Anti-Strategy

[Ryan Crago]

In the "Fazio Worst Holes" thread, Mike Cirba says this:  

Conversely, playing away from trouble on the drive leaves a relatively open approach.  It's the home of anti-strategy, IMHO.  

This reminded me of a conversation I overheard on a site tour with an architect (not Faz) who was quite proud of his clever "anti-strategy" of a particular hole.  The hole was exactly as Mike described: the player rewarded with the superior angle of approach with a less agressive play (read: not challenging the hazard) off the tee.

Is anti-strategy legitimate strategy?  Is it perverse reserve psychology?  Wouldn't it only work the first time you play a hole?


EDIT:  After posting, I see this has been discussed some before (2002?)... but maybe we want to talk about it again? its not like Michelle Wie doesn't get rehashed over and over and...

if not, we can have Ran delete the thread.

[Eric Franzen]

This bascially sounds very similar to penal strategy in the end. There is no actual element of temptation involved and it only results in making the player staying away from the hazard.

[Kyle Harris]

In the "Fazio Worst Holes" thread, Mike Cirba says this:  

Conversely, playing away from trouble on the drive leaves a relatively open approach.  It's the home of anti-strategy, IMHO.  

This reminded me of a conversation I overheard on a site tour with an architect (not Faz) who was quite proud of his clever "anti-strategy" of a particular hole.  The hole was exactly as Mike described: the player rewarded with the superior angle of approach with a less agressive play (read: not challenging the hazard) off the tee.

Is anti-strategy legitimate strategy?  Is it perverse reserve psychology?  Wouldn't it only work the first time you play a hole?


EDIT:  After posting, I see this has been discussed some before (2002?)... but maybe we want to talk about it again? its not like Michelle Wie doesn't get rehashed over and over and...

if not, we can have Ran delete the thread.

Ryan,

Of course it's a legitimate strategy. I think the best example of this that I have seen of late (and will see again this Friday) is the 11th hole at Lederach.

Coincidentally, this hole is getting PANNED by some of the cognescenti on this site but it serves as a great example as to how overthinking and analyzing a hole based on traditional strategic marit will make the golfer think way too much and probably gummy up playing the hole.

Throw a wrench in the works every now and then, I say.

By the way, by my good friend Cirba's definitiion - several holes at Rolling Green (the 15th comes to mind) go in the "anti-strategy" camp.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ryan,

It has its place.  Pete Dye now often uses both fw and green hazards on the same side (usually inside of dl) to make long par 4's play longer.  You play less aggressively but have a longer but more open shot, which is probably an equal option, or is it, on a 490 yard par 4?

[BCrosby]

Agreed it has it's place. But it shouldn't be a theory around which one builds a career in gca.

To clarify a comment posted above, it is not the same thing as penal design. On penal courses the function of hazards is to penalize missed shots. The only real question on such courses is what you think ought to count as a missed shot. A kind of retributive justice is at the heart of things. You mess up, you pay. That's not anti-strategy.

What is "anti" in anti-strategy is that the function of hazards is to steer you away from them and towards the best approach to the green. Hazards function as warning signs that say "don't go here, go away from me and you will better off."

On strategic courses hazards have the opposite function. They entice you to play towards them in order to obtain the best angle for the next shot. Hazards are sirens (as in the sirens in Homer's Odyssey).

Or, using the Coore/TEP vocabulary, the measure of a good course is the extent to which its hazards effectively tempt players.

Bob

[Eric Franzen]

Bob,

Many thanks for clarifying.
I love to learn!

[Mike_Cirba]

It's a nice "fool me once" change of pace, but gets awfully numbing when repeated multiple times on the same course, and loses it's lustre with repeated plays.

[Chris_Clouser]

I was able to play with some folks a year or so ago that showed me exactly what the merits are to "anti-strategy" as we like to call it.  

What has happened over the last few years with advancements in technology, and that is clearly what we are talking about with these guys, is that they can occasionally pull off shots that their skills don't allow for.  Simply from the technology in their hands.  Such as stopping a ball on a dime with a five-iron, while still being a bogey golfer.  So keep that in mind while I detail out what I saw.

