Bogey Golfers Got No Reason To Think . . .

[JESII]

Many interesting points on this thread, I like the topic.

Tom Paul quoted Tommy Armour as saying,
"Try to play each shot to make your next shot easiest."

I would add that a player must have a complete picture of his plan for the hole (including a target score) when implementing Armour's strategy. He must also have an very objective opinion of his own golf game.

There is a story in one of Bob Rotella's books about a bet Tommy Armour was involved in at his home club. Armour was backing a player attempting to break 90 for the first time in his life on the condition that he could caddy for him. The story goes, on the very first hole the guy hits a decent drive and is left at 5-iron distance to reach a slightly eleveted, well bunkered green. He immediately grabs his 5-iron and is in his address before Armour can grab the club out of his hands and give him an 8-iron and directs him to lay up to the left, a much easier shot and he hits it well. From there he has an easy chip between the sand and manages to get up and down for par. Final score--79.

The most difficult thing about playing strategically efficient is identifying your abilities and playing within them, and we all know they change on a daily basis. Playing ability has nothing to do with the ability to play strategically.

Jim

[Philippe Binette]

In an ideal world, (on great courses with ground game options), there should be more strategy for bogey golfers because their repertoire of shot is limited, so when you have less physical talent, you should be smarter...

Only problems:
1) no teacher teach strategy for bogey golfers...
2) on most courses, strategy for bogey golfers is laying up all the time, which produce boring golf (a drive, a lay-up short, and a pitch) and if so some might as well quit the game.

A good long study of a course like Royal Melbourne could help.

 

[GeoffreyC]

GREAT example Jim.  I think this is exactly what is necessary if we want to score well.

Then there is the example of standing on the 16th tee at Cypress Point and thinking that I have not traveled XXXX miles to layup.  Only a very good score to that point in the round and iffy conditions could prevent me from trying that shot.

[JESII]

Geoffrey

On my post I actually wrote a paragraph using Cypress' 16th as my example before deleting it due to the Buzkowski factor.

I wonder what Dave Schmidt thinks about this.

Jim

[Bruce Katona]

Did we miss the point on this topic?  A great old designer we all appreciate made his mark in design by allowing for different lines of play for individuals who wanted to approach the hole in different manners.  TOC is much reveared for allowing for multiple lines of play (or misplay as the case may be).

The vast majoirty on this site are much better than average players (meaning you can break 100 on a consistant basis).  You have all come to learn about the concept of course management.

The average player, with a little guidance, will take the risk out of play more times than not so to not lose a golf ball, forget the penalty stroke.  Giving the player a safer way around the course decreases playing time per round and the enjoyment of all players, creating a repeat customer.

[A_Clay_Man]

It's the worse than Bogey golfer who benefits most from good course management. The TA story illustrates that perfectly. At Spyglass, and Pebble, there were/are many specific situations where the self-admitted incompitent, can take advice which removes the hazards from the equation, and if they do, they usually prevail nicely.
But for the most part, a line of instinct is called that, because that's where we're suppose to go. I can't recall how many times I had to say don't aim at the flag. The ones that listened, had more fun and scored better because getting out of the hazard was a sure, no.

[Bill Gayne]

The bogey golfer problems are compounded because he has to much to think about when it comes to club selection. I suspect most bogey golfers could improve if they limited their club selection to 3 wood, seven iron, wedge and puttter and become really proficeint with these clubs.  A pretty good game can be built around these four clubs if they are learned to be hit with different ball flights and lengths.

The bogey golfer arrives at the ball and the first thought is distance. How far do I have to hit the ball. Not where or how I need to hit the ball. The club selection is made based on a mental table in the brain and is consistent every time. I've even seen laminated tables attached to golf bags. If the table says 5 iron 160-170 then it is five iron every time at this distance. The table probably comes from an article the golfer read rather than repeatedly hitting the club and measuring the distance.

Getting off the table is when the shotmaking and strategy fun begins.

[Lou_Duran]

If you believe that "what the mind can conceive, one can achieve" (Mapoleon Hill?), then the average player has much to gain by thinking strategically and playing courses which reward that type of play.  My personal experience in the game is that thinking well and executing accordingly are not often correlated, particularly when I am having a hard time finding my swing.

Most higher handicap players (20+) have a hard time hitting the ball solidly and in a consistent direction.  So, setting up to the left side of CPC's #16, probably not a good example, may not only be the only choice, but one which may not have a high probability of paying off.  As others have said, most of us would do better to swing within ourselves, aim down the middle or away from the worst hazards, and work on our short game.  Even the pros who actually have some control over their shots tend to play to their strenghts as opposed to the perceived demands of individual holes.  

