Strategy, the vastly over-rated issue?

[DMoriarty]

Good question . . . There are plenty of courses and course set-ups that reduce  decision-making to merely choosing which club to try and hit down the only reasonable line.   But this is much more an indictment of these courses (and set-ups) than of strategy or strategic decision-making.  

If anything is overrated it is the slog golf courses (and set-ups) where everyone always tries to play ever shot the same way.  

[Doug Siebert]

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.

I don't like all the effects recent technological advances have had, but I don't buy this argument one bit.  Its only the very good players who have the ability to work the ball on demand -- I've been between 4 and 8 for the last 20 years and I've never had that ability.  There have been times when I've cultivated a well trained draw or fade, but can't go back and forth on a consistent basis.  I'm sure there are some double digit handicaps with this ability, but they are few and far between.  The growth of the game doesn't come from low single digit players, it comes from guys who don't even know what you mean by "work the ball".  Not that I agree that the game "growing" is by definition a good thing either, but that's another story.


Anyway, for me strategy is fundamentally about deciding where the best miss is, and only secondarily where I'd prefer to be.  I'll play to the "wrong" side of the fairway, if the downside of the other side is bad enough.  Unless you've got a Road Bunker or water hard against a false front (ala #16 Turnberry) I'm not going to get too excited by where the architect thinks I should play from and may be more worried about the OB 15 yards from the edge of the fairway on the other side.

[paul cowley]

   i think the more strategic storylines  and play options a designer can include on a given hole determines its strengths ......strategy is anything but a fixed way to play , but instead a spectrum of options that become apparent only when accesssed by a players ability.....the broader the spectrum , the more successful and challenging  the hole , and when connected in series , the course .
 the truly great holes contain multiple storylines for all levels of players and  playing conditions ..... and good  storyline is only complete if it is from tee to green....... i.e. a good strategic driving hole is only half complete if the success of the first shot has no real relevance or connection with the second .
 
  strategies exist independantly and are not dependant on a players ability to recognize or imagine them IMHO.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

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.

Yes, you're wrong.
It's difficult for you to grasp the design and strategy of the hole without ever seeing it.  It is quite unique.[/color]
 
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.

All of those factors exist on the 3rd hole, but, they are not equal factors.  If you don't clear the bunker, all of what you describe as strategy..... vanishes, doesn't it.[/color]

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.
You predetermine your conclusion by providing false, or faulty underlying assumptions.  You have a tendency to predispose your views by working back from the faulty conclusion that you wish to arrive at.  Noone attacks the pin at # 3 without chancing trouble.[/color]

I can see poorer players not attacking the trouble because they know they don't have the skill level to be get close.
Again, your conclusions are flawed by your predisposition to a predetermined answer.
Poorer players can't expect the same results as good players.
They don't hit it as far or as accurate, hence, they have to take alternate routes which equates to STRATEGY.[/color]

Who is left other than a small percentage of GCAers who relish that type of architectural feature and can't help themselves?

Who's left ?, How about the huge number of average golfers ?
Those somewhere between good and poor players.
I bet their numbers are legion.[/color]

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?

Andy, you missed it.  I was taking a shot at Michael Moore's and other's inflated opinion of their games.[/color]

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.

That is totally untrue and leads me to believe that you really don't understand strategy and that I'm wasting my time in discussing it with you.[/color]

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.

As I said, I don't believe that you grasp the concepts.[/color]

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.
It's just the opposite, it's not deep or hidden, it's self evident, but to some, and I'm begining to think you may be included in this class, they don't see it.[/color]

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.

I would strongly disagree with you.
Most golfers see strategy in the context of their game.
A 0, 12 and 24 handicap don't look at strategy and the play of the hole in the same perspective.[/color]

[Norbert P]

 Terrific thread. Sorry I have to bring it down to a maladroit's perspective.

 I wield a 20 handicap... usually from the white tees... avoid playing narrow, tree-festooned fairway courses... and sometimes salute venerable old ancestors with spirits from my bag. (Using outside forces to influence the ball)

  Strategy is mental, emotional and physical involvement and interaction with the game and the field.  Without strategy we are not playing but merely exercising repetitious swinging and hitting. (I cringe at what the motive of playing golf would be, at the casual level, without strategy.)