I'll use a dogleg hole with a bunker at the corner of the fairway and one on the same side at the green as an example.  What always happened was that these guys would try to clear the hazards on every shot because it was the shortest way around a hole.  If they cleared the hazard it setup a shorter shot, albeit not the preferred angle into the green.  They felt having a club or two less into the green was worth it if they had to clear the bunker fronting that side.  What the anti-strategy does is it basically creates two holes in one.  One that lacks any true barrier in the pathway of the player and one that provides the opportunity for two heroic shots.  

So after one round it became so clear as to the appeal of many of Fazio's courses.  They lack the standard strategic aspects of the legends of gca, but have a different style of strategy that appeals to two distinct and different crowds.  The average guy that plays a hand full of times a year is more apt to go for the gusto on every shot, because what does he have to lose but balls.  He only plays the game a few times a year and this type of golf increases his enjoyment by challenging him.  So he either can walk off with a great round or an incredibly high score but he has hours of conversation afterwards because of all the excellent or awful shots and chances for recovery.  Then you have the guys that just want to bunt the ball around and have not trouble and they will probably beat the other guy 9 times out of 10 because they keep it out of the trouble and don't have to worry about it nearly as much as their avenue to the green is clear and helps their score and handicap.  So both of these "customers" are happy.  

I know people that fit in both of these categories, so I know this "market" exists and is looking for this type of golf.  So there is a method to the madness of anti-strategy and it does appeal to a lot of people.  But to be honest the people I know like this have never played anything on the level of some of the great courses like Crystal Downs, Merion or the National.  So they don't know how good that type of architecture is.  But they do get Golf Digest and see how pretty the courses are and how maintenance and all of the extras are viewed as positives.

I don't care for that style nearly as much, but every once in a while I could do it.    

[Jeff_Brauer]

Someone had the balls to post something like "IMHO, bunkers should guide you around the course" here last week.  Not a popular idea with most of this group, but not uncommon as a view point!

Another good use of the inside-inside bunker theory (in addition to the above mentioned long par 4, for those of you with short memory spans) is when a hole plays fairly reliably in a cross wind.  Then, it sets up a controlled draw or fade strategy on both shots, rather than draw-fade pattern seen at Pinehurst.  Perhaps a hole coming back the opposite direction to reward the other shot pattern is desireable, but in four shots, there would be two set up for fades and two set up for draws, just in a different order.

Two other points - If there is a hazard on a tee shot, the typical thing is to aim away from it and curve back toward it.  So, why wouldn't hitting near the hazard on the inside-inside hole to allow oneself to play to the far side of the green with a curve back to the middle not be a strategy - and a good one at that?  

Why do some of us hold on to the "frontal opening" as the be all, end all of strategy when it really isn't as strong as shot pattern any more?  Hasn't that boat sailed, (but maybe still not too far from the harbor for some) and perhaps Fazio recognizes it and designs for todays players, not some guys who played in 1930?  For that matter, the "shot pattern" theory of design is at least pulling up anchor right now....

Lastly, for good players, its not really the bunkers that set the strategy - or at least attack strategy - its the green contours.  Any explanation of an anti-strategy hole (or a strategy hole) should really tell me what the basic slope of the green is (up slope pointing left or right side of fw) and any detail contours, like ridges coming in from the edges, false fronts, etc. that affect a shot getting close to the pin and affect a recovery from the greenside area that is not the bunker (where the highest spin and control can be achieved).

[Jason Topp]

I actually like some holes with a downside to an agressive play off the tee.  The choice between a shorter approach and a better angle is one that the best answer varies from day to day.  It also counters, rather than double rewards distance off the tee.

A couple of examples:

At our course, we have one, inside corner, same side greenside bunker, dogleg left hole.  When the pin is tucked left, a safe approach to the right side of the green leaves a very difficult putt over a spine to the left side of the green.  Off the tee, an agressive tee shot leaves 100-130 yards over the greenside bunker.  From the wide side, one is left with a 160 yard shot that does not carry the bunker.  With variations in my game, my attack plan varies quite a bit day to day both off the tee and into the green.    

