Bogey Golfers Got No Reason To Think . . .

[DMoriarty]

Just about every time the topic of strategic options on golf courses comes up around here, someone posits that utilizing strategic options is beyond the higher handicap golfer's ability.  In contrast, others have maintained that high handicappers not only can take advantage of strategic options, but also that courses which present meaningful strategic options are generally better at accomodating a wide range of abilities.  

I thought it might be useful to break this down a bit and take a look at it piece by piece.  So first off . . .

Are bogey golfers good enough to meaningfully choose between strategic options on a the golf course?"

It will come as no surprise that I say Yes.  But some types of strategic options are more suitable for higher handicap players than others.  

I'd like to hold off on explaining or supporting my answer until after I have read what some of you think . . . maybe I'll be convinced to change my answer.  

[Mike_Golden]

David,

It depends on the underlying reason why bogey (or worse) golfers are that way.  If they are older and cannot reach most par 4's in regulation it's pretty much hit Driver, fairway wood, and sand/pitching wedge to par 4's so not much strategy gets in the way of that.  If they are younger and are wild off the tee, they probably aren't capable of taking advantage of the strategy anyway.  And, if they are neither but just have lousy golf swings, they are most likely completely clueless and would rather spend $500 for a new driver than actually learn something about the golf swing and/or strategy.  Then there are those of us who have decent swings and couldn't make a putt if our lives depended on it-we're just clueless anyway

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Over Xmas, I picked up a copy of "Strategic Golf With Tom Watson" for under $5 in a bargain bin.  While that tells me that not too many golfers think it can help them, based on sales, Tom thinks that strategy can be just as effective for the bogey player.

It seems that conservative strategy will help them avoid the triples and other scores on the card, whereas it only helps the tour player by avoiding bogeys, while providing more chances for birdie. If the bogey player uses conservative strategy, he might save 9-18 shots a round.  The good player may save a few and pick up a few....so which is more valuable?

I have a piece on Cybergolf where I go through some theoretical math.  However, it was based on some stats from last year.  The new Golf World has an article on Stat Link stats, kept from 1980.

The five biggerst collolaries to winning on the PGA tour are driving distance and total birdies, with a sub category of total birdies on par 5's.  On par 3 and 4 holes, there isn't much statistical difference between top and bottom on the tour.

Thats not new, but now we can prove statistically what we have suspected for years.......it goes on to say that Vijay's biggest difference make was going for all par 5 holes in two shots.  It turns out that he gets up and down from around the green about 50% of the time.  When laying up to 100 yards, tour pros average 18 feet first putts, which they only make 20% of the time.  So, laying up is a strategic non-option for them.  (For the record, I  actually calculated that a little more in favor of it being equal, or perhaps one shot per round better going for it.  Its more)

I think I figured strategy could help the tour player to the tune of 1.8 stroke per round.  When subtracting that number from the scoring of the average pro, it would put him right at the top of the money list.  So, last year, the money difference would have been over $500K at the top levels of golf, which is certainly an indicator that strategy is valuble.

While the average player can't put a monetary value on it, saving even a few strokes off the handicap is emotionally fulfilling for all of us.  According to Tom, you should figure your "negative-negative" places on a hole, your swing ability and shot pattern, etc on every shot.  If you know you can't clear water 90% of the time because you choke, simply lay up, etc.  So, even bad golfers can benefit from strategy, even if it is in fact a whole different ball game.

[Jason Topp]

I think strategy applies at all levels of the game and probably has a bigger impact at higher handicap levels.  The choices are simply different.  If a person chunks every lob wedge he hits, there is an advantage to hitting a low chip around the bunker that is in his way.  He has a choice - does he make the smart play for his skills (resulting in a better score) or does he make the shot he should play but has no confidence in.  The same sort of analysis can be used for hitting driver on a tight hole, trying to hit an aggressive recovery shot from the trees or even making the decision of whether to use a putter from the bunker.