  Strategy is not always, to this humble hack, which side of the fairway to hit but which club to trust.  My "sawed-off shotgun" driver is getting less and less action and my offset-headed 5 wood rarely at rest. The 5W tends to pull more often than it slices and the Driver tends to go to the righty-tighty side.  I'm not even a true Bogey golfer so playing a hole for bogey is no skin off my simian knuckles.  I find that playing for Bogey is often more interesting (gasp!) in the journey to get the ball in the hole. Obviously, not on the scorecard, but playing for a score places higher value in the end result as opposed to the joys of the moments.  I don't impress anybody with my skills but they sometimes are appreciative when I share my whisk(e)y.    

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Mucci -

I never compared myself to a touring pro. In fact, all I said was that for me, the only real strategic decision is whether to aim at the flagstick or away from the it. That's a pretty modest goal, I think.

"I want you to believe with all your heart that the shot you are about to hit will be a good one. I want you to have total confidence . . .  Any 85-shooter has hit every shot in the bag with success many times. The ability is there." - Harvey Penick

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

You indicated that you had a level of expertise that statistics indicate, exceeds that of the PGA Tour Pros.

Harvey was trying to encourage positive thinking.
His statement is absurd.

[Andy Hughes]

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.
Yes, you're wrong.
It's difficult for you to grasp the design and strategy of the hole without ever seeing it.  It is quite unique.
Pat, I would go further and say it is impossible for me to grasp that with which I am entirely unfamiliar, especially when I am relying strictly on your description. Though I had every confidence that you would let me know I was wrong
I must say though, that your description does sound very cape-like off the tee, does it not?
 

All of those factors exist on the 3rd hole, but, they are not equal factors.  If you don't clear the bunker, all of what you describe as strategy..... vanishes, doesn't it.
That would just have been coincidence then Pat. I didn't know that in real life what I had thrown out there had anything to do with the hole you mentioned. I was trying to make it more general or theoretical as I am unable to discuss specifics of any NGLA hole.
But yes, the play of any hole would change if you do not clear a hazard off the tee


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.
You predetermine your conclusion by providing false, or faulty underlying assumptions.  You have a tendency to predispose your views by working back from the faulty conclusion that you wish to arrive at.  Noone attacks the pin at # 3 without chancing trouble.
Not exactly; I mention issues that I believe support my thesis, because those issues are what helped me initially arrive at that thesis!
The scenarios I mentioned (cape type holes, or driving near a pond to help improve the angle towards a tucked pin) are not intended to reflect anything about #3 at NGLA. I have never seen it and can only reply upon your obsevations of it. And I have already envisioned a cape-type tee shot over an angled bunker working away to the right there based upon your description, and that apparently was wrong on my part.
That is why it seems better to me to either keep it more generic and come up with the types of scenarios I did, or fall back upon holes with which we are both familiar.

I can see poorer players not attacking the trouble because they know they don't have the skill level to be get close.
Again, your conclusions are flawed by your predisposition to a predetermined answer.
Poorer players can't expect the same results as good players.
They don't hit it as far or as accurate, hence, they have to take alternate routes which equates to STRATEGY.
Again, it just seems like a basic mathematical construct. It is x yards to clear the bunker at that spot, and I can hit it y yards, so I need to aim at this other spot.  Is that truly strategy? Perhaps, but only of the most simplistic kind I would suggest.

Who is left other than a small percentage of GCAers who relish that type of architectural feature and can't help themselves?

Who's left ?, How about the huge number of average golfers ?
Those somewhere between good and poor players.
I bet their numbers are legion.
The average golfers I would include in the 'poorer' group. They have little true control over distance OR direction and can not, for example, in any true sense aim near hazards to improve their angle for example.  If the average player is an 18 or 19 (is that average these days?), then his goal off the tee is 'please, let me find this and hit it again'.



Andy, you missed it.  I was taking a shot at Michael Moore's and other's inflated opinion of their games.oops.


Many paths exist, but only one is perhaps right for each player at that moment.
That is totally untrue and leads me to believe that you really don't understand strategy and that I'm wasting my time in discussing it with you.
I believe it is true.  Even on a cape-type hole where there are an infinite number of lines available, there is only one true line for each player after he has decided on a club.  He can carry the ball x yards and must then find the line that will accomadte that length.
But beyond that, even granting that there may be a number of choices available, nothing you have said leads me to believe that the great majority of players choose anything but the 'get it in play somewhere so I can hit it again' option.  
Also, you are far from the first person that has decided that chatting with me is a waste of time




Kelly, I suspect that is quite right.  But I think it assumes that most players are looking for some deep or hidden strategy.
It's just the opposite, it's not deep or hidden, it's self evident, but to some, and I'm begining to think you may be included in this class, they don't see it.
I may be, I may not be (I believe I am not, of course ). My contention is not that options don't exist though, its that the huge majority of golfers play without that options getting in the way.  Left, right, short ot long rarely gets in the way for most.