Playing a few days on a Florida course with many angled water hazards to carry, a friend who hits it 30 yards farther than me had an advantage that sometimes was 100 yards for approach shots on par fours because he both hit it farther and he could take a more agressive angle off the tee.  Making the green open up from the wide side counters that advantage a little and provides some incentive for a less agressive line off the tee in order to get the angle to the green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Of course, its also possible to do an outside-outside bunker pattern, which has very little strategic value. However, I have done it on first holes, which gently dogleg right to speed play and look good from the clubhouse.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ryan,

Of course it's a legitimate strategy. I think the best example of this that I have seen of late (and will see again this Friday) is the 11th hole at Lederach.

Coincidentally, this hole is getting PANNED by some of the cognescenti on this site but it serves as a great example as to how overthinking and analyzing a hole based on traditional strategic marit will make the golfer think way too much and probably gummy up playing the hole.

Throw a wrench in the works every now and then, I say.

Kyle,

For once, we disagree.  It must be that Florida water.  

The 11th at Lederach isn't "anti-strategy".  

If you play way left completely away from trouble, you are left with a very long 200+, possibly blind approach shot to a green falling away from you.

If you instead challenge the fairway bunker, and successfully place it up there alongside (without going too far up the hill), your approach becomes more reasonable at around 165 and you can see where you're going.  

If you try to blow it to the right of the fairway bunker, and try to carry the water, and try to land on that wee bit stretch of fairway (is there such a thing as a "sucker fairway"?), in trying to give yourself an approach of 100 yards or less, then you will die a horrible death 99 of 100 times, if not more.  

At no point does a successful challenge of a hazard yield a more difficult next shot.

At no point does giving a hazard wide berth result in an advantage.

Those seem to me to be the two tenets of "Anti-Strategy", and the 11th at Lederach fails on both accounts.

Thank God.  

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

I'm still not buyin' this inside/inside thing. As a change of pace, maybe. But not as a design principle. Two thoughts:

First, if an outside/outside scheme is problematical, an inside/inside scheme ought to be problematical too, for similar reasons.

Second, if you curve the ball at the hazard, then inside/inside will call for the same curve on consecutive shots. Not an ideal way to give a course interest, imho.  Especially when a traditional strategic configuration could be built for the same price.

But I don't think that is how people deal with inside/inside holes. An inside/inside design is more likely to induce a player to play the dogleg along the outside of the hole (the long way), away from both bunkers. (I'll give up some extra yards for the approach to gain a clear view of the green.) Which is to say - ironically - he is most likely to play the hole anti-strategically. (And as you know, that idea has already been copyrighted. )

On your other point: I think green openings do matter for most golfers. At least in my experience there is a distinct preference to approaching through an openning. Bunkers and line of sight are a real worry for average golfers. It's true, of course, that for pros neither matters much at all. But they are a category unto themselves.

Agreed about contours. They are a very important consideration as to the "best" angle to apporach from. I did not mean to suggest otherwise. They are probably the issue that matters most to the pros.

Bob

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob,

I agree an open front gives average players comfort and better players the option to club down between clubs to have a better chance at an uphill putt.

As I explained, if holes are designed together, its possible to have similar numbers of each shots over two holes.  Good players prefer a shot to set up with the wind, rather than to force a shot over a bunker just to have a different shot pattern.

BTW, you can not play anti-strategically, you can only think that way, IMHO.  And, electing to play the long way after thinking of the ramifications is a strategy in itself.  

Having two more or less equal options is as good (in proportion) as having only one option to have a good chance to reach the green, no?  If playing for par, and the long way also yields a long shot with a forced greenside bunker carry, many would argue that its not really strategy - its a forced bogey for the meek.

Unlike you, I think the inside-inside strategy is much stronger than the outside-outside simply because of the "line of charm", where golfers want to go the straightest line.  The O-O bunkers don't get in their way at all, in any fashion.  Like you, I think the inside-inside strategy is not the be all end all and should be used 1-4 times max in a design.  That's why I gave examples of hole types where I would be most likely to use it.  

[Tags:]

Tags: