Are strategy and options overrated ?

[Andy Hughes]

Most golfers have a pattern to their golf games.
Some patterns are tighter then others
Some golfers have the talent to alter those patterns at will.
Other golfer don't have that talent.....Having said all of that, is a golfer whose game is a high fade, going to suddenly hit a low draw into # 4 at NGLA ?
Conversely, will a golfer who hits a low hook, hit a high fade into # 1 at NGLA ?
Options of play only exist if the golfer can execute either, or all of the choices.  If not, he must play the shot of default, his patterned play within his comfort zone.
When viewing the large schematic of the NGLA golf course it's clear that there are two lines of basic play on most holes.
A scratch golfer, pro or touring pro would never opt for the lines of play or options taken by the 25 handicap.  Those lines are intended for the golfer to shoot bogey golf.

Pat, you're killin' me!
Just when I start to get a slight grasp on things, along comes you!  If I am reading you correctly, then NGLA (and by extension
every course) does not really have a strategic element to it for any golfer.  If there are 'two lines of play' and each line is used by the appropriately skilled player, then there really isn't much in the way of strategy at NGLA, is there? Or did I read you wrong?

Paul Cowley makes the mistake of equating the hitting of a 7-iron versus a 6 or 8-iron with optional routes of play.

But if golf is played in 3 dimensions, then not only horizontal choices in left vs. right need to be made, but also vertical choices in height need also to be made. Now, the number of players who can actually make AND execute those choices may be relatively small, but that doesn't mean the choices don't exist.

[BCrosby]

Andy -

Nice post.

Yes, execution risks and strategic risks are often confused. They are two very different things.

Execution risks are inescapble, unavoidable. Every golfer must deal with that risk on every shot.

Strategic risks are those risks you take on voluntarily. You elect them over safer alternatives because - presumably - there is a payoff on the following shot.

Those two types of risk, the unavoidable and the purely voluntary, are often muddled. And that muddle ends up muddling discussions of strategy.

Bob
 

[DMoriarty]

Pat, I agree with Andy and the others.   You seem to have backed yourself into a corner where no choices really exists for anyone ever.   I'd love to stick around and see how you argue your way out of it, but I have no time today.

Perhaps what you are overlooking is that proper "execution" of any shot is not guaranteed for any golfer of any level?

Good Luck!

[Ted Kramer]

I don't see Pat's arguement as being backed into a corner at all.
Where is the option to play the 17th at Sawgrass with bogey golf in mind?

The way I read Pat's position is really pretty clear. Some holes offer options and some holes don't. Options and strategy are obviously tied to ability. I don't see any contradiction with that idea.

-Ted

[Andy Hughes]

Where is the option to play the 17th at Sawgrass with bogey golf in mind?

Ted, hit the green and 3 putt.
Hit it in the bunker, blast out, 2 putt
Hit it in the pond, take a drop, hit on, 1 putt.
Lots of options to make a 4
 

[DMoriarty]

I don't see Pat's arguement as being backed into a corner at all.

Andy, perhaps I am misunderstanding Pat, but he doesnt seem to leave much room for strategic decision-making with his description of the duffers route vs. the scratch's route at NGLA.   It seems the low-handicappers should play their route and the high-handicappers theirs.   Of course the low handicappers could take the duffer route, but they are low handicappers so they never would.   And high handicappers arent good enough to take the stratch route.    So it is as if there are two optionless courses overlapping, each providing no real meaningful choice for their respective group of golfers.  

Where is the option to play the 17th at Sawgrass with bogey golf in mind?

I've never played the hole so I have no idea.   I've played the PGA West Stadium 17th though I didnt find too many intriguing options there.   But one island green without many ingriguing options is no proof that no par 3s have options.  

Do you think that a true redan presents the golfer with strategic options?  

Options and strategy are obviously tied to ability. I don't see any contradiction with that idea.

I dont see a contradiction either, but if each level of ability only has one realistic route, then where are the options?

[Kyle Harris]

I'll predicate this post with: This site is incredible when you're playing the insomniac at 2AM...

But I digress;

Having caddied for what I believe to be a fairly large sample of golfers, from pros in the BC Open and SEI PA Classic at Waynesboro, and then right on down to the Senior Women's Championship at Lookaway... I think we undervalue luck in this great game of ours.

