" accomplish?
The only way I can reconcile all this is to assume that your understanding of strategy in golf is very different than the views of many others on this board-- Ken Bakst, TEPaul, and me, to name a few. Moreover, now that I know you are some sort of an expert in the field of strategy, I will go even go further-- I think your view of strategy in golf is egocentric, narcissistic, and so narrow so as to be meaningless to anyone but you and your own view of your own game.
Take your "rant" at the beginning of your post:
As to question #1, I am on record many times in my belief that neither a golf hole nor a course nor an architect can be considered "strategic." A golf course is just a venue within which strategy can (or cannot) be planned and executed by the golfer. An architect (MacKenzie or MacGonigal) can create a venue which is more or less interesting strategically, but he or she does not create strategy. (Sorry for the rant, but I have spent most of my life studying and teaching strategy, so I like to set things straight in these areas....).
Pardon my ignorance on the subject (I've neither studied nor taught strategy), but I think of "strategy" as a "plan of action." Because this is a thread on architecture, I was focusing on the architect's "plan of action," not the golfer's. Now, the measure of the success of the architect's "plan of action re the golfer's strategic challenges" may well be the extent to which the golfer must come up with his own "plan of action" to get around (or over) the architect's strategic placements. But to discount architect's contribution to the strategic nature of the golf hole is overly simplistic.
Think of MacKenzie's wartime example which he used to explain what he called "a strategic system of golf course bunkering." According to MacKenzie, the British commander didnt realize that the Boer leader was master of camouflage, so the Brits bombarded then advanced on Boer earthworks which appeared to shelter the opposition. When the Brits advanced they found that they were attacking a decoy and that Boer's were actually hiding in low-profile, camouflaged trenches away from the more obvious earthworks. The British were trapped.
So MacKenzie views golf as having two strategies, that of the architect (the attacked) and that of the golfer (the attacker). Like the Boer's, the architect sets the field of play by strategically positioning, utilizing, and creating features, and by creating certain perspectives. It is then up to the golfer to navigate these strategic placements and perspectives. Like the Brits in Tugela, the golfer risks peril if he plans his attack without understanding and planning around (or over, or through) these strategic placements and perspectives.
On the other hand, you seem to view strategy only through your own eyes. After seeing a hole once or twice, you understand enough about it to avoid the aesthetic features (like the bunkers on CPC 4 or 5, or the ocean carry on 16) and those features are rendered "eye candy" and non-strategic. It is only rightly called "strategy" if it forces
you to question
your plan of action. What about the rest of us who don't fully grasp the hole the first time we see it. Or, even if we do grasp the hole, what if we are unable to escape our previous faulty perceptions and still make an erroneous plan of attack or are unable to follow a correct one? Is the hole strategic to us, at least?
Take your very interesting "This Could be the Last Time" posts. You correctly note that first timers have a harder time understanding "the tricks of the architect" than old timers. You also state that "hazards that look gnarly to the newbie are just eye candy" to members and that "places that may look peaceful to the newcomer are places we avoid like the plague." By the sound of it, and by your definition of strategy it would seem that members' courses are only strategic to guests and never strategic to seasoned members. Do you really believe this or am I misunderstanding you? Please explain?