Middle of the Fairway - Where is this a poor strategy?

[THuckaby2]

The middle of the fairway has never been a bad place to be, but that doesn't mean that there aren't more preferable fairway locations from which to approach the green.

Concur.  I ought to have that as my golf mantra.

BUT... for whom do these preferable fairway locations matter?

The small 10% I've described, that's who.

Disagree?

TH

ps - the problem I have every time I've tried to espouse this theory - and espouse it I have, many times - is that 95% of the participants in this group DO fall into that 10% of real world golfers!

[THuckaby2]

shivas:

I think we agree on all of this, with the small disagreement that I think you generalize too greatly at how well a 2 hdcp will do if you give him dead center every time.  There are low handicapppers who hit the ball straight and for whom finding the center of the fairway off the tee is not an issue.  Now that 290 part may well be the key here... LONG and straight is something anyone would take any time.  But still, I think there are golfers for whom the issues start at that point.  I know one all too well.

But that really doesn't matter...

What matters here is that the benefits of angles matters to very few golfers.  I put it at 10%, as explained above.  Concur?

TH

[THuckaby2]

shivas:

I'm gonna stick with 10%.  Those slicers you mention aren't playing for preferential angles, they're allowing for the curve of the ball.  They don't TRY to get on the right side of every fairway, thus leaving more room on the left to work the ball, it just happens.  I give them no credit here.

I know, for many years I was one of those also.  I still am far too often.

As for your 290 center theory, well... again, I don't doubt that YOU would be dangerous given that, as would most low handicappers.  I just don't think EVERY low handicapper would benefit all that much from it.  Sure, it's gonna be a benefit of some degree, because NO ONE does that every shot.  But again, there are low 'cappers for whom the issues begin at that point... they're not going to do that much better than they would without that help.  Once again, I know one all too well.

TH

[THuckaby2]

I know of NOBODY who drives it really straight and long, but then can't hit an iron to save his life.  Nobody.  If you can hit 10 drives or more in the fairway, you can get wedges reasonably close.  Christ, despite all my BS about my wedge game, even I only blatantly butcher about 20% of my wedge shots.  It's just that I tend to have a lot of them, so it happens every fricking round!!

Well, you obviously don't remember much about our rounds together.  You just described my game to a tee.  Oh, I hope if and when we play soon it doesn't work out this way, because it sure isn't fun to play this way for me, but man I swear to you that's the S.O.P. of my game for about the last 20 years.

Of course like I said above, LONG is the key issue here that could change my thinking.  I just wasn't sure if you considered 290 to be long, and how much weight you put on that figure.

Straight and long changes things, at least a bit.  I still don't think it would help me all that much, but at least I'd be willing to try.

Straight and not really long... well... the fun starts there.  And it's not gonna help if you put me in the middle, I'm generally there anyway.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I think it might be more "course specific"

Shivas,

If I, or anybody else could hit it 290, dead center of the fairway, they wouldn't be wasting their time on this site, they'd be on the PGA Tour, and leading the tour in driving accuracy, fairways hit in regulation, and I suspect greens, in regulation.

Try to confine your views to the real world  

[THuckaby2]

Patrick - good point - this is going to change big time based on the course.  But man I just thought of a great example for my bud shivas:  you should have seen me at Valley Club - Bernhardt and several others did.  I damn near did do exactly what you say - 290 and center of the fairway every hole - I doubt it was 290 but I did hit every fairway, with as long of a tee shot as I am capable of - and I shot 80.  A little thing called crappy iron play made the game not so easy.  

My only point here is it's not so easy to say every low handicapper will shoot under par with your scenario.  I'm living proof, sadly, that there is more to the game.

TH

[Mark_Fine]

Guys,
Golf is 95% mental and good architects know that very well.  Also, temptation is not just on the tee shot.  For weaker golfers, fairway bunkers that impact a good players tee shot might have similar consequenses for weaker golfers second or third shots.  

[THuckaby2]

Mark:

True.  But still, if hazards exist that are either a) ignored, due to the "I didn't come here to layup" mentality that so many golfers have; or b) irrelevant, because golfers can't control where there ball is going anyway - on the tee shot, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 10th shot, so even if they are tempted to flirt with them, execution is so poor that it doesn't matter where they are; or c) inconsequential, because the golfer is so good he just ignores them, not needing the benefit flirting with them would provide;  then...

how important is strategy, or temptation?

This is a strange query, I know.  And in a big way I am arguing against myself, because I personally am none of the things I described above.  I just do see SO many golfers that fall into these categories, it makes me wonder.

TH

[Andy Hughes]

then...
how important is strategy, or temptation?

Tom, this actually seems like the natural extension of where this conversation (and Shivas' Troon's 'eye candy') has been headed.
It would appear, based on the commentary in these two threads, that strategy is highly over-rated. As well, it appears that strategic options are also highly over-rated if the center is always the target.
I have even been distressed to see NGLA's siren, Pat, say that a course he has always placed atop the strategic mountain in reality should be played down the middle on each tee (if I read him right--if I didn't, I am sure I can expect an appropriate dressing down  ).  
Its all well and good to laud a course for strategic options, but if the play is still to aim down the middle each hole, then...

[THuckaby2]

Andy:

That is the logical conclusion to what I, and I believe shivas also, have been getting at in all of this.

Careful though... I made this assertion last year and well, let's just say it wasn't very well-received by some here.

So welcome to the dark side.  

TH

[Mark_Fine]

I think some of us are forgetting that golf is a sport and it is meant to be challenging and FUN.  Furthermore, the average golfer thinks he or she is better than they really are.  That is in part where temptation plays a bigger role than some give it credit for.  The pros play for a living.  Everything is calculated and they have the game to pull it off.  Trust me, they would play many golf courses much differently if they were just out to have a good time and not worried as much about clear cut risk/reward benefits.  The rest of the golfing world isn't nearly as precise on either side (ability or calculating risk/reward).  We are out to have fun, we try more than we are capable of and succumb to a good architect's temptation more often than we should.    

[Andy Hughes]

That is the logical conclusion to what I, and I believe shivas also, have been getting at in all of this.
Careful though... I made this assertion last year and well, let's just say it wasn't very well-received by some here.

I'm not sure what other conclusion to draw?  I don't see anyone standing up and pointing out all the courses where the premise of this thread is wrong.  I was crestfallen when Pat burst my NGLA bubble.
Perhaps approach shots are a different beast, and that's where all the 'strategery' is?

So welcome to the dark side.

[THuckaby2]

Andy:  great stuff.  Dark Helmet is one of my idols.

But yes, it is disappointing that none of the defenders of the be all and end all worth of strategy are stepping up.  This could get ugly again.  But then again, maybe we don't want that.

Mark:  I don't disagree with any of that.  Again, all I am trying to point out that strategy doesn't matter to a majority of golfers.  Yes, "we are out to have fun, we try more than we are capable of and succumb to a good architect's temptation more often than we should."

My only point is that "we" applies to a small minority of golfers, as I've tried many ways to explain.  And then if it applies only to a small minority, I query why the whole discussion of strategy and temptation has much relevance.

To which I have yet to get a good answer, or refutation... which I am very open to, by the way....

TH

[THuckaby2]

Well, you obviously don't remember much about our rounds together.  
TH

Tom, how the hell could I?  While you were caressing it down the centerline, I was off in the willyweeds trying to find my ball! It's tough to see another guy's iron play from 50 yards away through trees....

That does explain things.  It also would explain why I don't remember too much of your play on or near the greens.  It's very tough to see such while others have putted out already, waiting for you to find your ball buried in a bunker, or up against a fence, or god knows where.  

Hmmm... we would make a darn fine two-man scramble team.  Need to do that sometime.

TH

[CHrisB]

I would say that middle of the fairway would be a terrible strategy on a par 3 course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

It would appear, based on the commentary in these two threads, that strategy is highly over-rated. As well, it appears that strategic options are also highly over-rated if the center is always the target.

How can the center NOT be a prefered target ?[/color]

I have even been distressed to see NGLA's siren, Pat, say that a course he has always placed atop the strategic mountain in reality should be played down the middle on each tee (if I read him right--if I didn't, I am sure I can expect an appropriate dressing down  ).

That's not what I said.
I said that sometimes the incremental reward for being in the ideal strategic location may not be worth the risk of getting there.

I expressed the play of the golf course in the context of my particular game.

I also said that being in the middle of the fairway can't be bad, from a strategic and playability point of view, and I think that's a universal.