I can honestly count on two hands the amount of golfers I've met AND played with who can execute shots to the degree necessary for any true strategy of a given hole to be played out.

That being said, architecture is all about accomodating certain misses and punishing certain misses - How many of our draws and fades are actually hooks and slices? (In other words... misses)

For example, today I hit a hook off the first tee at Rolling Green (started at the bunker on the right side of the fairway and plugged in the middle of the fairway). It was not a draw by any stretch of the imagination... I missed the shot, hitting it off the toe. However, that hole is set up such that a hook is accomodated moreso than a slice. A draw gets the job done best, while a fade might find roll into the bunker or rough depending on conditions...

Play into greens is typically more scrutinized, at least in the more well designed holes. But still, we find architects have been designing green complexes to accomodate certain misses and punish others.

Furthermore, this concept of bogey golf to me implies inadequacies in the short game over the long game. However, I will concede the point that correctly playing the long game (i.e. missing correctly) does make the short game a tad bit easier - but, how often have any of you turned a perfectly good hole from tee to green into bogey or worse by a missed putt or read? Missing putts negates any relevancy of strategy on a hole...

So, to what extent does true strategy, which I will define as placing the ball in the ideal location for a preponderance of shots, actually enter the game of the everyday golfer?

Not often.

However, that is not to say that strategy in this sense does not have a very important place in architecture or the game of golf itself. Just that the disparity between execution and strategy is more severe than most people realize when assesing the value of a golf hole.

In my own game, at least, I seek to shrink the distance between execution and strategy, and ultimately, make them one in the same.

[James Bennett]

Its not Pebble Beach 7th, but what about Augusta #12.  Tom Doak described it as a penal hole, requiring a definite shot otherwise incur the penalty.  Nicklaus described the strategy for the Sunday right-hand side pin (the one that really brings the rhs false front and Rae's Creek into play).  Nicklaus's standard Sunday play is to the narrow middle section of the green, with a long or short shot going in the bunker.  He'd rather take that option and get a par, or at worse a bogey rather than risk the double bogey that might come with going for the right hand pin.  Many others went in the water going for the pin.  Some went on to win (eg Sandy Lyle).

Can't comment on the strategy for other pin positions, and the strategy is easier to identify than the TPC #17, whatever that strategy is.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If I am reading you correctly, then NGLA (and by extension
every course) does not really have a strategic element to it for any golfer.

That's a wild extension on your part.
I suspect that you'e not reading me correctly[/color]

If there are 'two lines of play' and each line is used by the appropriately skilled player, then there really isn't much in the way of strategy at NGLA, is there?

You'd have to see the golf course to understand the context in which the statement is made.  Don't mistake the word line, as if it's 1.68 inches in diameter, for the word corridor.[/color]

Or did I read you wrong?

I think so, I think you've narrowed the concept in your mind, by your limited understanding of the actual golf course.[/color]

But if golf is played in 3 dimensions, then not only horizontal choices in left vs. right need to be made, but also vertical choices in height need also to be made. Now, the number of players who can actually make AND execute those choices may be relatively small, but that doesn't mean the choices don't exist.

They only exist in your mind.  If the golfer can't hit the shot, then the option doesn't exist for him.

I think you, and others, fall victim to an esoteric version of golf, overcomplicating play by inserting unworkable theories.

From 120, 140, 160, 180, 200, 220, 240 and 260 how many golfers can control, at will, and under all conditions, the shape of their shot in a horizontal and vertical plane.

When the pin is far left, either at the front or back of the green at # 4 at NGLA, how many golfers can hit the longer, high fade to that position.  On the 130 yard 6th hole, downhill, from the front markers, with a two clublength wind at your back, how many golfers can shape any type of shot ?
And, how many can do it with a variety of clubs ?
And, how many of those that could do it, would elect to do so, rather then hit the shot they feel will be the most successful ?

On # 6, there are no optional lines of play.
You must go from the tee to the green, everything else represents failure.  The same is true at # 7 at Pebble.

Strategy on most par 3's is minimal, especially when the architect has designed a "demand" shot.