To me, this struggle is the fundamental struggle a player faces in playing the game - the choice between what he wants to do (or thinks he should do) and what he can do.
If a golfer consciously makes that decision one way or the other, strategy is a part of his game regardless of his skill level.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

I still like the "strategy" of one of my buddies - hit it close to the path to shorten the walk, and get a better view of the beer cart girl.....

[Jason Topp]

or at least the beer.

[DMoriarty]

I don't know Mike . . .

It seems to me the older golfer who has lost his distance (but presumably not his direction) has good reason to think about and decide between different angles into the green, if only to improve his chances of getting his lob wedge close.   This of course depends upon the hole providing such options.  

Couldn't the young and wild guy club down a little to get some control, then try to make use of some playing lanes that might help his score?

As for the lousy swingers being completely clueless . . . I resemble that comment.    But, aside from me as an example, I never knew there was a correlation between skill and understanding . . .

Your last group, the good swingers with a lousy putting stroke, dont at least these guys have a great incentive in coming into greens from places where their chance of avoiding three putts and occassionally making one will be maximized.   For example, take Rustic No. 2 with a front left pin position since we both know it . . . if a player had a good swing and could control his ball, I would think he would seriously consider trying to drive down the right side so he minimize the slope on the green and have a better chance of getting the ball on the front left so as to avoid a three putt.  This guy at least should be concerned with strategic options, shouldnt he?
___________________

Jeff,  I'll try to read your piece and address your comments then.    One question though, doesnt your analysis of the pro game depend upon execution?  For example, I assume that most pros go for par 5s in two when they hit a drive that allows for it.
 _______________

Jason.   I agree generally with what you are saying bogey golfers will necessarily have different types of choices than scratch golfers because of their abilities.  

   I am not sure the following distinction is valid, but I was thinking more along the lines of where golfers of different levels face similar strategic choices.   For example, imagine a wide hole with out of bounds bordering the side which offers a better angle . . . Is it potentially a good play for a high handicapper to try to cozy up to the out of bounds to get a good angle, or is his only real choice to play down the middle, then decide what to do on the next shot?  

Jason said:

To me, this struggle is the fundamental struggle a player faces in playing the game - the choice between what he wants to do (or thinks he should do) and what he can do.

I couldnt agree more.  Nor could I have said it nearly as well.  

But why does your friend want a view of the beer?!?

[ian]

Strategies are only not available to people who can not hit the ball long enough to take the risk (to gain the reward). I think length relative to the challenge is more important than ability to score. Interestingly, I find more mid to high handicaps play the options, where much better players play to their strengths.

I have played with a bogey golfer who always hits 9-10 greens a round. Occasional god touches his putter, but usually its like watching the special effects in Independence Day.

[GeoffreyC]

David

I think Jeff Brauer is correct in his argument and your statement
"It seems to me the older golfer who has lost his distance (but presumably not his direction) has good reason to think about and decide between different angles into the green, if only to improve his chances of getting his lob wedge close.  This of course depends upon the hole providing such options."

is fundamentally OK but nothing like what exists in reality. The strategies for anyone much above a very low single digit handicap is to maximize their chances to avoid double bogies and high numbers. That is, avoid hitting 2nd shot 3-woods where only your best effort will hit the green. More often then not this results in double bogey or worse. Lay up ANYWHERE where a wedge to the green give you a chance for par and no worse then bogey.

Work on short game and wedge play more then your driver and PLAY CONSERVATIVELY not attempting shots that are above your ability level.  Think about David Tom's laying up on the 72nd hole of of the PGA when he clearly could have reached the green.

Strategy for higher handicaps isn't about angles nearly as much as it is about avoiding temtations of the architect, course management and realizing your abilities and limitations.

[DMoriarty]

Strategy for higher handicaps isn't about angles nearly as much as it is about avoiding temtations of the architect, course management and realizing your abilities and limitations.