I would strongly disagree with you.
Most golfers see strategy in the context of their game.
A 0, 12 and 24 handicap don't look at strategy and the play of the hole in the same perspective.
In a sense, I agree with that. A 0 and a 24 will look at a hole differently, just as a PGA pro will look at a hole differently. But I still believe the PGA pro will shy away generally from a hazard even if it improves his angle for the next shot because he can hit the next shot from the safe side anyway. And the 24 will avoid the same hazard because he damn well knows he isn't good enough to chance it

[RJ_Daley]

Gentlemen, I'd like to suggest there are too many quotes quoting quotes...

Strategy is dealt with plenty of times by "the Mac's and Raynor.  If they didn't intend for you to employ strategy, why would Mac's prize hole offer 5 different ways to play it?  Read their thoughts and then go figure your own.  Bahto's book has enough hole sketch's of strategic holes to demonstrate the essence of the subject.  Hell, he even names one of his boilerplate holes, "strategy".  Of course all of the other boilerplate holes present varying degrees of multiple strategies as well.  

I liked you first thoughts Pat, but I can't agree with you on your assessment of "absurd" about Harvey Pennick's observation about players that shoot 85.  If you play often, play average golf, you have probably hit all the shots over time.  It is just a matter of stringing them together more consistently.  

[tonyt]

Perceived strategy is also evident in player decision making. As long as the player is confronted with decisions to make, it matters more that he is influenced to make one rather than if the course dictates he must.

Golf was played in the fields. The teeing ground was separated from the hole by various obstacles along the way. Two players might hit their tee shots in fairly different directions, each thinking it was their perceived attempt at getting their in fewer shots, taking in to account the risks and rewards of playing near the obstacles or any disadvantage by playing well away from them. Now we have crushed that notion by building corridors, and putting the obstacles to each side of the corridor we are forced to channel our ball through. Sure it is necessary in a housing estate course and we don't all have 250 acre sprawling lands for each course, so the traditional ways have been largely discarded. But any course that can utilise this type of traditional strategy in angles and different areas of play, and most of all by making the player stand on the tee and have to think about where to play their tee shot has done a good job.

Nowadays, a decided line off the tee is rarely more complicated than "left edge of that fairway trap" or "at the second mound". Sadly, there is rarely more than a few degrees difference in line of play outside of some dogleg reward shots. Even the difference between going for it or laying up is not quite the same as the old way of two players taking vastly different lines for similar length shots of similar execution, leaving their decision making perception and not their bravery, strength or execution as the meritable factors.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Doug Siebert....
You have been between a 4 and an 8 for twenty years and have not had the ability to consistently draw or fade the ball.  I have wandered between 2-4 for the last 10 years and I can't do it either.  Coincidentally I owned my first perimeter weighted clubs about 18 years ago.

What clubs have you owned? and are/were they "game improvement clubs" IE perimeter weighted irons.  I would suggest that if either one of ust were to be able to work the ball consistently both ways we might have a crack at the tour.  Well except for putting maybe.  

The question is whether Strategy is over-rated, my point is that it would be difficult to judge when technology has made creating strategic shots more difficult.  But then who needs strategy when clubs hit the ball a mile high and even grandma Moses can spin shots out of 2 inch rough.

 

[tonyt]

W.H. Cosgrove,

By making the player choose his line of play without the @#& narrow corridors  

[Michael Moore]

Michael Moore,

You indicated that you had a level of expertise that statistics indicate, exceeds that of the PGA Tour Pros.

Where did I indicate that?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Hughes,

One just has to the back nine on ANGC, during the play of the Masters, to disprove your theory.

RJDaley,

Penick's comment, if he ever made it, is patently absurd.
As a simple example, an 85 shooter isn't going to hit a high fade from 250 and hold the 15th green at ANGC.

I've spent 50 years observing 85 shooters, and they have their limitations when it comes to golf shots on demand.
Even the greatest players in the world, the PGA Tour Pros can't hit the ideal shot on demand.

Tony Titheridge,

How should a golfer play # 15 at NGLA, appropriately named,
"Narrows" ?

W H Cosgrove,

I agree with you, it's gotten much harder to shape shots with the new equipment.  It takes an exagerated swing to duplicate what used to be easy to produce 20+ years ago.

Andy Hughes,

I didn't say it was a waste of time, I said it was a waste of my time  

You keep on refering to a Cape hole in the context of strategy on the 3rd hole at NGLA, but a cape hole isn't what you think it is.
A cape hole gets it's name from the green end, not the driving end.  Consult with the esteemed George Bahto for an in depth education.