[TEPaul]

JES II said:

"Playing ability has nothing to do with the ability to play strategically."

Jim:

Wow, that's quite a statement! I just kept looking at that sentence and kept thinking---does that make as much sense as it seems to?

I was going to quote it on this post anyway but I kept looking at it wondering if I should quote the sentence before it too to keep it in your context. I think that sentence stands alone just fine though.

I'd bet good money you'll be getting a lot of debate from our contributors on here about that statement though. They're going to ask how could playing ability not have everything to do with the ability to play strategically or at least have something to do with it.

But I think I know just what you mean. With top players it's probably just their "game plan" which most have before they tee it up. Basically just a preconceived "course management" plan. Of course they know they have to adjust through the round but the best ones do try to get back to it if things go awry and just stick with it if things are going according to plan.

I was probably never a good enough overall ball striker to get too into things like this but I sure do remember when I tried to play conservative golf and intelligent strategic golf in stroke play tournaments (so as to avoid mistakes and "stupid thinking" mistakes) were those wonderful times I got as much into what they call "cruise control" as I ever have. During those "cruise control" times I remember I wasn't really thinking about much of anything at all except just getting the ball from here to there as per overall plan right on through the entire round.

You know Jim, a lot of this intelligent strategic golf and the ability to execute well after a while just might have something to do with this astounding fact I bet noone on here will disagree with. And that is---isn't it amazing how much better and more consistently we all seem to hit lay-up shots compared to most other shots?  Why do you suppose that is? (In my opinion, it's because when we do that all we're doing is just executing a basically very conservative, locked-in, very low pressure shot which frankly is a lot of what playing conservative and strategically intelligent golf is all about!!)

[DMoriarty]

All interesting points . . . .I am afraid we keep getting caught up in a conversation about motivations, which are worth talking about.  But I was hoping to get some opinions more on the topic of ability and how that influences options.  

Maybe an example would help.   Philippe Binette suggested we study Royal Melbourne, but unfortunately I have never seen it, so I will go with what I know . . .   My apologies to those who are tired of Rustic.  

The following is a aerial of the 2nd hole, which plays as a medium long par 4, the tee is at the top and of the page and the green in the bottom right, with out-of-bounds bordering the entire left side of the hole (right side in picture.)  The approach is generally easier from the left because:
1.   The green area generally slopes from the front and right to the back and left so approaches from the right tend to run through the green [The green barely visible as a rectangle area in the back and golfer's right of the circle of fringe]; and
2.   One can avoid carrying short right bunkers from the left.  

These points are especially true for higher handicap golfers who generally bounce the ball into this hole with less spin than the better golfers.  



Now the cautious course management play for the higher handicapper is to hit a comfortable long club in the middle of the fairway, then lay up their second to the left, leaving a pitch or short wedge in.    The problem with this approach is that because some fairly imposing green contours some pin positions are difficult to access from this angle, and while the bogey golfer might well get on the green in three he will likely have a good chance of three putting.  

My question:   Is the bogey golfer good enough to risk the out of bounds by playing down the left side?  

ADDITION:  This fairway is really wide, I've never measured it but I would imagine around 60 yds wide.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I posted this story on here before but it was before you came onto this site so I'm posting it again for you. This is an hilarious example of the vagaries of golf when even the most intelligent strategic golf can oddly go awry.

You probably remember Mark Shuman of PCC. A number of years ago he was trying to qualify for the US Amateur at Wilmington and he was playing well and just following right along on a strict course management plan (because he's one of these mathematical geniuses like Chet who just have a real ability to know what they need to shoot! ).

Anyway, Mark gets to the last hole (par 5) and he absolutely knows he only needs to par the hole to qualify. He hits a really good and long drive with smooth conservative swing which leaves him well within range of the green with maybe his utility wood.

He thinks about just hitting it over the pond onto or just over the green but then thinks---if I'm going to play intelligently conservative and strategic the best play is to not risk the pond, just lay up and hit a simple wedge third shot to the green, easy two putt and get out of town on the way to the US Amateur.

He has about 160 yards before he runs out of fairway to the pond, so he grabs his 7 iron to lay it up just in front of the pond. Then he remembers what Hogan said---"If you're going to lay-up make sure you do lay up and not hit it too far". So he goes to the 8 iron. Then he thinks what if I really flush this thing for some reason, so he goes to his 9 iron. He's about to hit that and then thinks---if I'm going to play conservative, I'm going to play conservative to the max---so he takes out his pitching wedge and with a total no pressure swing he hits a beautiful PW down the middle of the fairway and watches it land right on top of a sprinkler head and rocket about 25 feet into the air and into the pond!!