Definitely higher handicappers could save many strokes by playing within themselves . . . but let's set that aside for a minute.  

Why shouldnt a higher handicapper be as concerned (or more concerned) with angles as the low handicapper?  

[Joe Hancock]

There's a lot of ways to make bogey.

Higher handicappers are worried about keeping their arm straight, how much their knees are bent, not hitting 4 inches behind the ball,  and recounting their strokes before they exit the green.

That's not all inclusive. SOME bogey golfers will think their way around the course, but it would be a vast minority. That might also carry over to any other level of golfers as well.

Joe

[Brent Hutto]

I am a bogey golfer (current USGA handicap index 20.5) and I've taken lessons with a very good teaching pro, including some lessons in which we've discussed this very topic. The gist of his advice is that it is important for a bogey golfer to focus on having a plan for every hole and an intention for every shot, if for no other reason than because focusing on what you're trying to do tends to distract you from the kind of mechanical non-productive thoughts that Joe Hancock describes.

I once asked a sports psychologist if I should follow the advice, universally given to high handicappers, of "always take one extra club" since most mishit shots come up well short of their intended distance. I pointed out that on the course I was playing every week at that time all the trouble was over the greens, which were small and tended to be steeply pitched up from front to back. His answer was that deciding to play for the front of the green was a perfectly valid plan (not to say that he agreed with it, which he did not) and that such a conservative plan was fine as long as I didn't abandon it in mid-round and on the spur of the moment start with the "add a club" thing. He also suggested that I spend as much practice time as possible on those simple uphill chips from 10 yards short of the green.

So my conclusion is that any level of golfer able to execute well enough to at least make an occasional par should be aware of the basic strategies of layup versus attempting long approach shots or choosing lines and angles and should make conscious decisions. Now for a person at my level that doesn't mean trying to draw or fade the ball on command but having a strategy other than "hit and hope" is a good way to stay focused on process. The one thing to avoid is choosing a particular line or shot and then kicking yourself when you don't execute. As my teaching pro says when he hears me bitching about a short-iron shot that ends up 10 feet above the hole, "You're not good enough to get mad at that shot".

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

It depends on execution, and that is one of the problems in theorizing about the stroke value of strategy.  However, if there was any group that you could count on to consistently hit (over the course of a season) a certain % of fw, greens, recoveries, etc. it would be them.

Since the stats measure shots already played, you also have to figure that strategy played some role - either positive or negative in the players scoring average, but its hard to tell how much.  The Shot Link stats seem to indicate it all averages out, except on par 5's.  The other interesting thing that stats can't measure - Vijay was statistically an average putter this year. However, his makes and misses apparently clustered, and he won because he made important putts at the right time.

[Joe Hancock]

Brent,

You have a teaching pro AND a sports psychologist?

That's not mainstream........

I suggest you focus very hard on hole strategy, because you're carrying some serious baggage!!!!!

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

The other interesting thing pointed out in that article was that none of the top 5 money winners were among the most accurate drivers, but they were among the longest.  However, they charted misses, and most misses they made just missed the fw in the first cut, which didn't affect them.

Add that to the importance of par 5 birdies, and you see the USGA isn't far off in course set up - assuming you want to keep scores high relative to par.  Eliminate 2 par 5's and add deep rough that punishes right off the fairway.  Its that or OB and water to keep scores high, but even then, the smart player would surely miss those hazards less than others.

One other interesting thing from the Watson book - He says he rarely saw Jack N play a low percentage shot.  The essence of strategy for the high handicapper is to do the same, given their abilities.

[Brent Hutto]

You have a teaching pro AND a sports psychologist?

I don't know about "have". There's a teaching pro I work with and on occasion I get a chance to attend sports psychology clinics aimed at higher-level competitive golfers. Most of the stuff they cover is beyond my current playing ability but it's interesting and you never know, it might come in handy one day.

