Two types of strategy...

[Philippe Binette]

After all the discussion on GCA, it seems to me that there is two types of strategy in golf.

First, the direct strategy, which most architects use by definition. Direct strategy is about clearly identifiable  obstacles (bunkers streams, lakes...) that players have to avoid on a given hole. All the risk and reward and options is mostly based on that.

Then, there's subtle strategy. It's more about elements that players have to think about but that they can't really identify precisely. In that, i'll include slope, green contours, visual perception. Those elements are a lot more difficult to understand and design and some of them are not even thought by the architect.

Direct strategy makes you appreciate a course at first glance, subtle strategy makes you appreciate a course over and over...

In that regard, good architecture is about having a good combinaison of subtle strategy and direct strategy... And what most courses lack is subtle strategy.

What do you think?

[TEPaul]

"Then, there's subtle strategy. It's more about elements that players have to think about but that they can't really identify precisely. In that, i'll include slope, green contours, visual perception. Those elements are a lot more difficult to understand and design and some of them are not even thought by the architect."

Phillipe:

I know quite a few architects but thankfully I haven't met one yet who actually did not think about slope, green contour or even the visual perceptions of golfers.  

[Philippe Binette]

I agree that every architect think about slope and green contour but not every body is building greens and front of greens (especially) that would really influence your thought process from 160 yards out or off the tee.  

A lot of course I played is just about a green with bunkers around them (direct strategy) and some contours but you don't feel like you have to play a certain trajectory to go at the flag, or to hit a specific side of the fairway to gain an advantage.

Think about the 15th at Garden City, that's subtle strategy, at first glance , you can't detect the real obstacle on the approach (the 3% tilt left to right)... you have to play it, understand it and than built a strategy around that...

A lot of course, they built a nice green (no real relation to the hole) and built nice bunkers around it.

[TEPaul]

"Think about the 15th at Garden City, that's subtle strategy, at first glance , you can't detect the real obstacle on the approach (the 3% tilt left to right)... you have to play it, understand it and than built a strategy around that..."

Philippe:

That's an excellent example of a simple and subtle architectural feature that has a big influence on proper strategy off the tee and in the approach.

[George Pazin]

Simple yet wise points that most miss, Philippe.

Subtle courses will always be underappreciated, as it takes many plays to reveal their depth, whereas direct obvious strategy always appeals to the egos of golfers.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

One person's "subtle strategy" is another person's "tricked up".

[Ian Andrew]

I like where your going with this

After all the discussion on GCA, it seems to me that there is two types of strategy in golf.

First, the direct strategy, which most architects use by definition. Direct strategy is about clearly identifiable  obstacles (bunkers streams, lakes...) that players have to avoid on a given hole. All the risk and reward and options is mostly based on that.

This also involves providing a clear target that is receptive to the shot. I also think you could label this comfort architecture.....or even (dare I say) modern architecture  

Then, there's subtle strategy. It's more about elements that players have to think about but that they can't really identify precisely. In that, i'll include slope, green contours, visual perception. Those elements are a lot more difficult to understand and design and some of them are not even thought by the architect.

As Tom alluded to, it even includes some holes that just remain unclear through multiple playings. My favourites. I don't think that can be manufactured....it just happens to be in the ground

Direct strategy makes you appreciate a course at first glance, subtle strategy makes you appreciate a course over and over...

direct is comfortable to see and play, and easier to deliver....just move the earth

In that regard, good architecture is about having a good combinaison of subtle strategy and direct strategy... And what most courses lack is subtle strategy.

What do you think?

Your right what modern architecture lacks is both types. They usual grade out the subtle architecture trying to create the appropriate reward for the manufactured element of risk. My two cents.

[Mark_F]

Phillippe,

Do most golfers want subtle strategy though?

I've lost count of how many good players I've had a round with who constantly look for yardage markers, for instance - surely something I would have said was anathema to subtle strategy.

Or if they want it, will they ever really appreciate it.

We live in a world of instant gratification.  Nobody wants to bother to take the time to understand the intricacies and idiosyncracies of a golf course.

Especially good players.  

