Who said you should be rewarded for just missing a hazard..

[John Kavanaugh]

I think it is hilarious that I spent 35 years trying to hit it away from bunkers and water and now find out that I was all wrong.  Is this really true or just a bunch of intellectual gobble-tee-gook..Examples please.

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

It's a concept almost as old as the hills.

I was just looking at the USGA online archives and they had a picture of the 4th hole (now the 7th) at Merion in 1916 where they describe that the only way to get a good angle into the green and shoot down it lengthwise is to position the drive as near as possible to OB on the right.

[John Kavanaugh]

Oh, 1916..good example.

[Ted Kramer]

#11 Lido.
If you are ever on Long Island let me know and I'll call the guys who work there and they can show you around.

The green is pretty skinny and angled from front right to back left with a big bunker along the left side of the green. An approach from the right side of the fairway is MUCH peffered because you don't have to deal with the bunker and hitting into the green lengthwise is much easier than trying to hit it widthwise.

There are 2 fairway bunkers along the right side side of the fairway. If you challenge those bunkers and play up the right side, you're in good shape for your approach. If you play away from them, you have a tougher approach.

-Ted

[Joe Hancock]

John,

I think the route by which one chooses to maneuver around the course is ultimately dictated by the shotmaking ability, or skill sets the each golfer individually possess. For example, I am quite good outside of 100 yards, but inside 60 yards and my chances of scoring well diminish. Or, I am not so accurate of a sand player, but not too bad with run ups on short grass approaches, which are a better bet for me. I suck at flop shots.......you get the picture.

Having said that, there are things that will get every game in trouble. Water, deep fairway bunkers, trees are less dicriminatory as to skill level when encountered.

Joe

[John Kavanaugh]

Ted,

If being in the bunker is better than being on the other side of the fairway I'm not sure the bunkers are actual hazards...from what you have said about the green orientation it is an easy bunker shot.  Who cares if you aim at a bunker you don't mind entering.

[Ted Kramer]

I think it is hilarious that I spent 35 years trying to hit it away from bunkers and water and now find out that I was all wrong.  Is this really true or just a bunch of intellectual gobble-tee-gook..Examples please.

John,

I'm not trying to be out of line here . . .
Have you really never encountered this before?
This doesn't seem like the toughest thing to find an example of.
Isn't this a very basic idea?
I seem to find these scenarios all over the place and I'm certainly no GCA guru.

-Ted

[Ted Kramer]

Ted,

If being in the bunker is better than being on the other side of the fairway I'm not sure the bunkers are actual hazards...from what you have said about the green orientation it is an easy bunker shot.  Who cares if you aim at a bunker you don't mind entering.

I don't like being in those bunkers.
No 150 yard bunker shot is easy for me.

-Ted

[John Kavanaugh]

Joe,

If a bunker is a one shot penalty and a poor angle is a one quarter shot penalty I will take the poor angle everytime.

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

How long have you been playing that Fazio course?  

Sorry...couldn't resist.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think it is hilarious that I spent 35 years trying to hit it away from bunkers and water and now find out that I was all wrong.  Is this really true or just a bunch of intellectual gobble-tee-gook..Examples please.

John,

I'm not trying to be out of line here . . .
Have you really never encountered this before?
This doesn't seem like the toughest thing to find an example of.
Isn't this a very basic idea?
I seem to find these scenarios all over the place and I'm certainly no GCA guru.

-Ted

Ted,

I think the most obvious example is hugging Ray's (who says architecture can't be funny) Creek at ANGC on number 13 setting up an easier shot to go for the green in two.  How many people who understand shot value better than anyone in the world do you see down there unless by accident.

[Ted Kramer]

I think it is hilarious that I spent 35 years trying to hit it away from bunkers and water and now find out that I was all wrong.  Is this really true or just a bunch of intellectual gobble-tee-gook..Examples please.

John,

I'm not trying to be out of line here . . .
Have you really never encountered this before?
This doesn't seem like the toughest thing to find an example of.
Isn't this a very basic idea?
I seem to find these scenarios all over the place and I'm certainly no GCA guru.