The problem with this discussion is its theoretical conclusion, that a golfer is able to execute his shots perfectly, landing in the dead center of the fairway or in the ideal strategic location, and we all know that can't be done.

On # 2 at NGLA the ideal shot is directly at the pin or center of the green, but, how many can carry the bunker to get there ?  How many will hit their tee shot exactly as diagramed, without any deviation, And how can Shivas or anyone else assume that every tee shot they hit will be perfect, 290 right down the middle ?  It's an absurd assumption, from an amateur, and especially from an amateur with a handicap above zero.[/color]

Its all well and good to laud a course for strategic options, but if the play is still to aim down the middle each hole, then...

How can you fault a golf course for lack of strategic options for a tee shot that finds the dead center of the fairway ?

Could you cite 5 golf courses where hitting it 250 right in the middle of the fairway is an unfavorable option.

Don't take this the wrong way, but, you and others get caught up in a dream world of what strategy and options should and shouldn't be.  

I never saw a golf course where hitting your drive in the dead center of the fairway was a bad option, or one that presented a clear disadvantage with the approach.  Could you name 5 golf courses where this would happen ?

Isn't hitting your drive in the dead center of the fairway a prefered option ?[/color]

[THuckaby2]

Hmmm... we would make a darn fine two-man scramble team.  Need to do that sometime.

Hey wait, I thought we were going to be partners ...

Change it to best ball and we can have a match with Huckaby as the constant ... Benham/Huckaby vs. Shivas/Huckaby ... except that this is a no-lose proposition for Huckaby ...

Now that sounds damn good to me also.

And of course, you and I NEED to partner in something, some time also.  I am always interested in being carried by better players.  You are a good soul to be willing to shoulder the burden.  

[Mark_Fine]

Try this exercise, especially you Tom  

Picture one of your favorite holes in your mind.  Better yet, picture one that has some great hazards that don't as you say (tempt or come into play for most golfers).  Now picture that hole without those hazards.  I doubt you will still feel the same way about that hole without them.  Furthermore, maybe they "come into play" more than you give them credit for (or at least in different ways then you think).

[THuckaby2]

Mark:

Fine exercise.

Works for me - absent the hazards, I swing away with impugnity and relative boredom.  I need hazards, love to be tempted, love to make strategic choices.

There's just one problem:  it didn't change things a lick for the pro or the guy who goes for it regardless of what's there - they hit exactly the same shots whether hazards exist or not - and for the guy who just plain can't get it where he wants anyway, all it did was make him feel a little better because he didn't lose his golf ball.

Please understand, Mark:  I am not saying the game is better without hazards.  Good lord, they are what make the game great for me and absent them the game would be lesser indeed.  I just think I am in the minority.  And I am not saying they should be eliminated - far from it.  All I am saying, or rather wondering, is why so much thought and writing and effort is given to "strategy" as a concept, given it matters to so few golfers.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Huckaby,

I'm shocked.

So you need to have pronounced tactical signals sent to your eye/brain in order to figure out how to best play the hole ?

Why wouldn't you look at the hole, absent hazards and figure out a prefered line of play ?

Why do you need hazards to provide that information for you ?

Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I thought that you attended an institution of higher learning

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

You read a lot of things into words that aren't intended.

I never said I NEED such things - I just said the game is better with them.  Hell I'll play on a parking lot and have fun, if the people and beer are right*.  And many holes without hazards as defined in the rules of golf still hold many mysteries and challenges - OBVIOUSLY.

*yes, I have only written that line about 100 times before.

TH

[Andy Hughes]

It would appear, based on the commentary in these two threads, that strategy is highly over-rated. As well, it appears that strategic options are also highly over-rated if the center is always the target.
How can the center NOT be a prefered target?

It certainly CAN be a preferred target. For me, it almost always is my personal target.  But doesn't that imply that there isn't much strategy involved in the tee shot, other than, how best can I get the ball into the middle? What happened to favoring one side or the other, for trying to set up an improved angle into  the green, or trying to open up a tucked pin?

That's not what I said.
I said that sometimes the incremental reward for being in the ideal strategic location may not be worth the risk of getting there.
I expressed the play of the golf course in the context of my particular game.
I also said that being in the middle of the fairway can't be bad, from a strategic and playability point of view, and I think that's a universal.

I agree with you (and I knew I would be corrected if I didnt understand your point), and I think it is universal.
But NGLA is often lauded as a strategic marvel by you and others (and I say that without tongue in cheek). And then I hear that you believe, for you at least, that the stategy on every single tee is to try and hit it down the middle.  Now, perhaps the strategy comes in later in the hole, I don't know.  But that tee shot strategy happens to be the exact same one that applies to the local muni down the road here which I wouldn't consider a particularly brilliant design.

The problem with this discussion is its theoretical conclusion, that a golfer is able to execute his shots perfectly, landing in the dead center of the fairway or in the ideal strategic location, and we all know that can't be done.

No, agreed. But if the goal is to find a way to hit each tee shot right down the middle, whether we succeed 100%, 50% or 0% of the time, that does not strike me as the the height of strategy. In effect, we have disregarded what the architect has created, we have ignored pin positions and access to the green and all else.

How can you fault a golf course for lack of strategic options for a tee shot that finds the dead center of the fairway ?

I am not faulting the course for that. If there are options available, and they player has elected to try and hit each tee shot right down the middle, he has decided that the strategic options are not relevant to him.  But if that is what most golfers do, and if that is what we here do, then why devote so much talk to strategic options?

Could you cite 5 golf courses where hitting it 250 right in the middle of the fairway is an unfavorable option.

No, I sure can't, but why does that matter?  
If NGLA has all types of strategies available off the tee, why is your goal on each tee to hit it down the middle and intentionally avoid all those options?

Don't take this the wrong way, but, you and others get caught up in a dream world of what strategy and options should and shouldn't be.

I have been under the assumption that those on this site glorified courses that offered options and strategic choice.  If a course offers all that, and you still only want to hit it down the middle, then why bother? There is something missing here, isn't there?

Isn't hitting your drive in the dead center of the fairway a prefered option ?

Yes

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

It certainly CAN be a preferred target. For me, it almost always is my personal target.  But doesn't that imply that there isn't much strategy involved in the tee shot, other than, how best can I get the ball into the middle? What happened to favoring one side or the other, for trying to set up an improved angle into  the green, or trying to open up a tucked pin?

I think you're confusing two issues, maybe three.

What I said was that finding the middle of the fairway wasn't a bad option or indicative of a lack of options.

I also stated that at # 1 at NGLA, I aim at the middle of the fairway and try to work the ball to the left side of the fairway to give me the IDEAL angle into the green, but failure to execute that shot, leaving me in the middle of the fairway isn't a bad place to be, it's just not the ideal place to be.
I tend to hit a draw and the prevailing winds tend to help push the ball to the left side of the fairway.

However, a straight ball hitter, or a fader would be risking a great deal by hitting down the left side with the longer carry over difficult bunkers, with the wind pushing the ball onto the driveway, or worse.[/color]

But NGLA is often lauded as a strategic marvel by you and others (and I say that without tongue in cheek). And then I hear that you believe, for you at least, that the stategy on every single tee is to try and hit it down the middle.
I think this is part of your problem to in understanding strategy at NGLA.  I never said that, in fact, I said just the opposite, that for my game I may aim down the middle and try to work the ball to the prefered or IDEAL location, but if I fail in my execution, and end up in the middle of the fairway, that's not a bad place to be.  There is a material difference in your interpretation and my theory.[/color]

Now, perhaps the strategy comes in later in the hole, I don't know.  But that tee shot strategy happens to be the exact same one that applies to the local muni down the road here which I wouldn't consider a particularly brilliant design.
Again, I think you've misunderstood my explanation.[/color]

NBut if the goal is to find a way to hit each tee shot right down the middle, whether we succeed 100%, 50% or 0% of the time, that does not strike me as the the height of strategy.

Noone ever stated that that was the goal, only that it was a highly acceptable default.[/color]

In effect, we have disregarded what the architect has created, we have ignored pin positions and access to the green and all else.

Noone has disregarded CBM's intent.  I'm expressing my game plan when I play the golf course under competitive conditions.
[/color]

I am not faulting the course for that. If there are options available, and they player has elected to try and hit each tee shot right down the middle, he has decided that the strategic options are not relevant to him.  But if that is what most golfers do, and if that is what we here do, then why devote so much talk to strategic options?

Because that is a viable choice for that golfer.
Let me ask you this.  When you play a golf course, is the command of your game the exact same every day, every round ?  Or do you, like most golfers, experience variables in your game.  As Sam Snead once declared, "you gotta dance with who you brung",  And so it is with golf.  If your game isn't sharp, why would you take risks ?  Why wouldn't you seek the widest margins for error ?  The safety of the center of the fairway ?[/color]
 
If NGLA has all types of strategies available off the tee, why is your goal on each tee to hit it down the middle and intentionally avoid all those options?

Where are you getting this wild notion that that is my goal ?
I never stated that.
I did state, that as a default option, it's not a bad place to be.
I also stated that I try to work the ball into the IDEAL position, depending upon the game I brought with me that particular day.

The options remain irrespective of my choice and my choice to take them depends on a number of variables like course conditions, the weather, my game, my opponents game, the wind, hole locations, etc., etc..[/color]

I have been under the assumption that those on this site glorified courses that offered options and strategic choice.
I can't speak for other peoples views[/color]

If a course offers all that, and you still only want to hit it down the middle, then why bother?

Because you may not be able to execute that shot with a reasonable degree of certainty on that day.[/color]

There is something missing here, isn't there?

Yes, your understanding that just because options are there, doesn't mean the golfer is obligated or mandated to take them, that's why they're called OPTIONS.  It's the choice that each golfer makes on each shot specific occassion, and just because you feel options exist, doesn't mean that the golfer feels comfortable taking them that day, on that hole, on that shot.

Your mandate that the golfer take the option would in essence eliminate the option, wouldn't it ? [/color]

[Doug Siebert]

Shivas,

While I agree with most of what you are saying, I think you are overestimating your abilities if you think you could win your state am (or any state am) by 10 shots if you got spotted 290 in the center of the fairway.

Try this experiment.  Grab your 10 most recent scorecards, and figure out your average on all par 3s of 180 yards or less (equating to a 470 yard par 4 or less with a 290 yard drive)  I haven't ever played with you so maybe I'm wrong, but I'll bet you aren't averaging much under 3, if at all, and that's with a better lie (level ground, off a tee)  How much below 3 would you need to average there to go -20 to win a state am by 10 shots?

From reading your posts in GCA over the last couple years, I suspect we play a really similar game, with the exception that you play it a few strokes better than me.  Like you, I'm long but wild, but you'd have to create a new definition of wild to be as good as you think you'd be spotted 290 in the fairway, because as a guy who varies from 4-6 (currently on the high end of that spectrum) I think I'd still have a hell of a time breaking par if you spotted me there on any reasonably difficult course, let alone Medinah from the tips.

It ain't just the wild drives, its the fat shots dumped in the thick grass just short of the green, the inexplicable pulled SW in the left trap from 100 yards, etc. that get you.  On any reasonably good day its easy to think "if only I didn't lose those strokes from hitting in the trees on #2", "heeling that drive into the rough on that long par 4 left me needing a 5i from an 8i lie that caused my missed green and bogey", etc. and you can deduct strokes for those driving errors back to an under par score.  Hey, I can do that too, but its easy to forget the drives I did hit 290 center cut where I screwed up my approach and bogeyed, or didn't take advantage of a 4i into the green of a par 5 and parred it, etc.  Other than the days I'm all over the map more than the Rand McNally logo I can also mentally "what if" myself under par leaving all my drives alone and just correcting my approaches with what I should have done if I didn't suck.

And if you think you are at a new level of wild from me, then I'd really like to play with you sometime and see it in person, because I've never seen anyone more wild than me who was still capable of getting into the 70s pretty much anywhere on a good day.

[Doug Siebert]

I assume you live in the Chicagoland area since you are always talking about Medinah, etc. so I'm just a few hours west down I-80 in Iowa City so I'd be up for going down your way sometime or meeting halfway somewhere.  Can't do it this Friday, but maybe sometime in the next few weeks.  If we can get out as a twosome we can settle this 290 yard business once and for all, but if not we'll have company tramping through the rough and trees looking for our errant tee shots

Your point is taken about having easy shots, even with a 470 yard hole that used to be the max par 4 I'd still be coming in with a 7i or so given the 290 spot, but I don't think there'd be a lot of lob wedges unless it is a course more fit for the state senior am than the state am