If you've every played # 11 at Pacific Dunes into a 2-4 club wind, you'd understand, there are no optional lines of play.[/color]

James Bennett,

I can't imagine Nicklaus aiming for the narrowest part of the green when the hole is located to the right, in the fattest part of the green.  It makes no sense at all.
Are you positive that he declared that as his prefered method of play ?  Do the tapes of his rounds confirm that ?

[James Bennett]

Patrick

yes I do.  Its a strong point that he makes in his video 'the best 18 holes in Major Championship Golf'.  He follows up the point by playing a demonstrarion shot (successfully of course) to the middle of the green, then the video refers back to all of those that chased the lead but fell at the 12th.  Water-boys included Larry Nelson, Ballesteros, Lyle (who went on to win).  The only person shown that went for the pin (in the video) was Crenshaw, who then slotted the 12 foot putt for the birdie and went on to win.

I assume (?remember from the video?) that Nicklaus felt he could lose the event on 12, rather than win it.  The risk/reward balance in his opinion did not warrant playing to the right, because of how the false front extends the water carry to this area.

Thanks for the test Patrick.  One thing I've noticed on this site is 'don't make a claim that you can't back up.  You'll be challenged'.  Hope this helps.

[Patrick_Mucci]

James Bennett,

I didn't mean his commrecial tape, but the tape of his many rounds at ANGC during the Masters.

The waist of that green is so perilous, so fraught with danger that I just can't imagine him playing to such a small target, with such dire consequences should he miss it, rather then playing to the deeper, wider, right side when the hole is cut on the right side.

It defies logic.

[James Bennett]

Patrick

can't help you with his actual course of action.  The reason he commented on the video about this practice was the difficulty in determining the wind in this section of Amen corner.  Apparently (I have not been there) the behaviour of the flags on 11, 12 and the perception of wind on the 12th tee can all be at odds with each other, and the wind could change whilst hitting a shot.  This view was expressed by Jack in the balata-ball days, so I expect wind was a bigger factor then than now.

You don't know how much I wish I could discuss the size of the 12th green with you.   Until I get to Augusta (one day), I'll just have to remain ignorant of how difficult the shot is to the body of the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

James Bennett,

The front bunker isn't as onerous as the rear bunkers, and both sit on the line where the green is at its narrowest, so, again, I'm puzzled by his comments.

I remember a telecast where the hole was in the narrow waist and the announcer indicated that in talking to the players they indicated that theyhprefered to play away from that area to the fatter part of the green, leaving a longer putt, but a far safer approach.

Perhaps those with tapes or videos of the Masters can view Nicklaus's play on that hole over the years.

My curiosity is peaked.

[James Bennett]

Patrick

I will endeavour over the weekend to review the video, and give an edited version of the points Jack makes.  I recall he emphasises how shallow the green is.  This was Jack's middle length par-3.  His 'favourite' short par 3 was Pebble Beach #7, the hole that conceived your thread in the first place.

If you like, I'll include an edited commentary of PB #7 as well.

Can't help with the past Masters, not even 1986!

[Patrick_Mucci]

James,

That would be great, and informative.

[Ted Kramer]

I don't see Pat's arguement as being backed into a corner at all.

Andy, perhaps I am misunderstanding Pat, but he doesnt seem to leave much room for strategic decision-making with his description of the duffers route vs. the scratch's route at NGLA.   It seems the low-handicappers should play their route and the high-handicappers theirs.   Of course the low handicappers could take the duffer route, but they are low handicappers so they never would.   And high handicappers arent good enough to take the stratch route.    So it is as if there are two optionless courses overlapping, each providing no real meaningful choice for their respective group of golfers.  

Where is the option to play the 17th at Sawgrass with bogey golf in mind?

I've never played the hole so I have no idea.   I've played the PGA West Stadium 17th though I didnt find too many intriguing options there.   But one island green without many ingriguing options is no proof that no par 3s have options.  

Do you think that a true redan presents the golfer with strategic options?  

Options and strategy are obviously tied to ability. I don't see any contradiction with that idea.

I dont see a contradiction either, but if each level of ability only has one realistic route, then where are the options?

It seems that you are making this much more difficult than it really is for the sake of arguement. A hole either offers options or it does not . . .that's it, that's the point, some holes offer options for a number of players with varying levels of skill, some do not. And to say that because a scratch player wouldn't choose the duffer's route means that their really isn't an option is an absurd arguement.