Mark ends up making an easy six and misses the US Amateur by one shot!    

[TEPaul]

"The problem with this approach is that because some fairly imposing green contours some pin positions are difficult to access from this angle, and while the bogey golfer might well get on the green in three he will likely have a good chance of three putting."

David:

Look if you really do want to hava a discussion about how to actually play intelligent strategic golf on the course shot by shot we can do that but don't start throwing stuff like that remark in here!  

An intelligent strategic game plan is just an intelligent plan but any golfer has to know that in any round of golf the power of postive thinking is an asset and the power of negative thinking definitely is not!

The problem with that approach shot you cited IS DEFINITELY NOT THAT HE WILL GET ON THAT GREEN AND HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF THREE PUTTING!!!

Even if he is a bogey golfer his chances of getting on that green and two putting are far more likely!! At the very least that's PRECISELY HOW HE NEEDS TO LOOK AT IT to increase his chances of success.

You can't discuss this subject in such technical "on the ground" ways and then throw some remark like that into it too. That's another subject from intelligent strategy entirely. Most any golfer knows that needlessly negative thinking hurts results and postiive thinking helps results. I hope you're not going to ask any of us to prove that too!  

[Lou_Duran]

TEP-

And the moral of the story is?  Quit thinking so much and just hit the ball?

I always thought that Van de Velde got a bad rap for his second shot at Carnousite's #18 (the lucky drive is another matter).  He may have been thinking strategically by hitting past the trouble.   Hitting the grandstand AND bouncing backwards into the creek was not too dissimilar to Mark's layup hitting a sprinkler head.  Both probably thought that they had the best probability of achieving their target score for that hole by taking the routes they chose.  Both got unlucky.  VdV may never be the same.

[TEPaul]

"TEP-
And the moral of the story is?  Quit thinking so much and just hit the ball?"

Lou:

Yes, I guess one could safely say that at some point in the context of this thread. Maybe DavidM thinks he can just completely intellecutalize every single facet of golf strategy on the ground down to the most minute facet!

I think there's a long list of history's players both great and not so great that could intelligently tell him it really doesn't work that way--at least apparently it hasn't so far!  

[JESII]

Did we miss the point on this topic?  A great old designer we all appreciate made his mark in design by allowing for different lines of play for individuals who wanted to approach the hole in different manners.  TOC is much reveared for allowing for multiple lines of play (or misplay as the case may be).

Bruce

I think we are right on the topic, and I think it was more than one old designer who allowed different lines of play. I would suggest that every architect we have ever heard of allows this. Some courses provide more width and options than others and this is one characteristic which distinguishes them. TOC seems to be the most profound example of this concept and appears to rightly deserve all the accolades it receives.

Jim

[George Pazin]

One problem is that so much of this sort of thing is internal.

Just because one goes for a shot and doesn't execute doesn't mean it didn't offer him the best chance for a low score - likewise for the layup.

To me, the key is to try to have half par holes where the choices are less clear. Ironically enough, half par holes for bogey golfers are probably regular par holes for better golfers and vice versa on typical half par holes for better golfers. I consider the first hole of any round to be a par 7.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

As a bogey golfer (15 handicap), I've read the learned discussion above with interest.  I recognise some of it, but not all of it.  I think a lot of the arguments relate to hypothetical inland courses which play more or less the same every day.  Come, instead, to a links course, preferably one with undulating fairways.  

We old bogeys are expected to think about angles all the time, the ever changing winds leaving us no options.  A bunker 180 yards out may be unreachable one day, perfectly in reach on another, and easily carried on yet another.  A 9-iron shot one day may be a 4-iron shot from the identical spot the next.  And, of course, there is never a question of hitting a wedge stone dead onto a green.  Even we are asked to approach with a half-hit running 6-iron with the wind through the bunkers one day, perhaps forcing a 9-iron over them into the wind to stop dead next day.  A ridge of heather across the fairway may not be just the one-stroke penalty of a stream.  We may never find our ball in it and then it's stroke and distance.  But, more than any of these, I am forced to decide between several options on almost every shot because my execution of the previous shot will have been imperfect (even if only slightly) and that gorse bush or humpy bit of fairway, which bit of bunker I've ended up in, or even on which side of the green I may have ended up will all force a new set of calculations to be made.  

