Strategy, the vastly over-rated issue?

[Andy Hughes]

One of the major themes I have learned about on this site has been the concept of strategy/options, and how the best courses offer a variety of strategic options.  When playing a course like the Old Course, I can clearly see how this plays out and what the potential ramifications are.
At the same time, I keep hearing rumblings that people are only trying to drive it in the fairway, that 'down the center' is their goal.  I watch the US Open and, granted watching on TV is not the same as playing, it appeared that they are just trying to get it into the fairway. And what else is really available when the fairway is only 25 yards wide?  Shivas' Troon eye candy thread pointed to the same type of issue; just get it in play and go from there.  

So many question is, is strategy and options truly that important in the real world and do you actually try to hit to certain sides of fairways or challenge some type of hazard to gain an advantage, or are we really only trying to get the dang ball into the fairway right down the middle somewhere while we abstractly admire the concept of strategy only in theory?

[TEPaul]

My God, this is a thread where the archives really will help!

[A_Clay_Man]

Strategy is something the golfer employs. Options are what the course, and mother nature, sometimes provides.

With the loss of shotmaking at the highest levels, aren't the options being minimized and therefroe the strategy?

And,  Did it take a controversial set-up, to highlight that fact?

In my real world, I take the jesse jackson approach. "if I can conceive it, I can acheive it". (Wonder where he stole that line). I use my dung-like swing, the wind, and lay of the land, to predict which way I'm going to miss it.

What do the pro's do?

[Michael Moore]

My God, this is a thread where the archives really will help!

That reminds me - Pat Mucci and I still need to conduct the "Can a ten-handicapper hit an eight iron to a certain part of the green?" challenge. We never did get the logistics of that squared away. Perhaps at the Hidden Creek outing . . .

[Scott_Burroughs]

My God, this is a thread where the archives really will help!

That reminds me - Pat Mucci and I still need to conduct the "Can a ten-handicapper hit an eight iron to a certain part of the green?" challenge. We never did get the logistics of that squared away. Perhaps at the Hidden Creek outing . . .

LOL!     Well done, Michael.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Oh, and what Shivas says is unfortuantely true in many respects.

However, I do find more and more strategy the more I play a course, such as my home course.  The 9th hole, a long, par 5 with the final 275 yards uphill a good bit.  The green is one of the toughest on the course and has a front and center bunker, 5 yards short of the green.  If you didn't hit your tee shot straight, you will not have a wedge in your hand for your 3rd shot (not to mention it's an uphill lie shot, where it's harder to spin the ball), so where your 2nd shot lands makes it much more difficult to get to certain front pin positions.  If front left, your 2nd is much better off on left side of fairway, closer to the left bunker (~120 yards out) and rough, If front right, than the opposite is true, and there's also a right bunker (~100 yards out).

There are other examples of this kind of thing on MHC that I really only figured out - and appreciated - after many plays.

[Gary_Nelson]

Strategy isn't overrated because a complete absence of it would make the game a whole lot less appealing.

I'd say that for the 10+ handicappers, strategy is nice to look at but largely irrelevant in terms of execution.  

Do bunkers on the right side of the fairway really force the golfers to stay on the left?  

I don't think 10+ handicappers have that much control over their tee shot direction.  While they may intend to hit to the left and avoid the bunker right, the reality is more like "get the dang ball in the fairway".

[Andy Hughes]

My God, this is a thread where the archives really will help!

Tom, true, I am fairly new to the board, and am sure this has come up before.

Now I've probably got you really confused, eh?

Shivas, not quite. I was already there.
I, like you, am generally pleased to just get it into the fairway.  Right side or left generally is not high in the equation.   I can actually 'see' the value of choices, say, risking a hazard for the return it pays if successful, but my sneaking suspicion is that none of us actually plays that way unless we are the last man in a four-man scramble.

I take the jesse jackson approach. "if I can conceive it, I can acheive it

Adam, didn't the Rev Jackson actually go in the reverse order?  