And comparing the options of play into a classic redan par 3 to those of an island green is also absurd. Under firm fast condtions you can bounce the ball into the right side of the redan green. You could punch a low running shot into a redan style green while that is obviously not an option with an island green. Come on, don't just argue for the sake of it.

-Ted

[James Bennett]

Patrick

I reviewed the video this morning.  It was produced in 1988, and so should be considered in line with the technology of that era.

The first hole selected was the 107 yard Pebble beach #7.  No discussion of strategy here (in line with your thread!).  Jack commented that a good course has a balance of par 3's, ranging from short (eg PB#7) through mid to long.  he described the tee-shot as inviting, ranging from a 5 iron to a wedge.  His 'favourite short par-3 in Championship golf'.

The second hole selected was Augusta #12 at 155 yards, 'the most dangerous par 3 in Championship golf'.  He commented initially on the wind (remember the era and the balls used).  No wind on the 12th tee, a limp flag on nearby #11 but a full-blown flag on #12, with the tree-tops bending.  A typical play is slightly down-wind, but (according to Jack) when you play the shot, the wind could actually be in to you.  This he attributes to the nature of Amen Corner.

He then proceeded to talk about strategy (yes, in his words, strategy).  He talked about strategy when the pin is right of the bunker.  The green IMO appears to be slightly orientated diagonally to the tee, with the front left closer than the front right. Jack's measurment is 150 yards to carry the front bunker, with a right hand pin playing about 160 yards (I don't know how accurate that is, it doesn't seem like 10 yards in extra length between carrying the front bunker and the right hand pin, perhaps a few yards less.  He emphasised the shallowness of the green - the right hand side was, at most, 11 paces deep, with a sudden drop off to the water.  It is not possible to hold a ball on the rh approach.  From the vision, the middle of the green appears shallower than the rhs (in line with Patrick's comment about how shallow the middle is).  The key thing here, as jack emphasised, is that the green has a lot of room to receive a fade (as played by Jack).  I assume that there is far less room to receive a draw.  

Jack regarded the play to the right as a chance of a 2, and a possible 5.  If he finished to the right of the bunkers line, he has played a poor (albeit effective) shot.  Did Jack ever go in Rae's Creek on #12?

Video footage included Ballesteros going in the drink off the front bank in 1980 (he still won) along with Lyle in 1988 (he also won).  There was also images of woeful shots by Larry Nelson (?1982) and Tom Kite (?1984).  The succesful birdie shown was from Crenshaw who drew a six-iron (sounds improbable these days, a 155-yard hole and a drawn 6-iron!), just carried the front edge by a few feet, then slotted the birdie from 12 feet.

So, IMO from this information, the preferred play on ANGC#12 to a right hand pin depends on whether you can play a fade or generally play a draw.  A fade appears to be a safe option to the middle of the green, whereas as a draw has less chance staying on the green if played to the middle, forcing a play to the right.

Other holes that Jack discussed involving strategy included Augusta #10 (tee shot placement), #13 (obvious, short par 5), #7 (hope I got it right, short par 4) and the Old Course #12 (obvious strategy, dictated by the green and the bunkers), #14 (obvious, long par 5) and #17.

[Andy Hughes]

But if golf is played in 3 dimensions, then not only horizontal choices in left vs. right need to be made, but also vertical choices in height need also to be made. Now, the number of players who can actually make AND execute those choices may be relatively small, but that doesn't mean the choices don't exist.
They only exist in your mind.  If the golfer can't hit the shot, then the option doesn't exist for him.
I think you, and others, fall victim to an esoteric version of golf, overcomplicating play by inserting unworkable theories.
When the pin is far left, either at the front or back of the green at # 4 at NGLA, how many golfers can hit the longer, high fade to that position.  On the 130 yard 6th hole, downhill, from the front markers, with a two clublength wind at your back, how many golfers can shape any type of shot ?
And, how many can do it with a variety of clubs ?
And, how many of those that could do it, would elect to do so, rather then hit the shot they feel will be the most successful ?
If you've every played # 11 at Pacific Dunes into a 2-4 club wind, you'd understand, there are no optional lines of play.

