[TEPaul]

When we talk all the time about strategy and the importance of it, we're really talking about the sum of many parts. Strategies are made up of options, options are made up of risk/reward factors all of which are dictated by degrees of temptation!! (As GeoffShac has astutely maintained, temptation is at the net base of it all!!).

We talk about features, shapes, green ramifications, all the raw material available in architecture, their uses and placements and how they create risk/reward.

But are we sometimes looking too much at the separate entities of risk and reward and forgetting about the all important element of the EQUATION between them!

The equation (=) itself is the all important balance and equilibrium between the two that is that "quandry point" that makes players think, struggle mentally to make the choices they need to make, want to make, don't want to make, and all before they even go to their bag for a club!

You need those two elements (risk and reward) bigtime for really good strategy creation to make architecture interesting and great but it seems to me the EQUATION between risk and reward is the real deal!

In other words, the better the balance, the better the equilibrium, the better golf and its architecture will be!

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Lately, I've been thinking that golf is best when your game is at the "pretty good" level rather than great or altogether bad.

Watching Lee Janzen play at Waterville this summer convinced me that being "great" really wasn't that good. There just didn't seem to be any question where his shots were going. I didn't see much evidence of "risk-reward". It was all very precise and, in the end, surprisingly boring.

I remember once asking Dusty Murdock if he ever had the opportunity to play with Moe Norman. Dusty quickly replied "he was the most boring person I ever played with.......oh, wait, on #17 Norman did hit into a greenside bunker".

In contrast to that, I went down to my local muni yesterday and managed to get in 18 holes. I was fixed up with three total strangers, including two guys who could barely play the game. I didn't see much evidence of risk-reward in their games either. They could barely handle a bucket at the driving range.

So, what does "pretty good" mean? How does this relate to risk-reward and golf architecture?

I used to play twice a week and would always shoot somewhere right around 80, plus or minus a few strokes. At that level, you do have the ability to pull off heroic shots but really need to carefully think about your chances. Half the time you just may not pull off the shot.  A couple bad decisions turns your 78 into 83 real quick.

So, that's my idea of balance in the risk reward equation: being faced with several (if not more) decisions to make, the ability to execute maybe half the time and the good sense to manage your way around the real potential disasters.

I just don't think the professional or the beginner can have so much fun, regardless of how well designed the course is.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tim's last line says it all! Maybe this is why good designs weren't being mass produced for the last fifty years? And if that's true, how could you tell, since the course is likely inferior. Plus, once the strategy is figured the execution should be boring.

I tend to lean towards the "Little things" as being the most important variables. The tilt of a tee box or subtlety of undulation causing you, the golfer, to play the land and not just the distance. How else could Tom Watson miss the green with a wedge in his hands or Floppy either. There must've been some variable that they didn't calculate, because it's highly unlikely they didn't execute properly.

[Geoff Shackelford]

Tom,
Achieving that perfect balance between risk and reward is the trick and it happens so rarely. Strategy is basically obsolete because in the face not only of the current technology, but the ever changing situation we've seen the last few years, most design features are just not prepared for these kinds of distances and trajectories. What architect can create that perfect balance of tempting situations when the distance problem is constantly intervening, constantly changing? This is also why there is no answer when people keep asking what can be done with course setups to return the element of posing tough questions to players, like the Masters setup used to do pre-1996.

The best example of balanced temptation has always been (for me anyway) the barranca on #11 at Riviera (p. 5, 565 from the back). Pre-wacky driving distances, a mediocre drive either distance wise or direction wise, made you have to decide whether to layup short of the barranca or carry it in two. When the barranca was 12 inch kikuyu, there was no balance, you laid up and hoped to hit the green on your third with a fairway wood or long iron. When the barranca was 2 inch rough, manicured, there was no balance again, you automatically went for it with little fear of any kind of trouble if you didn't hit a good shot. When the barranca was a mix of rough both nasty and reasonable, or when it was sandy and there were footprints that made you unsure of what you'd get, then the question became tempting. You might get a good lie, might not, and only then did it really serve and interesting purpose as a hazard. There was that perfect equilibrium that made the shot so annoying, but in a fun, tempting way.

Getting golfers to understand this "in-between" situation is difficult. They either want it to be a nasty lost ball hazard, or an easy to find your ball situation. Either of those two is much less interesting, but predictable, which seems the way a lot of people like it.
Geoff

[TEPaul]

Geoff:

The barranca example is a good one--the importance of the little things! It reminds me of your example of, I think #13 at ANGC one year when the powers prettified Rae's Creek and raised the water level and then wondered what happened at the following Masters when some of the pros who were theretofore tempted, weren't any longer. I think I recall you mentioning though that they learned their lesson and put Rae's Creek and it's water level back the way it had been and then the temptation factor and the better balance of risk and reward returned..

