The Advantage of Proper Positioning?

[DMoriarty]

How much of an advantage is enough to create strategy?  

On and off the RC thread, some have suggested that width is not necessarily an effective strategic tool.  The argument is that if a long hitter can bomb it anywhere and then hit a wedge, position does not matter one bit.  

I dont want to put words in anyone's mouths, but I don't think these people are denying that the proper angle can be worth a slight advantage, they just see their length as creating more of an advantage.  

So here is my question:  How many fractions of a stroke must good position be worth before the golfer should consider the strategic options?
 

[ForkaB]

David

IMO (not feeling very humble this morning...) the fact that the difference between positions "A", "B" and C" on any fairway of any great course can only be expressed in fractions, rather than quanta, gets to the root of this issue whcih is being debated on several duelling threads these days.

From position A, you will always be thinking par, and maybe birdie, depending on hole location.  From position B, you are still thinking par, but birdie is less in your mind and bogie starts rearing it's ugly little head in your subconscious.  From Position C, you can see how to get to or near the green to salvage par, but there is much more pressure on your second shot.  The effect of all these fractional differences is one of the things that distinguishes golf from many other games.  In tennis, your serve is either in or out.  In basketball, the free throw goes in or doesn't.  Golf is more like boxing, where each exchange identifies fractional differences in speed, reaction time and power.  Over 18 holes, or 15 rounds, these fractional differneces build up, and lead to losses of shots (like Chinese Water Torture) or, if you are playing well, good scores (like "playing in the zone," or even tantric sex....).

If the tee shot doesn't lead to these fractional results, it is generally irelevant, and the designer might as well build a Par 3 course, IMHO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

I think that Rich has presented a good example of the relative values of positioning.

The previous contentions are only valid in the context of perfect or near perfect execution.  One must look at the consequences of imperfect execution, and the relative results, relative to the degree the shot imperfectly varies.

[George Pazin]

About the only thing I can see that matters would be a steep swale that funnels the ball from one angle but not from another.  But that's about it.

Isn't this kind of the point of a well designed green complex?

[JESII]

About the only thing I can see that matters would be a steep swale that funnels the ball from one angle but not from another.  But that's about it.

Isn't this kind of the point of a well designed green complex?

I've always thought so...


Rich,

You are the tennis player, but I assumed well positioned shots on the tennis court would have similar, fractional, benefits without the cut and dry result of a free throw in basketball...

"...tantric sex"

[Mark Bourgeois]

Rich, quanta?!

I agree very strongly that width is "not necessarily an effective strategic tool."

Like any tool, width for its own sake is valueless.  It's not good or bad, effective or ineffective.

To George's point, doesn't the value lie in the design of the green complex?

The extreme example of a hypothetical hole with unlimited width (presumably all fairway), where a golfer holds a wedge in a his hands, is really a question of whether there's a hypothetical green complex that produces "meaningful" differences in scoring according to the lateral result of the drive.

That means hole locations, but in relation to swales, ridges, angle of green, location of hazards, false fronts, slope, green "shoulder" heights, etc -- elements of the green complex's design.  It also probably is a factor of green firmness and speed, bunker conditions, etc.

If people say "width doesn't matter," then aren't they really saying, in this extreme example of wedge-in-hand, there is no possible green complex design that can make a difference?

Have designers totally given up on the concept of "angular" green complexes?  Are the flattening of greens to accommodate higher speeds and / or the emphasis on "fairness" the real culprits here, not golfers hitting the ball farther?

To be honest, I can think of all kinds of scary wedge shots.  I guess the argument for better players is that those don't exist anymore?

The funny thing is, for a player of my ability I can see a greater fractional difference -- maybe even "integral" magnitudes of difference-- with a wedge in hand than at, say, 6-iron distance.  6-iron distance is hit-the-green-somewhere distance.  Which is not to say there's not huge value to being on one side or the other...

...so can this question be answered at all without considering the golfer?

I say that because I think Jesii's right and Rich is wrong as far as tennis goes.

A serve is either in or out the way a ball is either on or off the green -- a tennis player who operates at the level of in-or-out is one lacking the ability to serve with power, location, and spin.  He might be able only to trade power against location.  He's got a flat serve and a patty-cake serve both of which he knows in advance will go either in or out but beyond that he's not sure.