Pat,
I think your entire contention here is flat-out wrong.  Just because a golfer may or may not be able to hit a variety of shots successfully each time has no bearing on whether the option to hit those shots are available.  For example, if I am playing 11 at the Old Course, I may elect to hit a high fade over the bunker, a low hook that lands short and runs up, a high draw that starts right of the trap etc. Now, can I always hit those shots on command? Well, no, but I can sometimes hit all of those shots. And because of that, any of them can be an option for me.
You asked:From 120, 140, 160, 180, 200, 220, 240 and 260 how many golfers can control, at will, and under all conditions, the shape of their shot in a horizontal and vertical plane.
Who knows? I don't, neither do you, but I would wager that the percentage of golfers who have all the shots from every distance and can produce them 'at will' is quite small.  But that isn't the point Pat.  
On #12 at Tobacco Road last year, the pin was back left, and with the terrain and the green, a low running hook was begging to be hit. Can I hit that shot from 120, 140, 160, 180, 200, 220, 240 and 260 at will and under all conditions? Heck no, but I considered it as an option for that particular shot, and I managed to hit a beaut that ran across the green to 6 feet.

You also said:On # 6, there are no optional lines of play.
You must go from the tee to the green, everything else represents failure.  The same is true at # 7 at Pebble.
Strategy on most par 3's is minimal, especially when the architect has designed a "demand" shot.
Yes, I agree that hitting the green may be the only viable option to play the hole well, but there could be a number of ways to get from here to there. I have seen you yourself write about the option of hitting a draw or a fade into the Redan at NGLA, and how someone showed you how the fade was perhaps the better option.  
For #7 at Pebble Beach, there is the choices of height and the choices of curve left/right etc. The fact that my normal shot curves a little left does not mean I do not have the option to hit a fade there, and history of hitting the ball fairly low does not mean I won't choose to hit it a little higher here.  Now, with my game it might not always be prudent to make some of the choices I make....
Andy

[Pat_Mucci]

Pat,
I think your entire contention here is flat-out wrong.
You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how misguided it might be.[/color]  

Just because a golfer may or may not be able to hit a variety of shots successfully each time has no bearing on whether the option to hit those shots are available.

Reread your above quote.  If the golfer is not able to hit a variety of shots, then he has NONE of those options.
OPTIONS are only available IF you can EXECUTE them.
If you can't, NO options exist.[/color]

For example, if I am playing 11 at the Old Course, I may elect to hit a high fade over the bunker, a low hook that lands short and runs up, a high draw that starts right of the trap etc. Now, can I always hit those shots on command? Well, no, but I can sometimes hit all of those shots. And because of that, any of them can be an option for me.
Andy, remind me again, what's your handicap ?
At what golf course is it established ?[/color]

You asked:From 120, 140, 160, 180, 200, 220, 240 and 260 how many golfers can control, at will, and under all conditions, the shape of their shot in a horizontal and vertical plane.
Who knows? I don't, neither do you, but I would wager that the percentage of golfers who have all the shots from every distance and can produce them 'at will' is quite small.  But that isn't the point Pat.

Of course it is.  If you can't execute any of those shots, from any of those distances, then you don't have those shots as options, unless you're into mental masturbation.[/color]
 
On #12 at Tobacco Road last year, the pin was back left, and with the terrain and the green, a low running hook was begging to be hit. Can I hit that shot from 120, 140, 160, 180, 200, 220, 240 and 260 at will and under all conditions? Heck no, but I considered it as an option for that particular shot, and I managed to hit a beaut that ran across the green to 6 feet.

I've never seen Tobacco Road, hence I'm unqualified to comment or evaluate the course or the shots.[/color]

You also said:On # 6, there are no optional lines of play.
You must go from the tee to the green, everything else represents failure.  The same is true at # 7 at Pebble.
Strategy on most par 3's is minimal, especially when the architect has designed a "demand" shot.

Yes, I agree that hitting the green may be the only viable option to play the hole well, but there could be a number of ways to get from here to there. I have seen you yourself write about the option of hitting a draw or a fade into the Redan at NGLA, and how someone showed you how the fade was perhaps the better option.

Eddie Gibstein, who won the Western Amateur and was a Quarter finalist in the US Amateur that year, showed me that shot.  Eddie is both a powerful and an exceptional golfer.