[ForkaB]

Below is a quote which might add something to this discussion.  I'll mention the author and the context later, when I have more time.

"In strategy the longest way round is often the shortest way there; a direct approach to the object exhausts the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, whereas an indirect approach loosens the defender's hold by upsetting his balance."

[Philippe Binette]

I think most golfers don't think about subtle strategy, let's put it that way, if your can't break a 100, your only strategy is hit the ball as good as you can then to avoid lakes, bunkers etc...

But if the same players keeps getting better, he'll start to understand more relevant stuff on the course, he'll start digging deeper into the strategy of the course.

I'll mention that for example, put Tiger Woods and Bill Waboe (a player who plays 95 on a good day) on the 14th fairway at Augusta at around 150 yards.

Bill Waboe looks at the hole and thinks, no bunkers or lakes, all fairway (before Fazio) and the pin is on the right side of the green, easy shot, just a smooth 6-iron.

Then Tiger from the same spot is thinking, OK the false front is a big problem, 146 to carry it, plus I must hit a shot with not a lot of spin, then at the hole there a left to right slope, I could also use the back stop long and left and bring the ball back... short and right is bogey, not a simple shot but an 8-iron soft cut will get the job done...

Of course Bill will be short right and make double but the point is, he was just thinking to hit the ball...

Subtle strategy is mainly for players who control their game, could be a 65 year old guy who hits the ball 150 in the air... as long as you know what you are doing... A course with Subtle strategy will force you to improve.

[Tom_Doak]

Chess, Rich?  Or Tae Kwon Do?

Philippe's point about controlling the trajectory of the approach shot is not just subtle, but sophisticated.  Great courses are designed in three dimensions, not just in plan view.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"Then, there's subtle strategy. It's more about elements that players have to think about but that they can't really identify precisely. In that, i'll include slope, green contours, visual perception. Those elements are a lot more difficult to understand and design and some of them are not even thought by the architect."

Good players think more in terms of how the green contours will affect their shot than the obvious hazards.  You wouldn't last long in competitive golf thinking about how you were going to miss targets and hit hazards. You need to be thinking about postive ways to attack the course using every tool at your disposal., including the slopes of the greens and fairways to get your shot where it needs to go.

I use and see more and more of greens contours being the primary design tool.  Whether its kick in banks, edge rolls on the greens to help funnel the ball to the hole, cross slope for the same, or some areas of the green having reverse slope for more difficulty, I think thats where its at today in design.

[Philippe Binette]

Jeff: ''Good players think more in terms of how the green contours will affect their shot than the obvious hazards''...

It depends on the course, there's a bunch of course (even on Tour) where there's not much you can do using slopes... and those courses are only about obvious hazard, then golf becomes a matter of yardage and alignment...

Courses that really inspires me are those where you can think of many shot options because you can feel them, not only a yardage.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Philipe,

I once analyzed how much strategy of any kind could affect score, as compared to hitting the shots to the target.  I think it would be less than a stroke a round on average, and certainly less than two strokes for good players.  Skill has always been the cornerstone of golf, with strategy second, no?

No question the game continues to move towards precise alignment and yardage.  I suspect many players would like to eliminate wind to get rid of one more "unknown variable."

That is why many of my recent designs do use green contours, and to a lesser extent fw contours to allow different types of shots.  Now, most players will probably hit the high soft one, unless under some trees.  I have a collection of power tools that I hope to NEVER have to use again, but keep around only for use in a dire emergency.  In both cases, its always nice to know those options are there, IF YOU REALLY NEED IT.

[ForkaB]

Chess, Rich?  Or Tae Kwon Do?

Philippe's point about controlling the trajectory of the approach shot is not just subtle, but sophisticated.  Great courses are designed in three dimensions, not just in plan view.

Not chess or tae kwan do, although relevant to them too (probably more than (or at least in a different way to) GCA, as a matter of fact).

Not that I was asked, but I'm not so sure about what's new about your (and Phillipe's?) point.  All golf play (and design) is in three dimensions, and always has been, too.  No?

[Philippe Binette]

There's nothing new with my point... could call that a synthesis (or at least a portion of a)

[George Pazin]

I once analyzed how much strategy of any kind could affect score, as compared to hitting the shots to the target.  I think it would be less than a stroke a round on average, and certainly less than two strokes for good players.