So it's binary for poor tennis players and fractional for good players.  But even up to and among ~4.0 players the fractional differences can approach "integral": every good left-handed player learns the value early on of the slice serve to the right third of the Ad court. Especially when there's a fence on that side.

The analogy to golf being that if a static field like a tennis court can convey such a large fractional difference in position, then why can't a movable feast like a green...

Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

The third hole [at this year's US Open] will measure 195 yards on the card, about the same distance used in the Buick Invitational. With the Pacific Ocean as a backdrop, it typically requires a long or medium iron down the hill into a breeze to a green that is protected by a bunker in the front. Anything long or left falls off the cliffs into a hazard.

Davis, senior director of rules and competition for the USGA, stumbled across a tee from 142 yards that might be even tougher.

“It not only sits at a different angle, it sits up in the air even higher,” Davis said. “It should be dead into the wind. That puts them up in the air with a wedge shot, dead into the wind.”

Davis said it reminded him of No. 7 at Pebble Beach, which is 107 yards and among the most famous holes in golf. Even though it’s barely a sand wedge, it can be a brute for even the best players trying to get the right distance and trajectory.

“We plan to use it a couple of days,” Davis said of the forward tee at Torrey Pines. “And when we go up, we’ll be more aggressive with the hole location. It’s not going to be a real easy hole with a wind into you.”

The toughest hole locations will be front left (just over the bunker) and back left, where anything long will go into the hazard.

Doesn't this argue:
1. Width still can trump length...
2. ...if the green complex is designed to reward positioning?

Sully if you're going to bump this thing how bout a little something, you know, for the effort.

[John Moore II]

Mark--I will grant you eternal consciousness.    Hah!
--On your same thought about width, length by itself has very little merit. A hole can be 550 as a par 4 but if the green is flat and in a funnel, it will not be hard. However, like we see at Oakmont, 300 can make for a very hard par 4. Same at Augusta, where 513 yards can be a tough par 5.
-Length and Width are both meaningless without something else to add a flavor to the hole.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Kenneth

I agree length can be valueless  -- value may be ascribed by the design of the green complex and / or the hole location.

A hole with both an aggressive route and a safe route might appear to provide an example of how width isn't important -- you could look at that hole, consider the aggressive route and think that length trumps width because a player who succeeded might have a wedge in his hand.

But sometimes that success is an invitation to a scary shot. And even if it isn't, that doesn't negate the potential value of width.  It demonstrates how the design of the green complex might reward length -- it might not really say anything about width but if we put on our width-colored glasses we could misinterpret it that way.

Is it me or is this topic heavy lifting?

[JESII]

Sorry Mark...I must have been hypnotized by Goodale's tantric sex analogy to being in the zone...


I'll try to weigh in on your binary and fractional analysis once I get david Moriarty to agree that High Wilson was the only guy to set foot on the property through 1910, 1911 and most of 1912...



Which property is the question...

[John Moore II]

Mark--As I said, both length and width is valueless without some other context from which to look at them. I think this ties in well with Pat's thread about Pine Valley and how it provides a test of golf while being semi wide, allowing for shots to be played, but from a worse position than perhaps could have been found.
--I played a course several days ago where I felt length and width were used poorly on a particular hole, but perhaps I see this because I am a thinking golfer. From the tee, a long, and risky,  shot to the left ( a creek runs across the fairway diagonal right to left towards the green) would lead to a shorter shot into the green, but a poor angle over a bunker and a semi-blind pin. While the shorter shot to the right would lead to a more open shot into the green without the bunker in play. When I first played the hole, I felt that it was dumb, but reading this thread and your analysis made me think that it is not su much dumb, but that it makes you think more than some holes where Long + Risky = Good and Short + Safe = Less than Ideal. Now I see it as a better hole looking at it from another point of view.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Kenneth

Perhaps Pete Dye is right and now that he's got us thinking we're dead.

On the other hand, it's different I guess if we think about our shots prior to the current ones as giving us the "privilege" to do something special.

Crap...I wrote out a long post in response to yours only after posting it to realize I think I hadn't thought it through correctly.  Not the first time on this thread...

Question: your example, does it really address to a green-driven valuation of length or does the value really boil down to width?

It seems like the real *decision* regards width.  The length question is one of execution, but in the hypothetical example put forth earlier the golfer is an Iron Byron.

I'll stop now before I hurt myself.

Mark