[Mike Hendren]

My west coast pal Richard Choi suggested on the Fazio thread that there is a higher plane of golf course architecture that requires the player to solve a complex challenge.  That sentiment was echoed on the Rustic Canyon thread where it was suggested that the two David's local knowledge gave them a keen competitive advantage. 

I'm not so sure.  I am not a very good golfer (now a weak 12, once a solid 4), but hold myself out as being a pretty decent navigator of golf courses.  In my opinion, they are just not that hard to figure out, but I could be wrong.

Am I?

Bogey

[Rich Goodale]

As usual, Double, you are right.  Over the past two weeks I've been privileged to play with some supreme golfing strategists over golf courses great and not so great, and if I could summarize their swing thoughts it would be:  "Hit the ball THERE, stupid! and then find it and hit it again."

[Tom Huckaby]

Michael:

In general you are very correct.  Figuring out a golf course is far from being Steve Pieracci's job.*

In the Rustic Canyon instance, it wasn't their STRATEGIC knowledge, however, which gave them the advantage... it was their MUCH MUCH MUCH greater familiarity with the very firm and fast conditions, which their opponents had not played on in years (or ever perhaps).

Tom "one of the opponents" Huckaby

*Rocket Scientist

[Rich Goodale]

Michael:

In general you are very correct.  Figuring out a golf course is far from being Steve Pieracci's job.*

In the Rustic Canyon instance, it wasn't their STRATEGIC knowledge, however, which gave them the advantage... it was their MUCH MUCH MUCH greater familiarity with the very firm and fast conditions, which their opponents had not played on in years (or ever perhaps).

Tom "one of the opponents" Huckaby

*Rocket Scientist

Tom

Don't forget that the two Davids are left handers, and it is a well-rumoured fact that Geoff laid out the course to please his Dad....

[Tom Huckaby]

Great points, Rich.  The cards were definitely stacked against us.

 

[Mark Bourgeois]

I mostly agree with Richard's comment but think the vast majority of designs out there fall down, and so Hendren is right almost always there is One Right Way to play a hole.

In economics you could say these ideal holes offer no corner solution or dominant strategy.  That just means the way to play them will depend on the golfer, the conditions, the hole location, etc.  There is No One Right Way to play these holes.

The classic example comes from Mackenzie's description of TOC 14.

Mark

[Jason Topp]

I would say you are 95% correct.  

I think 95% of the best strategy can be figured out after playing a hole one or two times.  Most of the fun of a good golf course is choosing between lines of play that the player understands, trying to execute and dealing with the consequences.


My caveats:

1.  Tough hole locations - may require entirely different approaches than normal and require one to know the green very well

2.  Subtle advantages/disadvantages from slopes.  I still find them on my course after around 300 rounds.

3.  Weather effects - dealing with different wind/temperature/ moisture combinations take a while to sort out

The last 5% can take years, at least on an interesting course.

[Rich Goodale]

I mostly agree with Richard's comment but think the vast majority of designs out there fall down, and so Hendren is right almost always there is One Right Way to play a hole.

In economics you could say these ideal holes offer no corner solution or dominant strategy.  That just means the way to play them will depend on the golfer, the conditions, the hole location, etc.  There is No One Right Way to play these holes.

The classic example comes from Mackenzie's description of TOC 14.

Mark

Mark

What I think Mike was trying to say (and Mackenzie probably never understood) was the fact that for each and every golfer in each and every situation, on each and every golf hole there is a "dominant strategy."  Finding and executing those idiosyncratic stratgegies is the esence of the game.

Rich

[JESII]

Maintenance is the key variable here, don't you think?

Richard Choi even says so in his comment on the Fazio thread...is soft and lush and green the architects fault?

These "idiosyncratic strategies" Mr. Goodale refers to grow exponentially when the ground is really good and firm as opposed to soft and lush.

[Rich Goodale]

Maintenance is the key variable here, don't you think?

Richard Choi even says so in his comment on the Fazio thread...is soft and lush and green the architects fault?

These "idiosyncratic strategies" Mr. Goodale refers to grow exponentially when the ground is really good and firm as opposed to soft and lush.

Good simplification of my complexity, Sully, and you owe me yet another beer for calling me "Mr. Goodale."

[Ross Tuddenham]

Mark

Maybe in a one shot game there would be no dominant strategy but I would be surprised if in a repeated interaction game no dominant strategy emerged for any golfer.  It’s funny you mention golf and economics as I seriously considered trying to do a dissertation on that.  But I couldn’t really find an angle; the best I could come up with was a model to predict behaviour in match play using game theory.


Have any architects ever used economics to analyse the strategy involved in planning a course?

[Mark Bourgeois]

I mostly agree with Richard's comment but think the vast majority of designs out there fall down, and so Hendren is right almost always there is One Right Way to play a hole.

In economics you could say these ideal holes offer no corner solution or dominant strategy.  That just means the way to play them will depend on the golfer, the conditions, the hole location, etc.  There is No One Right Way to play these holes.

The classic example comes from Mackenzie's description of TOC 14.

Mark

Mark

What I think Mike was trying to say (and Mackenzie probably never understood) was the fact that for each and every golfer in each and every situation, on each and every golf hole there is a "dominant strategy."  Finding and executing those idiosyncratic stratgegies is the esence of the game.

Rich

Maybe and maybe not.  The way an individual golfer plays a hole can still vary considerably from day to day on courses that do a really good job of this.

Tom Watson once said he never figured out the right way to play ANGC 14.

ANGC is known for producing champions who have more experience than the other majors.

Tom Doak said that until we have played TOC something like a hundred times we are clueless babes.

Those all sound to me like cases in support of Choi's point.