Do you know how many golfers can conceive of both shots ?
Do you know how many golfers can exectute both shots ?[/color]

For #7 at Pebble Beach, there is the choices of height and the choices of curve left/right etc. The fact that my normal shot curves a little left does not mean I do not have the option to hit a fade there, and history of hitting the ball fairly low does not mean I won't choose to hit it a little higher here.  Now, with my game it might not always be prudent to make some of the choices I make....

So when the wind is left to right, you have the ability to draw it back into the wind with a short iron, assuming that you've elected to fight the wind rather then use it ?

What height choices exist on # 7 at Pebble Beach ?
You're hitting from a highly elevated tee.
How many players have you ever seen hit a low liner on that hole ?[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

Just because a golfer may or may not be able to hit a variety of shots successfully each time has no bearing on whether the option to hit those shots are available.
Reread your above quote.  If the golfer is not able to hit a variety of shots, then he has NONE of those options.
OPTIONS are only available IF you can EXECUTE them.
If you can't, NO options exist.

I just reread it, and I still think you are wrong (and missed my point to boot).  I intentionally put in the phrase each time, and I think that's important.  Lots of us can hit a fade or draw on purpose, though our chances of success vary widely.  Conversely, I'd agree with you that someone who can only hit, say, a fade does not truly have the option to hit a draw even if he decides to try. It may be an option in the literal sense but not practically. And maybe that's what you're getting at.

For example, if I am playing 11 at the Old Course, I may elect to hit a high fade over the bunker, a low hook that lands short and runs up, a high draw that starts right of the trap etc. Now, can I always hit those shots on command? Well, no, but I can sometimes hit all of those shots. And because of that, any of them can be an option for me.
Andy, remind me again, what's your handicap ?
At what golf course is it established ?

I do not have an official handicap.  If I had to guess, I'd say it'd be around 6-8

You asked:From 120, 140, 160, 180, 200, 220, 240 and 260 how many golfers can control, at will, and under all conditions, the shape of their shot in a horizontal and vertical plane.
Who knows? I don't, neither do you, but I would wager that the percentage of golfers who have all the shots from every distance and can produce them 'at will' is quite small.  But that isn't the point Pat.
Of course it is.  If you can't execute any of those shots, from any of those distances, then you don't have those shots as options, unless you're into mental masturbation.

It appears to me that you are referring to golfers that can only hit one type of shot from anywhere. For those golfers, I agree, there are no real options. They must go with the one shot that they have.  But I don't believe that is everyone. I think a number of us can at least have a chance of some variety of shotmaking, certainly moreso from 120, 140, 160, and 180 then from 200, 220, 240 and 260.
Also, your emphasis earlier was on a player's ability to control his shot in all conditons from all distances, rather than having that ability for some shots from some distances. That is different, no?
 

Yes, I agree that hitting the green may be the only viable option to play the hole well, but there could be a number of ways to get from here to there. I have seen you yourself write about the option of hitting a draw or a fade into the Redan at NGLA, and how someone showed you how the fade was perhaps the better option.
Eddie Gibstein, who won the Western Amateur and was a Quarter finalist in the US Amateur that year, showed me that shot.  Eddie is both a powerful and an exceptional golfer.
Do you know how many golfers can conceive of both shots ?
Do you know how many golfers can exectute both shots ?

I was not doubting the playing ability of whoever showed you the variety of shots available on that hole.
How many can conceive of hitting a draw or a fade? I do not know an actual number, but I would surmise many could at least conceive of it.
How many could execute both shots? Again, I do not know an actual number, but its much smaller.  But I am quite sure you do not need to be a Western Am champ to have the ability to hit a fade and a draw.

For #7 at Pebble Beach, there is the choices of height and the choices of curve left/right etc. The fact that my normal shot curves a little left does not mean I do not have the option to hit a fade there, and history of hitting the ball fairly low does not mean I won't choose to hit it a little higher here.  Now, with my game it might not always be prudent to make some of the choices I make....
So when the wind is left to right, you have the ability to draw it back into the wind with a short iron, assuming that you've elected to fight the wind rather then use it ?
What height choices exist on # 7 at Pebble Beach ?
You're hitting from a highly elevated tee.
How many players have you ever seen hit a low liner on that hole ?

Last question first---I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone play that hole (i've never been there), so I guess the answer is 0.  Yes, the tee may be elevated, but that does not mean that there can't be a variety of vertical choices made.  There must still be a wide range of heights a decent player could hit.