There are other examples of this kind of thing on MHC that I really only figured out - and appreciated - after many plays.

Scott, I don't doubt those types of things are built into all types of courses.  But what I am curious about is not whether e those types of choices exist (as valuable as that may be), but whether we adjust our play accordingly and whether golfers in general do.  For example, do you intentionally try to hit it very close to the lefthand bunker to get at a front right pin on the hole you described? Do those you play with? Or do most just try to get it down the fairway and take their chances with a wedge?

Strategy isn't overrated because a complete absence of it would make the game a whole lot less appealing....strategy is nice to look at but largely irrelevant in terms of execution.  

Gary, I don't diagree, but when you play a hole that offers the type of strategy Scott describes, do you try to hit your second shot along side the lefthand bunker, or do you just try to hit to the middle and avoid the trouble left and right?  
And if strategy is only nice to look at, is Shivas right that it is just eye candy? I am not clear on what you have said; if it is basically just nice to look at for most golfers, and the game would be less appealing without it, are you saying strategy is needed for most people only so that the course will be nice to look at?

[Scott_Burroughs]

There are other examples of this kind of thing on MHC that I really only figured out - and appreciated - after many plays.

Scott, I don't doubt those types of things are built into all types of courses.  But what I am curious about is not whether e those types of choices exist (as valuable as that may be), but whether we adjust our play accordingly and whether golfers in general do.  For example, do you intentionally try to hit it very close to the lefthand bunker to get at a front right pin on the hole you described? Do those you play with? Or do most just try to get it down the fairway and take their chances with a wedge?

Andy,

In many cases, I don't have a choice, if I didn't make a good tee shot, but there are times when I do try to aim for one side if the pin position dictates it and if I don't have a lob wedge in my hand (and with colored pins, I can do that).  Even if I have a pitching wedge in my hands, that's no guarantee at me being able to do what I want.  Lately, my irons (even the short ones) have been a 'problem', to put it mildly.  But your point is taken, as I mentioned above by confirming Shivas' earlier post, that most people don't have the skills to take big advantage of strategy (and most don't even know what it is).  I'm a single digit (often playing like I'm not even close to it) and I realistically don't have much confidence in where my shots are going to go, particularly long shots.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

My own experience was that as soon as I realized that strategy was involved in golf, the game was a lot more fun and coincidentally my handicap improved.

By taking the design and the resulting strategy into mind while playing, a player may reduce their bad numbers and provide opportunity for low numbers.  Playing right to left or left to right in the appropriate situation provides reduction of risks while providing rewards.  

Modern equipment has in many cases removed the ability to work the ball effectively and thus has reduced strategy.  The result is a less interesting game and a flattening of the growth of the game.

You ask if strategy is over-rated,  only the manufacturers would want you to believe that.  By making it easier to hit the ball straight they have gutted the most intersting part of the game.  In fact they have removed the game portion from the endeavor.  

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Don't underestimate the 10+ handicapper.  My own play is currently no advertisement for it - as anyone unlucky enough to encounter me at Painswick will testify - but when I was playing competitive golf about once a week on my home course I was very definitely aiming for certain, very precise, parts of the fairway on most drives to give the correct angles for the shot in to the green, which in my case would be played with a much longer club than any of you would use and probably implied a running approach threaded though the bunkers.  

It reminds me that it is important for architects to remember the 15 or 18 handicappers, who will be the bulk of the members or visitors.  We like the challenge of whether or not we'll make the carry over a fairway bunker at 180 yards (all those famous old bunkers at TOC still affect us)  or whether our second will make it over cross-bunkers at 400 yards out.  True, we're supposed to get the same effect by playing a 7,000+ yard course off baby tees, but they're patronising.  Far better to have bunkers that affect us and further bunkers that affect the tigers - Royal Lytham, for instance.

[George Pazin]

Shivas -

Whatever that day's play is may in fact be readily apparent to you or anyone else, but I think the real objection that many of us on this board have is when there are no different options from day to day. The objection rises up most quickly on courses that have very distinct lines of play and it really doesn't change from day to day, other than maybe "which club am I hitting today."