Sports Psychology 101 pretty much starts with the part about thinking target rather than swing mechanics, as you pointed out. I still don't have that down yet so most of what lies beyond that is still uncharted territory in my own game.

[GeoffreyC]

David

you ask "Why shouldnt a higher handicapper be as concerned (or more concerned) with angles as the low handicapper?"

Mostly because he or she is too busy thinking about not losing a ball with their next shot then he or she is about playing angles. Better course management will save most everyone more shots per round then thinking too much about strategy and angles.  All that usually does is take away too much of the short grass open to play and tempt the player to hit to a smaller area then he or she is capable of hitting with regularity.

 
 

[DMoriarty]

Again, I have no quarrels with what you say about course management, and no argument that one will save you more strokes than another.  In the real world, I imagine there is quite a bit of overlap between course management and strategy, but let's stay with this angles business because I think that is at the heart of the matter.  

How good in (terms of handicap) do you think a golfer must be before he starts to consider advantageous angles of approach?   Obviously it will vary, but generally for whom is playing the angles a viable option?

[Doug Siebert]

For the older golfers who lack distance but usually hit it pretty straight, I have some experience there as I regularly play with my dad and some his friends, who are in the 70s now.

There's one example of strategic mis-thinking that really annoys me but I can't seem to get these guys to see the light.  One course they regularly play has a short par 4 5th hole.  It is a bit under 300 yards for them, with a small stream crossing the fairway perhaps 170-180 yards off the tee, going fairly steeply uphill from there to a well bunkered green.  There's also a bunker about 50 yards short right (more intended for me off the back tees, at least in theory it isn't supposed to be for them)  There is a tiny picture of the whole course here so you can squint at the 5th in the top left:

http://www.pleasantvalley-ic.com/golf/course.asp

They aren't long enough to carry it over the stream, even with the wind, so it is a layup for them.  But their play is always well short left.  Their goal is to take a club they believe will leave them just short of the 150 marker where there's an area of about 1000 sq ft where there's the only really flat lie on the layup side of the hole they want to play from, and the green opens up better from that place on the left.

My objection is that they are so worried about keeping it left (to have the straight line at the green between the bunkers) and short of the water that any time they miss a shot they really screw themselves.  If they pull it left they are sometimes in trees, or at least in rough, with no hope of reaching the green in two.  From the rough that bunker short right will sometimes come into play and then they are looking at 6 or worse (there is OB left and OB long, with the cart path conveniently located there to aid in achieving that goal, a favorite architectural feature beloved by golfers everywhere)  If they mishit it short they are too far away to hit the green at all, if they push it right they don't have any way to hit the green due to the bunkers except with a lucky bounce.

I tell them they are ought to flirt with the stream a bit more, such that they might end up in it 1 out of every 4 or 5 times, instead of once a season.  The reason being that if they accept that they will sometimes go in the water they can take enough club that only a perfect hit will go in there and hit it with confidence.  They may not have a perfectly level lie with from the 150 marker or closer the shot will be easier and they will at worst make a 5 if they miss their approach short.  When they do hit in the water they can drop well back on that golden little flat spot they always try for but hardly ever hit, and still have a good chance at a 5 or better since they will be hitting from position A (or at least what they believe is position A)

I think a lot of higher handicappers play this way because they are told they should do whatever is possible to avoid the big numbers, and thus fear penalty strokes above all.  This is where you get the people who can hit a good wedge into the green anytime except when it is over water when they will chunk it into the pond half the time.  Now granted it is stupid for higher handicappers to flirt with OB or lost ball areas, or with a long water carry.  But fear of penalty strokes has blinded them to the fact that the penalty in the case of this hole is only stroke, not distance, and for that stroke penalty they get to drop the ball in an ideal place for them which they only rarely hit from the tee.

It is actually quite an interesting hole for the different sets of options it offers all levels of golfers.  It gives me some interesting problems too, just a different set, and there is a whole different set of issues again for golfers between me and my dad in skill and distance.