Good point about the distances though as now Rae's Creek is probably not much of a factor that enters into the necessary balance of risk and reward anymore!

[Steve Lang]

As a chemical/environmental engineer I like the risk/reward equilibrium equation concept proposed... while there are a variety of mathematical and chemical analogies that could be made, I'll just offer some premise concepts from the laws of thermo... (as my dad explained to me in high school) ...1st Law is: You never get more out than you put in; 2nd Law is You never get more out than you put in and then some, and the 3rd Law is Murphy's... which may thus help explain the true origins of golf being from Scotland.

Once the architect gets you thinking, you're cooked!  So is golf then really a reaction sport in disguise, gripping at your human nature that risk equals fun and or grasping at your intellect that reward equals success...  These are pretty higher order equations at play!

[TEPaul]

I guess I should also mention that in speaking of a proper risk/reward EQUATION I don't just mean a "balance" or "equilibrium" of the risk and reward of any particular playable option or choice (to do it or not)--although of course that is extremely important. In that single option "balance" there couldn't be much better examples than GeoffShac's Riviera barranca or ANGC's Rae's creek water level example.

But I'm also speaking of a "balance" or "equilibrium" across the entire spectrum of all available options on any hole!

It's of course confirmation of the true validity of this "overall options balance" (all the options taken as a whole) that the hole that seems to possess that entire option balance best is Riviera's #10! It's really impressive that when supreme positives are mentioned in all kinds of contexts that we keep coming back to Riviera's #10 so much!

And of course the proof is in the play! There can't be better proof of it than that final group in the 1998 LA Open (Woods, Love and Tryba) all in about the same leaderboard position and all three taking such radically different lines off the tee and using such diverse strategies!

I believe my overall barometer for the interest and challenge and architectural quality of any hole is in it dimensionality. In other words, if you tend to play a hole the very same way over and over, day after day, it isn't much good and certainly not that interesting!

But if you tend to play a hole in different ways from one day to the next either because you just want to for some reason or even think you have to then that hole is inherently interesting and good!

But if you find a hole where three top touring pros do what that final group in the LA Open did that is most impressive indeed in indicating the awesome quality of that hole and the balance or equilibrium across the spectrum of all its many and interesting options and strategies!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

How do you present the 'quandry' to all levels of ability? One man's quandry is another man's single choice.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

There is a neat schematic on the wall at NGLA.
It shows alternate routes from tee to green, presumptively illustrating the prefered paths for different levels of golfers.

A golf course designed with distinct levels of strategy is the answer to your question.  And, those courses tend to be enjoyed by every level of golfer.  A big factor in defeating the architects design/strategy/playability intent is when golfers use the wrong tees.  

NGLA is one of those wonderful golf courses that provide several choices for the golfers consideration, not just on the tee shot, but all the way to the green.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Does a course that presents multiple paths translate into a golf course that prestens a 'quandry' to all levels of skill?

If the poor golfer chooses the easiest path every time, because he has no reasonable choice, what 'quandry' does that present? The same situation in reverse could be faced by the Tiger - multiple paths but only one reasonable path. The man whose skill falls in between is the one presented with the real 'quandry', isn't he?

Which goes back to my question, how do you present a quandry to all levels of skill?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Basically you don't! All you do is try the best you can to consider what various levels of golfers might think and do on various holes and just do the best you can to accomodate them and make their choices (and even their individual "quandry" level) challenging and interesting to them.

Ironically, this is the very thing that Donald Ross did so well! And it's probably the very reason why many of his courses were changed so much because most golfers (and those in control of clubs) basically only consider things in the context of their own game and no one else's!!

[Jim_Kennedy]

The quandary reveals itself  when the player is willing to or needs to take a chance. This is true for all levels of play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The easiest choice doesn't necessarily mean that it's void of challenge, nor does it mean that pursuit of the perceived, easiest route won't result in additional quandries further on, down the hole.

The first hole at NGLA sets the tempo, for the hole and the entire golf course.
There are probably three basic routes of choice.
Heroic
Reasonable
Safe

This is a slightly downhill par 4, playing from 290 to 320 yards, depending upon which tees are selected.

Played from the back tee, the safe shot is left with a more difficult second shot, and again two to three basic choices have to be made.

The reasonable tee shot faces similar choices as well.

The Heroic shot, doesn't face the same obstacles, but the choices of how to play the second shot are many.
Putt,
bump and run
Chip and run
Flip wedge

Here's this dinky little par 4, on the scorecard it looks harmless, yet I've seen more rounds made or destroyed by the wrong choices, improper execution or a combination of both.  The variety, in the choices, the wind, line of play, shots, hazards, fairway contours, angles of the greens, contours of the greens, allow for every level of golfer to make their CHAIN OF CHOICES.