From my perspective it seems that you have a closed mind, or rigid view of what strategy is or isn't.

NGLA puts out a schematic of the golf course, complete with yardages and other info.  I'm at my limit with expending words to describe holes and strategic options/play.  Perhaps if Tommy Naccarato or others can display those schematics it would help you better understand strategy.

Lastly, I find it hard to believe that I'm the first to tell you that further discussions on a given topic are a waste of the educator's time.  

Michael Moore,

On a previous thread.

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

You wrote - "Penick's comment, if he ever made it, is patently absurd".

What do you mean by "if he ever made it"? Are you accusing me of making up a quotation and randomly attributing it to Harvey Penick? Why would I do that?

Why would you come on here and say that I claimed superiority to touring pros? That's simply not true. You can't just come on here and slander people.

When Penick writes "every shot in the bag", he is talking, in his wonderful guileless prose, about every shot in a that players bag. Thus, a person who shoots 85, by which Penick means 85 holing every putt and playing by the rules, he can call upon the memory of hundreds and hundreds of shots hit off the sweet spot that have come off just as the golfer intended.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

Your quote said that the 85 shooter had hit every shot in THE bag, not in HIS bag, as your most recent post tries to state, but THE bag, implying that the 85 shooter had hit that high, 250 yard fade off of a slightly sidehill, downhill lie to a narrow green over water, ala # 15 at ANGC, and that is absurd.
The 85 shooter is incapable of hitting shots that even PGA Tour Pros find difficult.

Who was Harvey addressing when he said " I want YOU to know " ?

And, how do you know that the author or editor didn't take a little license when finalizing the drafts ?

You made a statement about your abilities to pull off a shot on a routine basis.  The statistics from the PGA Tour with respect to GIR would seem to undermine the likelyhood of you pulling off that shot consistently, as you stated, unless you're better then the average of the PGA Tour Pros.

What is your current handicap ?

[Michael Moore]

And, how do you know that the author or editor didn't take a little license when finalizing the drafts ?

Here is where I throw my hands up . . .

Now pencil me in for the Mucci foursome at the Hidden Creek outing - we'll have the Moore/Paul vs. Mucci/Sweeney WASP v. Catholic Steel Cage Reformation Match, and I'll show you how well 9.0 can strike it.

[Mike_Sweeney]

And, how do you know that the author or editor didn't take a little license when finalizing the drafts ?

Here is where I throw my hands up . . .

Now pencil me in for the Mucci foursome at the Hidden Creek outing - we'll have the Moore/Paul vs. Mucci/Sweeney WASP v. Catholic Steel Cage Reformation Match, and I'll show you how well 9.0 can strike it.

Patrick,

Just give me the word, and I like Lance Armstrong will move to the site of the competition (Atlantic City) leave my wife and kids for 6 months and only practice and play at Hidden Creek. I will learn every stroke in every weather condition at Hidden Creek. When we get to The Alps hole, we, like Lance in The Alps, will crush our competitors and step on their throats. Michael Jordan will look like a friendly competitor after we are done with these silver spooned WASP.  

[Andy Hughes]

One just has to the back nine on ANGC, during the play of the Masters, to disprove your theory.

Pat, then by all means, please use the back nine at ANGC to do so, though I wonder if the fact that you need to use that course AND the PGA pros doesn't argue against you a bit?
But along those lines, a thought occurred to me; you often use NGLA as your example, which of course is fine, but I wonder if using the course many seem to place at the strategic pinnacle of courses as an example for what most courses offer and what most golfers do is actually a bad example?  As well, using an extreme example such as ANGC seems to have the same issue, though I grant it does have the virtue of being universally known so an easy course to discuss.

I didn't say it was a waste of time, I said it was a waste of my time

Yes, sadly, it seems to be a fairly large club.  

You keep on refering to a Cape hole in the context of strategy on the 3rd hole at NGLA, but a cape hole isn't what you think it is.
A cape hole gets it's name from the green end, not the driving end.  Consult with the esteemed George Bahto for an in depth education.

Paging George Bahto!! Help!!
But in this context, I have tried to take what you yourself described on #3 at NGLA and run with it. I only know of the hole what you told me about the tee shot, and it sounded to me like a bunker that runs away to the right, getting progressively longer to carry.  That sounded to me to be the prime strategy of the tee shot as described by you. how much can be bitten off?

From my perspective it seems that you have a closed mind, or rigid view of what strategy is or isn't.