[Michael Moore]

From 120, 140, 160, 180, 200, 220, 240 and 260 how many golfers can control, at will, and under all conditions, the shape of their shot in a horizontal and vertical plane?

[Pat_Mucci]

Andy Hughes,

Let me see if I understand you.

You've never been to Pebble Beach and you've never seen the 7th hole and you've never played the 7th hole, BUT, you're offering your opinion on how to play the seventh hole in a variety of ways.  Is that correct ?

Let me ask you another question, how many golfers, when confronted with an unusual or difficult shot are willing to go outside their comfort zone and select a shot that they are unfamiliar with in an attempt to play the hole in a manner that differs from their normal game ?

On  # 4 at NGLA, how many golfers are going to hit a high fade to the left, with a carry 30-50 yards longer then a straight or drawn ball to the right, in order to get to a back left pin position ?

You estimate that you're a 6-8 handicap, but, what would that handicap equate to under pressure ?

And, under pressure, are you going to play the game you're familiar with, your game, or jerk yourself around and attempt to play a phantom game that a seasoned or tournament tough zero or plus handicap would play ?

I suspect that you're fantasizing or engaging in MM.

Reality differs from your imagination on how to play golf holes.

 

[Mike_Young]

I'm with Pat M here.  All this talk of curving the ball here and fading there etc say alot.
Good players don't try all that stuff....they prepare for the miss and in most cases will not go looking for trouble.  And because today they do play in this way and at most times in the air maybe some strategies and options are overated.
Some of this discussion is like playing those video golf games.  I am sure there will be someone on this site that can beat everyone on the PGA Tour at video golf but..........

[Pat_Mucci]

Mike,

I don't think that architects have a single golfer in mind when they forge their tactical challenge, rather, they have the wide variety of golfers in mind.  Hookers, Slicers, high ball hitters, low ball hitters, long hitters, short hitters, etc., etc..

Andy Hughes would have one believe that each golfer, almost irrespective of their handicap, possesses the talent to shape a variety of shots in a variety of ways.  I think that nothing could be further from the truth.

As such, I think the strategic path chosen by each golfer is almost preordained, until he contacts the golf ball.

The example I gave at NGLA is a perfect example.

A zero handicap isn't going to hit his drive in the fairway at
# 3, then hit his second up the narrow right side of the fairway, leaving him with a 40-80 yard Sand/Lob wedge up to the elevated green.

CBM forged tactical challenges that each golfer can elect.
In some cases, golfers will "test" their metal by accepting a challenge that might be considered beyond their level of execution, and therein lies the beauty of the game.  The striving to hit a shot that is at the boundary of our abilities.

It is the joy in the successful execution rather then the dismay over the failed attempt that intriques us, and brings us back time and again to test our abilities.  And, perhaps, that is the architects objective and challenge.

While more options may be open to the "highly skilled" player, they too are preordained to take that route with the lowest margin of error, in most situations.  One only has to watch the greatest players in the world, the PGA Tour player, work their way around a golf course to understand that "strategy" and "options" should be viewed in the context of many golfers rather then just one golfer, playing by and with himself.

[Andy Hughes]

Andy Hughes would have one believe that each golfer, almost irrespective of their handicap, possesses the talent to shape a variety of shots in a variety of ways.  I think that nothing could be further from the truth.

Pat, actually, there is at least one thing further from the truth, and its what you wrote above
If I felt that each and every golfer could hit a variety of shots in a variety of ways, I would have said so.  Instead, what I said was:
It appears to me that you are referring to golfers that can only hit one type of shot from anywhere. For those golfers, I agree, there are no real options. They must go with the one shot that they have.  But I don't believe that is everyone.
And I also said:
Conversely, I'd agree with you that someone who can only hit, say, a fade does not truly have the option to hit a draw even if he decides to try. It may be an option in the literal sense but not practically.
So, clearly I do not believe that all golfers can do so.  

Let me ask you a few questions to help me uderstand your thought process.  When you play NGLA, do you always play the same shot each time every time you play each hole?  Have you ever hit a fade into the Redan?  What's your normal shot shape? What's your handicap?  Do you ever adjust the height of any shots there when the wind is blowing?