But again, I agree with Hendren's point in the sense that the vast majority of golf courses fall down against this ideal.

I just noticed we are once again hashing over the "accessibility of architecture" argument.

Is there nothing new under the sun?

Mark

[JESII]

Initially I typed Mr. Godale! I considered leaving it as a very appropriate typo...

Look forward to that/ those beer(s)...

[Rich Goodale]

Is there nothing new under the sun?

Mark

Probably not, Mark, as I was under the sun last week in Oz and nothing particularly new was revealed.

Subtleties were slightly burnished, but revelations, not......

[JESII]

When was the last time any of us played a hole exactly as we so wisely planned to?

The key, to me, is to make me adjust my plan as I screw up each shot. If that happens, the architect and superintendent have done their jobs.

[JESII]

Anyone care to explain why I manage to play #6 at Merion (about the third or fourth most difficult hole) in 3.5 strokes and immediately go to #7 and hit it out of bounds?

[Tom_Doak]

I think there is a higher plane, although there are very few golf courses on it.  Call them 10's, if you will.

Every time I play Crystal Downs with the host pro, Fred Muller, I'm amazed how simple he can make it look compared to everyone else.  He has figured out how to take 95% of the really bad places out of play, while still giving himself a legit chance for par on every hole.  Trust me, on that course, nobody else has figured out how to play that way.

St. Andrews is more complicated than that.  You can score reasonably well without having a clue about the course, if you play it very safely AND IF you are a great lag putter from 60-70 feet.  But once you know the course better, it suckers you into trying lower-percentage shots, and if you don't pull them off you might wind up with a higher score from knowing the course better.

Jim S. is right, the key is whether a misplaced drive will make you change your strategy for the next shot.  (And no, I'm not talking about an intervening tree there, although I'm sure you could make that case.)

[Mike Hendren]

You can score reasonably well without having a clue about the course,

I find this comment insightful.  Perhaps it is only when we are committed to trying to squeeze absolutely every ounce of score out of a golf course - regardless of  handicap,  that strategy becomes paramount.  Otherwise, the recreational golfer can at best skirt the issue and at least ignore it altogether. 

Tom's comment has yielded a personal epiphany:  I have lapsed into being a very casual golfer, occasionally frustrated but rarely disappointed.

Mike

[JESII]

Mike,

To that point, I would much prefer to play a tournament round on a course I only vaguely know as opposed to my home course which I have played hundreds (or thousands) of times.

[Tom Huckaby]

Not to toot my own horn... but that insightful comment by Doak is one I made years ago on here, and have repeated most times the "strategy" arguments start.  That is, strategic choices only tend to matter if score is the absolute goal, and outside of that, they are routinely ignored by casual players.  "I didn't pay $ ___ to lay up" is uttered about 1000 times more than "hmm, I have to find the best angle in".

 

And that epiphany is a good one... casual golfers are usually a lot happier than those who obsess over every shot.

Tom "Casual golfer for at least 25 years now" Huckaby

ps - here's the somewhat paradoxical thing though... trying to figure out golf holes is also FUN... and the more difficult it is, the more maddening it is, the more fun it can be too... one just has to have a sense of humor about it.  Crazy game, huh?

[JESII]

TH,

I have a difficult time understanding the mindset that...attempting to shoot the lowest score you can, and enjoying yourself sit on different sides of the table.

In my opinion, if you are not trying to shoot the lowest score you can, I don't really think you are playing golf.

Please do not confuse "trying to shoot the lowest score you can" with grinding every shot to the point of frustration, because that is not it at all. It's simply the challenge of figuring out the best way to play the hole/course within your abilities AND trying to execute to the best of your abilities.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sully:

You are a highly competitive golfer, and a very successful one at that.  I would expect you to understand this mindset like I'd expect myself to turn down a free In N' Out double double later today.  That is, it's just beyond reason.

Some day, when the competitive days are done, you might come to understand it.  Until then, please do NOT try.  Seems to me you are very happy and content as you are.  Trying to understand how not playing golf (as you define it above) can equal playing golf in really its finest form will just mess up your mind way way way too much at this point.

Consider yourself lucky.  We'd all prefer to be like you.

But since we don't have the skill... we find other ways to get enjoyment.

Finding the best way to play a hole and then intentionally NOT doing it... man that to me is the epitome of fun.  And I see you there shaking your head in bewilderment.  As I say, I am glad you are.

 

[JESII]

 

[Tom Yost]

I think it really depends on the course and the golfer.  With some architecture, the strategy is fairly obvious while other designs might take some repeat plays to "solve."

I agree with the notion that a soft course limits strategy.

As to the player, many of us here are "enlightened" so to speak, and can look for and determine strategy perhaps more quickly than the average hack.  I play with many folks who really have no clues about strategy.

[Tom Huckaby]

There's another part of this, which I think has not yet been stated.

And that is...

the stronger the player is, the less "strategic choices" matter.

Oh I know, these pros do have to make some go or no-go choices.  And every once in awhile an angle in does matter.

But if one can hit drives 350+, and high 5 irons 230 which stop on a dime... what the heck do angles or other choices matter?  Strong players just blow by all of this and overpower the course far far more than they defeat it using their heads.

So isn't designing with them in mind a fool's errand?

Put it this way - the greatest strategic player I know is my Dad. He can't hit the ball more than 150 off the tee, nor really more than a few feet in the air with ANY club.  THAT man has to think his way around a course, and does so wonderfully.

How much does Tiger Woods really have to think about how to play any golf hole?

He considers the PRUDENT play in light of competition, sure. He considers the shot to best defeat the field.  But the shot to best defeat the course?  I can't see that it comes into play all that much for him.  And I do believe these are two different things.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()