-Ted

Ted,

I think the most obvious example is hugging Ray's (who says architecture can't be funny) Creek at ANGC on number 13 setting up an easier shot to go for the green in two.  How many people who understand shot value better than anyone in the world do you see down there unless by accident.

If that is the "most obvious example" but nobody does it unless it is "by accident" then one of two things must be true . . .

1. The whole idea/notion is complete bullshit.
2. Your "most obvious example" isn't a very good one.

I tend to think that the idea of testing hazards to gain and advantage has plenty of merit. I'm going with choice #2.

-Ted

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

How long have you been playing that Fazio course?  

Sorry...couldn't resist.

Mike,

The Fazio fairway bunkers I am familiar with are pretty much all one stroke hazards...When Tiger won the Open at TOC do you believe he aimed at many bunkers and just missed or did he beat up that course and the field by playing away from them...I can't think of a better (or older) example than St. Andrews to prove my point.

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

The 13th example doesn't work anymore because with technology, it's no longer necessary to hug the creek to get in position to reach in two shots.  

Heck, guys even go for it now from the pine needles way over on the right.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

The 13th example doesn't work anymore because with technology

Ding, ding, ding, ding...end of thread.

[Joe Hancock]

John,

The 13th example doesn't work anymore because with technology

Ding, ding, ding, ding...end of thread.

John,

Do you actually execute every shot perfectly, even with todays technology?

Joe

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

Who are you talking about, the pros?   Yes, I would agree that for the top .00001% of the people who play the game, equipment run amok has negated a good bit of the strategy.  

For the rest of us, there's plenty.

[John Kavanaugh]

Joe,

Not at all, I just try to minimize my mistakes and maybe get lucky along the way with a shot that gives me a chance for a birdie now and then.  I see hazards as either one or two shot penalties...I am searching for an example anywhere in the world of golf where a poor angle is as penal as finding a hazard.  Sure, there are bunkers I aim for given the hazards on the other side are even worse...but I don't believe that is the gist of the theory.

[Mike_Cirba]

Joe,

Not at all, I just try to minimize my mistakes and maybe get lucky along the way with a shot that gives me a chance for a birdie now and then.  I see hazards as either one or two shot penalties...I am searching for an example anywhere in the world of golf where a poor angle is as penal as finding a hazard.  Sure, there are bunkers I aim for given the hazards on the other side are even worse...but I don't believe that is the gist of the theory.

John,

And that's EXACTLY your option.   But, just because you choose to play conservatively doesn't mean that someone else won't get rewarded for boldly challenging a hazard.  

Bingo....end of thread!  

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

Who are you talking about, the pros?   Yes, I would agree that for the top .00001% of the people who play the game, equipment run amok has negated a good bit of the strategy.  

For the rest of us, there's plenty.

Mike,

If there was a point in your life where you were giving advice to your Mother who wanted to break 100 for the first time in her life is there a hole in the world where you would recommend that she aim near a hazard to gain an advantage.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

If you were giving advice to your mother who wanted to break 100 for the first time in her life is there a hole in the world where you would recommend that she aim near a hazard to gain an advantage.

John,

Probably not, but see my answer above.  

It's only when playing for "advantage" would you CHOOSE to challenge a hazard, assuming risk for potential reward, if the architecture facilitates an advantage.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

So this is something amateurs do in practice rounds...please give me one example where the reward outweights the risk.  If you are on the 18th at Pebble needing birdie to make match play of the Senior Am do you hit your drive over as much of the Ocean you can chew...or do you aim down the middle of the fairway.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

So this is something amateurs do in practice rounds...please give me one example where the reward outweights the risk.  If you are on the 18th at Pebble needing birdie to make match play of the Senior Am do you hit your drive over as much of the Ocean you can chew...or do you aim down the middle of the fairway.

John,

One always weighs the risks and options and decides on a plan accordingly.

I've got to get home, but you really need to get to Merion and have a look see.  

Yes, you can play it conservatively but you'll likely die of a million paper cuts, if you know what I mean.

[John Kavanaugh]

Not one example my friends...not one since WWI anyway.

[Joe Hancock]

John,

Maybe it isn't so much about hazards as is it is about options. If I choose to play away from a bunker, my "new" challenge is how to play a contour, or a fallaway green.....

I'm going with options...

Joe