I think you're viewing Dave's comments, and those of us who praise width as strategic in general, a bit too narrowly. I don't think anyone is saying your head should hurt from trying to make decisions on every shot, but rather that the course should allow such decisions to be made, and be set up in such a manner as to make the decision at least moderately interesting.

And, as many including you have said, the decision making gets tougher and more interesting when something significant is on the line.

-----

I'm always amazed by the people who are likely much better golfers than me that say they're simply looking to get it in play. That is my number 1 goal as well, but that doesn't mean I don't look for ways to maximize it. And, at least on my home course, it changes fairly frequently, as does my game! I think one of the reasons I can alter my strategy on my home course is that it is very open with minimally penal rough. And when I play "harder" courses that require me to keep it in play or suffer many lost balls, penalty strokes, etc., I definitely alter my strategy even further.

The courses I find most frustrating are the ones that don't allow me much leeway - ie. longish forced carries to fairways bordered by thick lush rough or heavy trees. Or courses with lots of non-recoverable hazards, like water or rock strewn desert.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Modern equipment has in many cases removed the ability to work the ball...

Cos,

I have some modern equipment and I'll show you a duck hook like you wouldn't believe.

[Mark_Fine]

I'm trying to think of all the great courses that lack "strategy".  Unfortunately, I can't think of any.  If strategy is over rated, then why aren't there any great courses that are stragetically challenged?  Just because most golfers lack execution ability to maximize a strategic layout, doesn't mean courses should be designed as such.  

[Andy Hughes]

I'm trying to think of all the great courses that lack "strategy".  Unfortunately, I can't think of any.

I am not saying that good courses don't offer any strategic options. I am wondering how much of it is actually 'used', and what percentage of golfers play that way versus just trying to get their drive somewhere out there where they can hit it again.

[MikeMcCartin]

Quote from Shivas:

"I believe that under any given set of conditions (wind, pin placement, firmness of ground, etc), there is only ONE proper line on any given day (modified of course for how far one hits it).  I don't buy into this notion that there are multiple lines that make equal sense on any given day so that the player has a REAL choice on the tee.  To me, it's pretty darn obvious what the "correct play" is on any given day."

Shivas,

I believe that in certain situations there are real choices to be made from the tee.  Choices that are equally correct even under only a single set of playing conditions.  Let me illustrate.

Take a driveable par 4, such as the 10th at the Belfry, where the green is surrounded by hazards which are difficult or impossible to recover from.  To simplify things, let's say the golfer is a professional and has two options on the tee:

1. Lay-up short of the hazards with a five-iron, followed by a wedge approach to the green, or

2. Go for the green with a driver.

Now to examine the viability of these two options, the pro has to look at what score he should reasonably expect to make should he choose one or the other.

If the pro chooses to lay-up, he assumes he will rarely miss the fairway with a five-iron or the green with a wedge, thus assuring a 3 or a 4 on the hole.

If the pro chooses to go for the green, he brings the possibility of a 2 into the equation, as well as a score of 5 or higher.  

So I can keep this post relatively short, let's say that the pro that lay's up off the tee thinks he will make his birdie putt half the time.  Therefore he has a 50% chance of making a 3 and a 50% chance of making a 4.  He calculates his expected score as a 3.5 (4*.5 + 3*.5 = 3.5).  

The pro makes a different calculation for his expected score when trying to drive the green.  He thinks he can hit the green 60% of the time, where he will make eagle one in six times (or 10% of the time overall) and birdie the other five times (or 50% of the time overall).  If he misses the green and knocks it into the surrounding hazards (as he will do with 40% of his tee shots), his chances of birdie or eagle are eliminated and he thinks he will get up and down for par half the time and make bogey the other half.  He calculates his expected score as 2*.1 + 3*.5 + 4*.2 + 5*.2 = 3.5.  

For this golfer, he thinks he can expect the same score (3.5) regardless of what option he chooses off the tee.  The difference between the options is the range of scores he can expect to make.   Thus the correct play rests in the golfer's individual assessment of risk and not in a set of conditions that delineate only one line of play for everyone.

I recognize that this is a theoretical example that I've generalized to a large extent, but I do believe that this is the method of thinking golfer's go through on the tee of any hole that provides options whether they do it consciously or subconsciously.  

On holes, such as cape holes, where the options aren't black and white, but rather an unlimited number of lines and shot shapes, there will undoubtably arise two or more options in which the golfer can expect the same score that force the golfer to choose the level of risk he is willing to take on to achieve that score.

[gholland]

On our "Cape hole" at my home course there are a myriad of options as one considers the strategy on the tee.  In simple terms the first data point I check is the pin position.  Everything starts there and then meanders as the day and the course permits.

[paul cowley]

...even if one wanted to design a course absent of strategy the attempt would fail.....i learned to play on a farmers field layout , pitifully devoid of any artfull devices ....and probably learned more about strategy [ from the lack of ] than from alot of the great courses  i have played...[true minimalism nutures and requires imagination or no one would ever have an appreciation for modern art ]....i even stopped in last week after a long time away [nothings changed and i felt good ].

i also loved the ' if i can achieve it , i can concieve it ' anti quote......

[Sean Walsh]

I'm a 20 handicapper and generally accurate off the tee.  It's just that my irons and putter take it in turn to have a shit day.  So the strategy I generally employ off the tee at a new course is to aim at any fairway bunkers I can see.  

I would hope they are there for a reason.  i.e best line for approach to the green.  Allowing for my 5 - 10m of error I will generally be on the better side of the fairway.  Thereby giving my erratic iron play best chance of getting me home.  

Also re the question.  Play Kingston Heath with the only goal off the tee of hitting the fairway and then re ask the question.  If you are consistently on the wrong side of the fair way you will be incredibly lucky to walk off with a bogey round whatever your handicap.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

When the greatest players in the world, the PGA Tour Pros, hit less then 75 % of the fairways and 60 % of the greens in regulation, I have to laugh at the self inflated skills of 10 handicappers, whose alleged performance standards exceed those of PGA Tour Pros.

I think your concept of strategy, and its useage is flawed.

Strategy isn't a demand, it's a decision.

And, it's a decision in the realm of degrees.

A good example might be the tee shot at # 3 at NGLA where a rather large, angled cross bunker confronts every golfer.

The cross bunker requires carries of 125 yards at is closest, left side and a carry of 200+ at its farthest right side, but, woods and knee deep rough abound on the right side with knee deep rough everywhere else.  And, if you hit it 250 dead straight, you'll be in knee high rough at the rising slope of a large hill.  The fairway is inordinately WIDE.

Being anywhere in the fairway is not a bad strategy.
It certainly beats being in bunkers or knee deep fescue facing a 160 to 200+ yard shot over a huge hill to a blind, wildly undulating and sloped green surrounded by bunkers and knee deep rough.

The strategy is there, self evident, for every level of golfer.
Pick your risk/reward, based on the game you brought with you this day.

An 18 handicapper isn't going to play the hole like a 10 or 0 handicap, but, they have strategic choices, which they have to decide on, and again, anywhere in the fairway isn't a bad strategic choice.  It may be less advantageous to be in the far left corner of the fairway then the far right corner, but, if the shorter hitter wants to carry the angled cross bunker, that's where he's got to go.

He can then tack his way to the green as best he can, continually facing strategic choices.

The question is, to what degree, and that's where you seem to lose the concept of strategy.

You see it, boldly and blindly as one path or the other, when many paths exist.

Strategy is also dependent upon the goal.
And, goals differ amongst golfers playing a hole, at the outset and during the course of play.  Remember too, that after playing a shot, the golfers strategy may change dramatically, based upon where his ball came to rest.

So, strategy isn't this rigid notion you have, it's amorphous, and like a chameleon, it changes as your golfing journey unfolds or evolves.