[Brent Hutto]

Doug,

There's a version of the dilemma you described on our Par 5 fourteenth hole. It's about 500 yards from the regular men's tees and downhill from the tee to a creek that crosses the fairway about 140-something yards from the green. Then it is pretty flat from the creek to the green but the green is doglegged left behind a hill with a scary bunker set into the hill 40 yards short of the green. Oh, and there's water over the green and also just immediately to the back-left of the green.

Anyway, the creek comes into play on my second shot unless I hit an especially good drive. My normal tee shot ends up 300 yards from the green which leaves me 170 to clear the creek or 150 to stay short of it, hitting off a slightly downhill lie. Every now and then, my "150 yard club" comes out a little low and hot off the downslope and rolls into the hazard so the tempation is to either lay up 30 yards short of the creek or try to go over it with a fairway wood.

The problem is, laying up with an 8-iron or something leaves me trying to get at that tucked green with hazards all around from 175 yards which very seldom works out. So the strategy is exactly as you mention. I take the proper club to lay up about 5-10 yards short of the creek and about one time in ten it hits hard and trickles into the hazard. But on those occasions I get a drop into a perfect lie 145 yards from the hole and only 125 from the front of the green which is not all that scary a shot with a 6-iron (or even 7-iron if the hole is on the front). Hitting in the hazard is a one-stroke penalty so even if I did it every third round that one-third stroke is less than the penalty of always hitting 5-wood and bringing all the trouble into play.

There is an altenate strategy. In a stroke-play tournament I usually play the hole 3-wood, 5-iron, 8-iron, wedge which means I don't hit a single shot that even remotely comes near trouble. The trouble with that strategy is that the wedge shot is from an area where the fairway is usually a bit wet and the combination of a less than perfect lie and a severely contoured green doesn't lead to a real good chance at getting up and down for par. Still, two-putting from 20-30 feet for bogey on one of the toughest holes on the course is not a bad outcome.

[ForkaB]

Dave

I tend to agree with you.  "Better" golfers in fact have fewer strategic options than "lesser" ones.  Sure, they CAN play the hackers route on any hole (tacking around using 9-iron vs. 7 wood), but it really isn't a viable option to them.  Just think of golfers like Dave Schmidt, who can carry his driver with laser like accuracy 280+, 99.9% of the time.  Why should he ever "play safe?"

On the other hand, golfers who are either longish but wild or shortish but straight have to think through how they play every single hole.  Both of them really have to think about angles too--much more than the elite player.  The elite player, whose miss is likely to be long but crooked, can still hit his 9-iron out of the rough onto the green, maybe even at the pin.  The long and wild person, must consider the penalty of an off line shot, since he has lesser recovery skills.  The short but straight player, MUST taack his way around the course.  As for short AND wild, well there is always lawn bowling.......

The GCA issue here is how can courses be designed to accommodate and challenge and bring enjoyment to all of these stereotypes.  The great ones can, IMHO.  One's that can't are not as great as their champions think they are......

[TEPaul]

Another thread on defining strategy huh?  

DavidM said to Geoff Childs;

"I imagine there is quite a bit of overlap between course management and strategy, but let's stay with this angles business because I think that is at the heart of the matter."

David:

Consider very carefully what Goeff Childs (and others on here) are saying about course management. CM and strategic golf is clearly more than 'quite a bit of an overlap'. In my opinion, really good course management and playing really intelligent strategic golf are just about synonymous.

Lots of golfers go to see pros to be taught the golf swing and such but how many go to a pro to be taught the finer points of course management and strategic golf (for their particular abilities)? Not many in my experience.

It's too bad because intelligent course management is intelligent strategic golf. All of us should review some of these tapes on intelligent course management and intelligent strategic golf that're out there---many of them are very good and we can all learn something very important from them.

