Two Meanings of "Strategy"

[Brent Hutto]

The topic on the eleventh hole at ANGC got me thinking about two fundamentally different concepts that can each be meaningfully referred to as Strategy in the playing of a round of golf. On this forum, there's a sort of (presumed) Golden Age definition of Strategy that is mostly about angles and risk-vs-reward in which the "risk" is most often how difficult a target is chosen for one shot and how that choice affect the "reward" which is reduced difficulty of the next. Do I have that about right?

But in conversations with some good players I've had to as well as the stuff I've read that was written by Bob Rotella or Richard Coop or other mental-game gurus to the top players I get a sense of a different meaning of Strategy. It still has a lot to do with "risk" and "reward" but in what strikes me as a more finely calibrated, smaller scale than the broad strokes of playing away from a fairway bunker or hugging the corner of a dogleg. This kind of Strategic thinking has more to do with the options that ones own golf game offers than with the intentions of the golf-course architect.

For instance, Rotella and others have suggested that any player should have a certain distance in mind inside of which all concerns of hazards, short-sides or other chances of trouble to be avoided becomes moot. For a great wedge player that might be as far out as 125 yards with a strong sand wedge and for a hacker it might be only as far as 30-40 yards with a long chip or bump-and-run. But the key point is that the player knows his game well enough to be able to identify the point where setting up the next shot is the prudent thought versus the zone in which holing out the shot is the only meaningful goal.

Similarly, on longer approach shots a good player is certainly concerned about avoiding angles that bring slopes or hazards too much into the equation and make leaving a very difficult next shot too likely. But they seem to get really concerned about little micro-details like the specific lie they'll be hitting from (even down to the grain of the grass in some cases) and the way the trajectory of the shot they want to play will be affected by slight up/down/side slopes or how the ball is likely to react upon striking the green or fringe. And in this they try to anticipate their most likely mishits and to choose a shot that will maximize the good outcome of the shot they want to hit and simultaneously minimize the difficulty of the the shot that remains if they don't execute correctly.

I think that's one reason that GCA for the best players can lead to somewhat different designs than it does for handicap players. Or looking from the other side it's what certain GCA implementations might be judged very differently from the point of view of casual recreational players versus those who compete at the highest levels.

The case in point on that other thread was the provision of a very difficult challenge by the eleventh hole at ANGC. For an 8-handicap member of the club it may well be that eliminating the right half of the corridor of play with trees forces him into a shot from the left side that is pretty much beyond his means to the extent of becoming a less interesting hole. Even if he plays from tees that afford him a 175-yard approach shot because of the shape of the green and position of the pond it's a shot he's not going to pull off and perhaps he's best just playing short and/or right of the green and trying to get down in three from there. Whereas the same restriction (eliminating the right side and forcing an approach from the left) simply focuses the challenge for the top players into a smaller scope that has more to do with finely-judged planning of shot shape, club selection and aiming point in order to maximize the chances of a makable birdie putt (even if it's a "makable" 15-footer) and minimize the chances of a poorly exectuted approach removing even the last gasp of a chance at four or an assured five.

So in this situation, a choice that results in an obvious "loss of strategic options" by the Golden Age angle-oriented meaning of the word is no such thing from the tournament player's more internal and minutely scaled concept of thinking strategically. may still leave considerable room for good or bad choices on the second shot, as least for the best players.

[JESII]

Brent,

For 95% of that I was on board with your comments. They made sense, and seemed to flow with the (I think) accurate assesment from Pete Dye that his goal is to get those guys thinking, because then he knows he's got them.

I fell off board though with your last sentence. The narrowed, and lengthened, 11th would seem to take thought away from planning out the tee shot. The second shot is a different story though and I made a comment Sunday morning on an "Interesting Hole Locations" thread that a right hole on 11 might seem odd as it's away from the water, but now the safe shot is more towards the water since missing the green right is a very tough 4.

In total though, I think Strategy is best defined as playing to your strengths...whether you were playing Augusta yesterday or tomorrow.

A 15 handicapper can stand 200 yards from a green and have a reasonable idea of the different ways he might play the hole. For betting money, he should not hit his 200 yard club all that often...but that's a big part of the fun of golf...hitting shots to see if you can do it.


I had to think a while before making one response, and I'm sure I'll have more to add, but that's my start.

[Brent Hutto]

Point taken. I've replaced my over-stated version of the last paragraph with a more qualified version.

[John Burzynski]

My humble game seems to be a combination of the two strategies you outlined above.  My chances of consistently hitting that green from 200 yards out are probably 1 or 2 in 10, I might fall short, right, left, who knows.  My strategy might be to lay up to 50 or so yards where my wedge game is much more accurate. 

As much as I would like to play a lot of courses strictly by the architect's 'designed' strategy, I can't, my 20 hdcp. game won't allow it.  I just am not that consistent.    However, I do get a lot of strategic fun out of a course just because my game is not scratch...one never knows what bunker or hazard I will encounter, and there is always that chance for a sand save with each recovery attempt.

I suspect that most golfers consider their personal game strategy first, and then the courses' strategy of doglegs and hazards or playing secondly.    Most of us are lucky to drive the ball into the fairway consistently, let alone to one side or the other of the fairway on a consistent basis.

[Doug Siebert]

John,

I don't want to pick on you or use you as a bad example but your post points out something pretty important about strategy -- knowing one's own game.  You say you are a 20 handicap, but claim that you would expect to hit the green 1 or 2 times in 10.  Those two statements are a logical impossibility, unless you are the worst putter the world has ever seen.  I play in the mid single digits and I'd say I'd probably struggle to manage 2 greens in 10 from 200 yards, and 200 yards is a 5 iron for me.  I don't know what the pros expect from 200 yards, but I would hazard guess its not far from 50%.

From the player's perspective, good strategy starts with knowing one's own game.  I will sometimes take some pretty big chances but I feel like I do have a pretty good handle on my actual rather than imagined chances of success so it is an informed decision.  When one does not know one's own game there is no basis for an intelligent strategic decision.