But, being in the center of the fairway is never bad strategy, it just might not be the optimal strategy.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, that might be the best posts you ever made, in my view...

I'd also like to suggest that familiarity breeds strategy.  There are very astute and design savvy players that do in deed see diverse strategies right off and the first time they play a hole.  But more often than not, infrequent or first time players of a great course will have no true understanding of the strategy presented by virtue of the architect's intentions.

This may be a fundamental flaw we on GCA have when discussion the "rankings" of various courses.  We have so many drive by-serial golfers intent on making it to all the courses in some top 100 list.  Then they pontificate about the strategy or lack of strategy based on one time play.  Take Pat's 3rd hole NGLA example.  Really, how many times ought one play it before they come to truly realise just how many considerations are available in such a masterpiece of design?  I wish I were so brilliant as to see it all in one play... if I ever get so lucky as even one!  

How the heck can a fellow really ever hope to understand the essence of TOC with only a once in a lifetime play?  If you accept the truly informed players who have written volumes of all fo TOCs strategies, then you may look forward to playing it once or infrequently,  but will probably never really understand the conocenti who know the course and its strategies intimately.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Scott,
I'll take your duck hook and raise you a slash slice!  

[Kelly Blake Moran]

It is possible that strategy is a choice.  You can just keep it in play, down the middle if that is what the course offers, or you can seek new ways to play the hole, to imagine what it might be like to play the edge.  A better question might be is it possible to unfold a hole that is totally devoid of strategy, which I doubt, there is always some element of choice, maybe.  A preceived lack of strategy may in fact signal a lack of imagination on the part of the player.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly Blake Moran,

I think your last sentence is on the money, but, I'd like to amend it to say that the golfer might not have the eye or vision to detect the strategy that clearly exists in front of him, let alone the imagination to create a strategy from where he lies.

RJDaley,

Thanks.

I think one of the things I like about NGLA is the continuing discovery process that I experience every time I play it.

This is why I like to discuss ARCHITECTURE, not OT subjects.

[Andy Hughes]

Pat, that might be the best posts you ever made, in my view...  

RJ, please do not talk to Pat that way. I do not want his head to swell.  

Pat, the example you discuss (and for the record, I have never played it) is a bit similar off the tee it sounds like as cape-type shots that others have mentioned. I am sure you will correct my perception if that is wrong.  
That, to me, is the most basic form of strategy: how much can I cut off? It is not a variety of options, its which is the right one for me. It is not of the pin-is-cut-left-behind-the-bunker so I-need-to-drive-it-along-the-pond-on-the-right-to-have-an-angle type of strategy, or if I hot 2 iron rather than driver I will have a level stance rather than a downhill stance into that tucked pin.
But beyond that, I still suspect that the great majority of golfers would not make that type of play. I can envision really good players not taking the risky play because the don't need to; they can attack the pin without chancing the trouble. I can see poorer players not attacking the trouble because they know they don't have the skill level to be get close.  Who is left other than a small percentage of GCAers who relish that type of architectural feature and can't help themselves?

When the greatest players in the world, the PGA Tour Pros, hit less then 75 % of the fairways and 60 % of the greens in regulation, I have to laugh at the self inflated skills of 10 handicappers, whose alleged performance standards exceed those of PGA Tour Pros.

Yes.
But that just strengthens my belief that the vast majority of golfers either are, or should be, just trying to get the ball in play.  How strategic is it to skirt that pong when your game isn't good enough?

You see it, boldly and blindly as one path or the other, when many paths exist.

Many paths exist, but only one is perhaps right for each player at that moment.  And its not really a strategic choice. It sounds more like a mathematical matter of deciding how far you can hit the ball and then carrying that much of the trap.

A preceived lack of strategy may in fact signal a lack of imagination on the part of the player.

Kelly, I suspect that is quite right.  But I think it assumes that most players are looking for some deep or hidden strategy. I don't believe that. I think most are looking for the way to get the first shot to any old point from which they can hit it again, preferably and have it be long as well.