For higher handicappers intelligent course management (intelligent strategic golf) simply involves learning how to avoid making choices that clearly can needlessly lose strokes (even with fairly decently hit shots!). Generally this is probably largely synonymous with learning how to play conservatively in the context of your own particular game.

Something like learning to recognize the importance of angles to play conservatively is just one in a long laundry list of recognizing HOW to play intelligent strategic golf and apply intelligent course management through conservative play.

I can almost guarantee if a bogey golfer played golf with the sole intention of playing conservatively he'd score better probably 80-90% of the time. And if he took a few lessons from a pro regarding the most intelligent course management (most intelligent strategic golf) for his particular game his scores would begin to go down even if he did not hit the ball better!!

Recognizing what it is about any desgin and about architecture that allows particular golfers to practice intelligent course management and intelligent strategic golf needs to be learned just like one needs to learn how to actually hit the ball most effectively.

Tommy Armour had an old cliche that's a pretty good rule of thumb for any golfer to use intelligent course management for his own game and to practice intelligent strategic golf for his particular game;

"Try to play each shot to make your next shot easiest."

If particularly a bogey golfer learned to apply to the maximum that cliche of Armour's he would probably be very close to playing the most strategic golf possible. And history tells us it would pay off the vast majorityu of the time!

But unfortunately most bogey golfers don't seem to understand what playing conservative golf is all about, and the rest probably don't even care. Obviously the reason for that is that the recognizable temptations of golf architecture are very exciting and very difficult to avoid attemtping! That's certainly a good thing as it does continue to make golf the virtual mystery it probably always will be. Some say that the majority of playing golf well, perhaps the vast majority of playing golf well, is right between the ears!

It's true, there's no question about it! Most bogey golfers have never even taken the time to really understand what maximum intelligent course management (maximum intelligent strategic golf) is for them and the rest don't even care.

And even if they do learn what maximum intelligent strategic golf is for them there always will be that seduction present that will prevent them from practicing it. That seduction can always be recognized as that little voice in the back of every golfers mind that constantly says; "What if?"

 

[Gary_Nelson]

Obviously the reason for that is that the recognizable temptations of golf architecture are very exciting and very difficult to avoid attemtping!

Tom,

You hit the nail on the head.  Bogey golfers don't fill their heads with strategy. They recognize temptation and derive great pleasure from the thrill of challenging the bunker/creek/pond.  

Angles/shmangles.  It's the Buczkowskis that keep us comin' back for more.

[GeoffreyC]

Angles/shmangles.  It's the Buczkowskis that keep us comin' back for more.

BINGO!

Unless you are playing a match or a tournament this is the answer. Come home with a story about how you hit it right down the middle on #12 at TOC and found the dreaded coffin bunker BUT I did wrap my approach to #17 around the Road Hole bunker and found myself with a birdie putt and you are happy as a clam. Buczkowsky shots aka butt pukering shots are even if only realized once a round what most play the game for (minus tournament situations).

[George Pazin]

A lot of this boils down to what the consequences of one's actions are. Are Gary points out, Buczkowskis are a big part of what keeps people coming back. That being the case, most tend to ignore safe options and only take heroic options, since it provides a thrill with the only risk being a high score which probably doesn't matter. However, if there were something of significance on the line - even just an honor bet with a friend that is taken seriously - I think many would start to play more strategically (which does mean managing one's game better).

Now that Brent has gotten his index down to 20.5, I think I'm the reigning highest index on the site. I know I play differently if I'm playing for something of consequence (which is admittedly quite rare).

I guess some would question whether or not this is strategy or course management or whatever. I'd say, if this isn't strategy, then your definition is different from mine and I don't think strategy exists at all under this other definition.

Every golfer faces at least one or two instances a round where a choice isn't crystal clear (unless his name is Dave Schmidt ). Put something significant on the line and one starts to think differently. Sounds like stratetgy to me.