Even the third shot on the 7th hole, be it from 5 yards or 120 yards provides the golfer with an infinite variety of shots to play, essentially you pick your poison or your cake.

The genious of the design is remarkable.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jim
Sounds good, but how do you actually accomplish that for all skill levels?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Interesting hole, but it doesn't appear a 'quandry' is faced by skill levels.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Every player, from zero handicap to 36 handicap is faced with a quandry on almost every shot.

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by quandry.

If you have "Scotland's Gift" go to the last page and view the diagram of the course.  While the diagram doesn't show elevation, cant and contour, it provides basic information.

On # 1 tee I have to reassess how my practice session went, am I drawing the ball and striking it solid, if so, do I want to go for the left slot fronting the green, risking the parking lot and worse if I pull or hook the ball, and depending on wind and air density, can I carry the left side bunkers.  I also have to assess the accessability of the pin, which I've looked at on my way to the clubhouse from the parking lot.

Having stood on that tee more than a few times, I can attest that you are faced with a quandry, and sometimes, I've hit the default buttons on my drive and subsequent shots.  

Quandry is what the first hole and every hole, is all about.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I don't necessarily equate challenge with 'quandry'. For me quandry means a difficult choice, which requires distinct and reasonable choices.

Do you think the 'quandry' that you are presented, is equal to what is presented to those of lesser skill?

[Geoff Shackelford]

Tom Mac,
I think the answer to your question is rather simple. Width, width, and more width!

Or put another way, freedom, as Max Behr said it best:
“There is no necessity for artificial barriers. Play does not have to be systematically controlled. An opposite principle is involved. This principle is freedom. And by freedom we compel the golfer to control himself, that is to say, his instincts. If he judges his skill is great enough, he will of his own accord go for a strategic hazard to gain an advantage just as the tennis player will go for the sidelines of the court.”

But width and freedom are gone because the courses do not come close to matching the equipment in the game. Overmatched, they are set up to mask the incompatibility. Sorry, but Max Behr commented on this too:

“If golf is always to give of its best there is required upon the part of our authorities a perfect sensing of the equilibrium that must be maintained between the two factors that go to make it: the player with his instrument, and nature.”

Geoff

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Just as I was about to try and answer your question about my post I read Geoff's latest. I can add nothing.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

A day or so ago there was post by LHarris that got me thinking. Basically he asked is strategy obsolete for the crap golfer and after some thought I concluded on the whole - yes. We spend a lot of time talking about strategy on this site, but we never talk about the poor golfer or consider the poor golfer.

I also began to think about how much emphasis and consideration was given to the poorer golfers by those first 'modern' golf architects of the early 20th C. They nearly all spoke of the rabit and the tiger when discussing their design ideals.

Most of these architects were products of the geometric formulaic days of rampart bunkers stretching across every hole at a defined increment. In breaking away from the formula they implemented randomness. One of the reasons that Ross courses and Colt courses and the courses of other famous architects have aged gracefully from strategic standpoint is because of the random placement of hazards. The same can be said of many of famous old links courses - like the Old Course. The more random the placement of hazards the more likely you set up a quandry for different levels of golfers and do so as times change. Width is also very important, unfortunately many architects did not/do not have that luxury. And width is only maximize when there a number of randomly placed hazards to be avoided by golfers of all types.

There may be a limit to the effectiveness of random hazards and perhaps the perfect model for that method - St.Andrews - has reached it as a championship test. It appears that a number of modern professional are no longer faced with a quandry until reaching the green.

For the most part I do not believe those old 'modern' designers expected to present all levels of skill a 'quandry' all the time or even most of the time. But what they could do is give them a reasonable route and quite possibly thrills. Giving the opportunity to complete relatively easy shots over visually intimidating hazards. You can't expect the poor golfer to execute many different shots, but you should give them thrills. Plus the game was young and just starting to become popular at the turn of century, they wanted to present an interesting game to many levels of golfers as posssible -especially beginners.

The one area that brought strategy and quandry to all levels of skill is the ulitimate target - the green. That is the one place every must meet. And those first architects understood that (St.Andrews was the prefect illustration) and it was major point of emphasis in their designs.

By designing interesting greens, placing hazards randomly and making those hazards visually exciting (thus giving thrills), didn't those first 'modern' architects build courses that endured strategicly, while also making the game fun and interesting for the rabit?

[Geoff Shackelford]

Tom,
No doubt the green is key to the equation, vital, a must. But  no matter how good the green complex design may be, if there is no room to take different avenues to the hole depending on playing ability or desire to take a risk, then the green becomes less relevant. And mix in less width, softer conditions and refined conditioning and the green becomes even less relevant.