[JESII]

Mark

You said:
"We old bogeys are expected to think about angles all the time, the ever changing winds leaving us no options."
Is there ever the situation where you might intentionally miss a green so as to leave the best chance to finish the hole in the lowest number of strokes?

Believe me, I understand the effects of wind and terrain on links courses. Undoubtedly, 'American stlye' courses give more predictable situations, but that simply increases the chances of you, a strategic master, beating the less strategic player.

TEP

Great story about Schuman, I do remember him. Some things are just meant to be, and some are not.

George

Absolutely agree.

The whole point of making a plan is to increase your chance of saving a shot. In no way are we expecting to guarantee one less stroke on a hole just because it was well thought out. You could almost look at the strategy for each hole as trying to save fractions of shots. You won't save the full shot every time, but you will on occasion.
In answer to David's question, yes. The bogey golfer should have the ability to do all of the following
1)Drive into the right half of a 60 yard fairway
2)Play an iron or wood to an area 30-60 yards short of the green and in the left half of the fairway
3)Pitch onto the green with the goal of placing the ball in a favorable putting location
4)Manage to one or two putt from said location.

If it turns out this green is extremely difficult and placing the pitch in an easy two putt location is unlikely than this may be a par 5 1/2 for this person and there should be a hole somewhere else on the course where they might make up that half shot.

Jim

[Gary_Nelson]

Using the Rustic Canyon #2 example... which I've never played.

The bogey golfer typically can't control the direction of his tee shot.  The scorecard says it's a par 4 so he wants to get on in 2.  He smashes a driver as hard as he can, most likely with a slice.  Now he's on the right side of the hole and wants to put it on the green. He gets to challenge the bunkers short and right of the green.  What fun.

The boring (course management) way is a 5 wood tee shot, mid-iron layup, and chip shot to the green.  Where's the fun in that?

Surely the bogey golfer will score better taking the conservative route.  But will that keep him coming back for more?

[JESII]

Sure because he will have just won his match against you

[Pete Lavallee]

I see where David is going with this and unfortunately nobody want's to play along!    David has specifically asked everyone to ignore conservatism as a strategy and focus on playing the angles, with a greater risk giving the player an easier second shot. His example of #2 at Rustic Canton is an excellent one for it embodies the classic boundry strategy: those with the guts to hug the OB fence are given the tangible rerward  of a much easier shot into the green. Trust me, as someone who's been lucky enough to play Rustic more than a dozen times, being to the left side is a huge advantage, especially when playing something longer than a 7 iron. Now that reward could be the result of a short hitting mid-handicapper now having a more favorable angle to run a fairway wood onto the green with; from the right any fairway wood shot would run through the green unless the player was skillfull enough to put sufficient cut spin to hold the shot into the bank. Players who can't reach the green in two shots will still benefit from playing their second shots closer to the boundry even if they are playing a short iron in. This shorter player could be your Dad who has lost distance but can control his shot's direction and distance well. We have seemed to come to a consensus that playing the angles for people with Shivalicious distance is irrelevant; they are coming in with a wedge so it doesn't matter where they come in from. But why shouldn't people who are going to be hitting longer clubs into greens be concerned with gaining an angle that will allow them to get closer to the hole or simply hold the green?

[DMoriarty]

TomP, positive attitude or not, sometimes the apparent safe route is not necessarily the best route.   A number of posts above (including yours) have addressed this situation where golfers play it safe to no avail.   This happens whether because of a tricky green, a lake, a bunker, or anything else.  

Assuming all two putts are created equal is the kind of formulaic close-mindedness responsible for the boring courses which pock our nation.  

And TomP I hardly think that discussing whether bogey golfers are good enough to think strategically is intellectualizing "the most minute facet" of strategy.   But if this discussion is too persnickety for you, by all means dont hang around on my account . . . .
_________________________

George, it is definitely internal and very subjective, but still this notion that bogey golfers should stop thinking and just hit it pops up all the time.  So there has to be some notion out there that bogey golfers are not generally good enough to consider options.  
___________________________

Mark Rowlinson said:

As a bogey golfer (15 handicap), I've read the learned discussion above with interest.  I recognise some of it, but not all of it.  I think a lot of the arguments relate to hypothetical inland courses which play more or less the same every day.  Come, instead, to a links course, preferably one with undulating fairways.

Mark I agree with you and think you have hit on why this is an important question and one worth examining.   The type of courses one plays goes a long ways toward shaping their views on issues such as options and choices.    I doubt my home course (Rustic) provides nearly as much variety as a true links (with which I have very little experience), but it provides enough variety that I think I have some idea of where you are coming from.  