Its not so much that I have a closed mind; its more that I already have all my opinions formed and refuse to even consider anything that goes against those opinions no matter how logical or factual these contrarian tidbits may be.
re strategy; in all seriousness, my thoughts/perspectives have actually expanded since I first came to this site.  So while I personally feel that I am better able to see what courses offer than I was before (and why), and why or why not I should pursue a certain course of action, I am also beginning to see that almost golfers I know tend to play golf with almost total disregard of those selfsame things.

NGLA puts out a schematic of the golf course, complete with yardages and other info.  I'm at my limit with expending words to describe holes and strategic options/play.  Perhaps if Tommy Naccarato or others can display those schematics it would help you better understand strategy.

That would certainly be helpful.  If you can come across such a schematic, I would actually enjoy seeing it.

[RJ_Daley]

If you have George's book, "The Evangalist of Golf", then you can see all of the NGLA holes in grid sketch form.  Most of them also have a modern photo of the hole to accompany the grid sketches.  I don't have the time or patience to scan them and post to Mystic page and then transfer them to this page, so get the book.

Pat, Harvey doesn't seem to me to be making an absolute statement that the 85 shooter can hit those shots on demand or command.  I think he is saying, an 85 shooter usually knows how or what to do in order to try to pull the shot off.  Anotherwords, how to set up for the high fade, low stinger draw, or more pronounced cut around trouble and into the deep angle of a green.   To say he can't pull off the 250 yard high fade into a shallow green with a false front and shaved back both into water at ANGC 15th (presumably from the now rough and treed right side) is perposterous.  Tiger probably wouldn't try it from that extreem.  That is the same as saying Mr 85 can't hit it 330 yards just because he knows how to set up for a drive that he may be capable of only hitting 240 off a tee.  Harvey is talking about the 85 shooter seeing strategic possibilities within the context of what that 85er knows he has done occasionally, and weighing if he should affirmatively visualize it, take dead aim and execute it with a measure of confidence.  Harvey is full of positive thoughts like "if you like golf, you are my friend".  

[Michael Moore]

RJ -

On that matter, Penick said -

"Few golfers who shoot 80 or more can make the ball hook or slice on purpose with accuracy or consistency."

My interpretation of "every shot in the bag" is posted above.

I pretty much believe everything that he wrote, and have committed much of it to memory. He is by far and away my favorite golf writer.

Even if MALICIOUS ELVES came in while his books were being typeset and changed everything around !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy Hughes,

I would second RJ Daley's recommendation that you obtain George Bahto's book, "The Evangelist of Golf".

I can't speak for strategey on courses that I haven't played.

I chose ANGC because most have a basic familiarity with the back nine since it's been repetitively televised for 40 years.

RJ Daley,

I've been around golf long enough to know what "having every shot in THE bag" means.

You're interpretation is a limited one, being player specific and confined to that particular player's ability and potential.

Your interpretation would concede that the player is lacking in the ability to execute shots deemed in the domain of the better player, let alone the PGA Tour player, and that was my point.  Thanks for supporting it.

Mike Sweeney,

Why sacrifice your family and friends and spend all that time and effort only to end up ruining a good day golfing with me ?

[Doug Siebert]

W.H. Cosgrove,

I don't think we can blame our clubs on our lack of ability to work the ball.  My irons are "game improvement" but have pretty small cavities, nothing like Pings or the like.  I can hook and slice with them, no problem.  I can hit a high hook that curves 40 or 50 yards with my 1 iron, I know because I just played that shot to my detriment on Monday  I mostly reserve my attempts at working the ball for trying to get around trees, if there's a bunker to be avoided, I'll fly over it.

And THAT is why I think we can't do it.  Its just easier to go over stuff than go around it.  And I don't think playing blades (which I am considering to replace my current irons, BTW, because I like the better impact feel) would make any difference for us.  OK, if I try to go over a bunker and I mishit it, I'm in the sand.  Big deal, unless I'm in Scotland I'll average less than bogey since I'll get way more pars than doubles from there.  If my attempt at a fade or draw doesn't work and I miss the green to the side as a result I'm in the same boat, with a pretty similar average result (though I'm probably better than most from sand and worse than most chipping from greenside so that may not be true for everyone)

Now maybe the game improvement irons, big drivers and modern balls don't let you work it as MUCH, but you can still work it, it just takes more "work" for a given amount of curve.  And on the other side, for every shot I lose by not having the fade/draw on demand in my bag I'll bet I gain a shot by having something that should have been a big hook OB stay in play, or something that should have missed the fairway or green stay straight enough to remain in the short stuff or on the green.