Still, as you pointed out, the old guys did do this and when it worked (or still works today) the hole starts at the green and goes back. Tom Paul is right, these discussion usually do have to go back to #10 at Riviera. No hole is more perfect and posing questions to players of all levels, nor do many holes allow for lesser players to sneak up on careless scratch golfers. And if the hole didn't have so many options and room off the tee, the green would be less relevant, perhaps even irrelevant.
Geoff

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

The 10th at Riviera is an excellent example of width off the tee - what is the quandry for the poor golfer who can not consider carrying the fairways bunkers? Isn't there just one logical choice for this golfer off the tee? Followed by challenging and thrilling golf shot.

In my mind there is difference between providing enough room and extreme width. Most of the great golf courses of the 20's provided enough room, but I don't think I'd characterize them as super wide. Perhaps they would have a number of very wide holes like the 10th, but they normally did not design 18 holes of that width. Which goes back to another important design element found with those old guys - variety.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Are you saying that NGLA lacks options for the higher handicap player ?  That they have but one choice on their drives ?  That the greens or tee shots don't offer challenge, variety, options or a quandry ?  What do you base that on ?

I feel the quandry exists for every level of golfer, that's part of the genious of NGLA

I indicated in a post above that three basic choices exist, and it's up to each golfer, at that point in time when they prepare for their shot, to determine which choice they will make, based upon all conditions that day, and their assessment of their game that day.

Based on my limited play, I feel that the greens at TOC aren't as challenging as the greens at NGLA.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Easy Pat. No need go off the deep end.

I asked you a simple question regarding your experience on the first hole, do you think the 'quandry' that you are presented, is equal to what is presented to those of lesser skill?

A choice is only a choice if you have the skill to carry out the choice.

Providing multiple paths does not necessarily translate into a quandry. The well designed course presents an easy path for the poor golfer, does that mean he faced with a quandry? No, that means he is given a reasonable path to the hole.

Saying the greens at NGLA are more challenging than those of TOC, is like saying Venus Williams is a beter tennis player than her sister Serena.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood;

You asked some questions about things like strategies for various levels of golfers, particularly the much less accomplished level. You asked a question about "quandry" for various levels of golfers, particularly lesser levels.

Others gave you some good answers both theoretical and actual and then in your quite long post you seemed to put most all of it together and fairly comprehensively answer your own questions!

You, like many of us, may from time to time in the study of golf architecture and how golf architecture creates various strategic "concepts" (for even all levels) look for things that are explicitly understandable, perhaps even "formulaic" in the presentation of good and great architecture for any level or perhaps all levels! I believe you must think this or otherwise why would you ask how an architect creates architecture that's somehow strategic for all levels or even presents all levels "quandries"?

And I said to you that it's possible and probably even logical to conceive that architects often don't have to do this--at least not in the ways we may think! If they did they might run the risk of competely cluttering the playing fields of golf!

You speak of the random placement of hazards like TOC and that's certainly one way of accomplishing strategies and quandries for all levels.

But let's be honest, very few courses are designed the way TOC is! Since they aren't, some very good designers, and particularly some of the older ones got into designing things in somewhat of a formulaic way for both good players and poor players (or let's say weak players) alike.

Certainly Ross was one of the best of them! He did consider all levels as much to popularize the game as anything else, I'm sure. But how did he accomplish those strategies and "quandries" for all levels, even if somewhat formulaicly?

If you look on the early aerials of many of his courses you'll see how he did it!

If you look at the prevalence of the so-called "fore" or "top shot" bunkers on many of his more comprehensive designs that is an excellent way of creating strategies for various levels. The "fore" bunker was thought to be a design element Ross used because he hated "topped shots"! He may have and this was a good methods of dealing with the topped shots of good players. But the real reason for those bunkers was to create challenges and interests for the weaker levels of player!

So right there you have a single architectural feature, a single concept really that doubles for many levels although completely differently!

And if you go on down so many of Ross's holes (or Flynn's or so many of them) you will see features that double for all levels too! The prevalent carry bunkers that Ross (Flynn) put 30-50 yds in front (or just off to the side) of so many of his approaches is another good example!

And it goes on and on like that!

But many golfers and even those like us who really study architecture seem all too prone to look for explicit and understandable meaning (strategies etc) too often.

Many times it just might not appear to be there although most amazingly it may be.

Why would that be though? Probably because the best of all designers understood that they really did have so much at their finger tips to match, mix, rearrange in a mulitude of ways, and yes even REMOVE to make golf both interesting, complex and challenging! And I think the best of them understood far better than us that the playing of golf even by very good players is not that close to perfectly executed according to perplanned concepts and such!

And if you think about it that fact alone may very well be where all kinds of interesting strategies and "quandries" may and do come into play for certainly lesser levels of golfers!

It may also be true today that the extreme distances some golfers' hit the ball and also unforseenly accurately have corrupted planned strategies as GeoffShac said.

Got to go to dinner, Tom, will finish this off afterwards.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()