_______________________

Both Gary and James suggested scenarios where the bogey golfer hits a safe drive, lays up left, and hits a short third onto the green.    

Why not hit a drive down the left, then try to hit it on or at least next to the green?  

I think Gary gives the conventional answer:   The bogey golfer cannot control the direction of his tee shot.

I disagree.  High handicappers struggle with controlling length much more than with distance, if they try to hit it left and miss hit it, the likely result is that their ball will come up substantially short of where they would like, but safely in the fairway.  

I dont suppose you all agree with this . . .

[DMoriarty]

Damn Pete, this should be your thread.  

To everyone:   Uhhhh . . . what Pete said.  

[Steve Lang]

 

Way too much generalization here.. and i'm surprized no one has mentioned ol'man par getting involved first.. then angles 2nd..

I usually play half bogey golf.. and typically look back at rounds and note what casued me to miss breaking 80..

I'll play solid bogey golf when I'm just out for the exercise playing the tips with no cares or just practicing things from different places, tees, etc., but I do remember when I was a solid bogey golfer (before coming to TX).. at that time i played only 35-40 rounds a year and the bogey nameplate was really a function of rounds played.  Upon return from annual spring NC outings, 2 a day for 6-7 days, I could break 80.  So I don't buy some of the generalistic premises floating around this discussion.

If you are just playing a game with friends, score only means so much, so strategy takes an appropriate place.. turn it into a gambol and the competitive nature usually stirs thinking and strategy decisions, for better or worse.. turn the game into a profession and strategy is an essential element for success as Jeff Brauer has well noted..

Playing for fun and sometimes profit, one can hit it hard, go find it and hit it hard again.  That's certainly strategy, however limited or boring depended on your view of power.

First strategies are often related to accepting the par-handicap ratings for green, yellow, or red light aggression on a hole by hole basis. Then come within the hole type left fairway-right fairway or lay-up, short game realizations to make par easier. Then come between the shot strategies depending on match or medal play objectives and then within the shot strategies of club selection line, speed, spin, etc..  

How boring but satisfying to play to par.. but i'd rather move to the back tees , its more fun!  

[TEPaul]

"And TomP I hardly think that discussing whether bogey golfers are good enough to think strategically is intellectualizing "the most minute facet" of strategy.  But if this discussion is too persnickety for you, by all means dont hang around on my account . . . ."

DavidM;

OK, whatever.

I have no problem discussing the ideal strategies of any course or hole for various levels of player, scratchman, bogeyman, long man, short man etc, although I don't know Rustic's #2 and I've never seen the course built and I've never been to Australia or Royal Melbourne. I have no problem at all discussing a bogeyman trying to play the ideal angles on any hole but I think eventually an intelligent discussion on that probably needs to focus on what's involved in the "shot losing" risks for a bogeyman choosing to play ideal angles (on most well designed courses ideal angles for the next shot come with the greatest risk on the shot at hand obviously).

Discussing what the ideal angles or best strategic angles a design offers for potential scoring is fine but it's not an intelligent discussion, in my opinion, unless it begins to involve the risk factor for a bogey golfer (the subject of this thread) in a scoring context. Of course if scoring isn't that important to some golfer than the entire discussion is sort of moot in my book. But to most people attempting to score as well as they can given various risks along the way is sort of what golf's about---depending somewhat on the differences in the pyschologies of medal vs match play format.

I've never been too sure where you're trying to go with these discussions on strategy, David. It seems to me you may take umbrage rather easily at the suggestion that perhaps a bogey golfer shouldn't be trying the same strategies as a scratch player might. If I've ever suggested that it's only for good reason and its intended to be for the benefit of the bogey man, since, in my opinion, a more conservative approach by the bogeyman is probably his best offense against most golf courses (given the fact he'll make less "shot losing" mistakes with a conservative approach than if he constantly tries the higher risk ideal angle strategies).

But I don't know your game, if in fact you are thinking of your own game, so its hard to say. My suggestion would be that you simply try both approaches to strategies (high risk all day vs more conservative all day) on a revolving basis and at the end of a year or so you can decide for yourself which approach basically does the best for you.

I certainly know over a period of years I did that and over time decided which basic strategic approach was the best for me in the context of success or failure. Reading courses and trying to figure out how to maximimize (risks vs rewards) your own game on them is fun---and hopefully a golfer ultimately feels all of it has been rewarding too.