This could be the difference between a Hall of Fame golfer and someone who can't keep his card. I certainly wouldn't scoff at strategy just because you might feel it's worth less than two strokes a round for good players.

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

I am not scoffing at it. I also took the time to figure the difference in a one or two stroke average, and it could mean over $300,000 a year to an average touring pro, nothing to sneeze at!

[Jim Thompson]

Great courses are designed in three dimensions, not just in plan view.

This may very well be the best obvious post of the year.  Zen like in its simplicity, it reveals the shortfall of most poor designs and the short comings of "modern design".

Rich,

It seems to me the third dimension of elevation is extremely overused relative to teeing grounds and sadly underused in strategic through the green areas.

Cheers!

JT

[Tony_Muldoon]

Below is a quote which might add something to this discussion.  I'll mention the author and the context later, when I have more time.

"In strategy the longest way round is often the shortest way there; a direct approach to the object exhausts the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, whereas an indirect approach loosens the defender's hold by upsetting his balance."

Do I get a free drink for identifying the author? Basil Liddell Hart?

Are you going to tell us he was an acquaintance of MacKenzie in the WWW1 military?

Have the modern pro's made this quote obsolete?  Drive and pitch against courses which don't have sufficient resistance?

Can you think of any great holes where this quote still applies?

Questions, questions, questions???

[ForkaB]

Yes, Tony, you are correctomundo!  BH L-H, famous military strategy historian/theoretician.  Prime developer of the theory of "indirect" strategy--an obvious response to the lessons of WWI.  I owe you yet another pint next time we meet....

Doubt if he knew Mackenzie or vice versa.

I'll post later on what intrigued me about the quote once I get some more time (and remember what I was going to say!).

[Tony_Muldoon]

 I owe you yet another pint next time we meet....

It may be best if I pass on the pint as i'm having trouble recalling the last time we met

[Tom Huckaby]

Can you think of any great holes where this quote still applies?

It's late over there.  Rich is obviously "in his cups".  So while I bow and defer to him on all things strategy - it is part of his life's work, after all - well I think I can give a layman's answer to this question.

Cypress Point #16.  The direct approach most often yields the higher score - thus offers the most restistance, per the great quote.  The indirect way is the way to a lower score more times than not, for most golfers.

It's just no damn fun to play it that way.

 

[David Druzisky]

Though the diffrences between and definitions of both direct and subtle strategy may seem obvious, as you say the use of both together effectively can not be overlooked as an important dynamic of a successful design.  Great subtle strategy is where I think we can design courses that interest the better and aware golfers without over penalizing the average golfer.  The common golfer can just go about his or er round tryng to hit the best individual golf shots in the direction of the flag with some ovious things to overcome on the way, while the better players know they need to pick up on the subtle stuff if they want to better par.

Great subtle strategy takes a real focus of attention to details by the architect in the field.  Not all efforts have that kind of attention and things just end up as arbitrary forms and shapes that abuse the third dimension possibilies and that make everyone frustrated as they encounter it.

He can correct me if I am speaking out of turn but with his post about the third dimension I think Tom is pointing out that no, not all get the third dimension aspect of design to the level that others do.  Many of us get a little dissapointed in the set up of the US Open (over and over again on GCA).  Is not a lot of that related to a lack of focus on the third dimension and its associated subtleties?  Plan view golf.  Or are those guys just too darn good to worry about subtleties?
 
DbD

[Tony_Muldoon]

I know I said on another thread I was going to stop posting but hopefully this makes sense (PS Tom Rich would not be the only one and Cypress 16th (a hole I've never seen) was the only one in my mind d when I asked that.)

I'm now also thinking of the open at Royal St Georges a couple of years ago. I've seen the ground and some of the holes but not played it but there were a couple of holes with a hump backed fairway where several pro's said things like " it's wrong that a perfectly good drive can take a wrong bounce and end up in the rough".  Was it a lottery where the ball ended up or did they just not pay enough respect to the lay of the land and in pressing took the longer route home?