News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

"Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« on: March 19, 2002, 05:10:32 AM »
For as long as I've been on Golfclubatlas there's always been  real differences of opinion about how "strategy" figures into the definition of "a true test" of golf or "the ultimate test", and consequently the caliber or quality of a particular golf course. Sometimes even the term "ideal" is used.

As "strategy" seems to be somewhat synonymous on here with holes themselves, their available choices and options, alternative lines of play and distance risk/reward factors and such, how integral is this kind of "strategy" to an "ultimate test of golf"?

First of all using the term "strategy" in that sense really does apply to individual holes and how to play them, how they need to be played for the best result and so forth. In this kind of context the way we seem to use the term "strategy" would probably be better explained and defined by the term "tactics" which in military parlance are the smaller movements that make up overall "strategy".

But what does "true test" or the "ultimate test" mean? To me it means less about how a golfer maximally CAN (or even does) play the incremental holes and far more how he plays whole rounds and more importantly an entire tournament. Since "championship" golf is always connected to tournament golf it would almost have to be that way.

In that context a golf course like Carnoustie that has been described a real test of golf, a "true test" or "ultimate test", certainly in its incremental and overall difficulty it would seem that things like GIR and even "par" in an incremental hole context should almost be thrown out of consideration.

Clearly a "True test" of golf like Carnoustie puts a premium on almost one dimensional "demand" shots and as such is probably a bit low on the things we think of a "strategy" like options and alternative lines to acheive things like GIR and "par" on a hole.

It seems to me that a "true test" in a championship or tournament context at a course like Carnoustie will uncover the golfer who has used best "defensive tactics" which is a large part of military "strategy" anyway.

Ever notice how the most respected champions like Hogan, Nicklaus or maybe even Woods now are more aware than their fellow competitors not only what they need to do at any particular time against the golf course but more particularly what they need to do against those that are playing the golf course with them and against them.

Nicklaus seemed uncannily aware throughout his career of what he needed to shoot in final rounds considering not only who was ahead of him or around him but how many and then going out and shooting that number. The times he shot that pre-round calculated number is spooky. Hogan, choosing not to go at a reachable par 5, for instance, said he didn't do it not because he couldn't but because he didn't need to! And Woods seem not only acutely aware of what he needs to do to adjust back and forth against his competitors but to have almost a Nicklaus-like way of inducing them to fall away from him!

In a recreational context a course like Carnoustie might be a "true test" in the sense that the shot demands for par (or birdie) are some of the hardest on earth to execute successfully.

But in a "championship" context (likely 72 holes of stroke play) it might also be the "ultimate test" in forcing the best golfer to sense not only the demands of the course itself and how to not just attack them but to defend his overall score against them but even more in how this relates to what everyone else is doing and capable of doing.

Carnoustie may be most remembered for Van de Velde's shocking 72nd hole where he apparently went totally blank on both "tactics" and overall "strategy". He passed the incremental hole test best for 71 holes and then failed not so much on one hole but in the overall tournament context!

In that way Carnoustie may have proven itself the best "ultimate test" of golf.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2002, 07:08:49 AM »
Tom,
I think I understand what you are getting at.  I kind of liked Pat Mucci's comment on one thread about strategy and "options" for the pros.  He said something like "There are no options for the best golfers.  They quickly figure out the best line of play on every hole and that's how they play it".  

Wasn't it Hogan who was on the range at Carnoustie not practicing with his 6I.  When querried about it he said, "I'm not practicing with it because I don't need to hit that club today".  Sounds to me like someone who know exactly how he was going to play that golf course.

I think the better the player, the quicker they learn the course and find that preferred line of play.  Once they've learned it and have the skills to execute the shots, there are few options out there for them on most any course.

It's the weaker player that needs the options.
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2002, 07:17:12 AM »
Tom

I chose the words "complete test" carefully on the previous Carnoustie post.  To me this incorporates the requirement for high levels of skill in both strategic thinking and the hitting of golf shots.  This is what Carnoustie, and Shinnecock, and a very few others, require.

shivas is right too, in that the 1999 Open was a classic example of "maintenance mismeld."  By growing the rough penally, they took most of the skill out of the players' hands.

The greatness of Carnoustie was best evidenced by Hogan's faultless mastery of the course in 1953.  The people who saw that (I know a few) place it higher than anything Nicklaus, or Woods or Jones ever achieved at the "British."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_McMillan

Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2002, 09:21:13 AM »
Re Hogan and the 7/6 iron -

I can believe the story is more myth than fact.  Say Hogan plans out his drives and approaches for a particular course - and there are none which require a particular club.  It's easy enough to imagine that part is true.  What, however, happens if the wind should change?  Say a particular approach called for a 7 iron on a calm day - but on this day the hole plays into a 1-club wind.  Wouldn't having a 6-iron be useful?  On a course like Carnoustie, these day to day variations would seem particularly hard to anticipate.

Re Carnoustie and "strategy" -

The VandeVelde incident is a good example of course "strategy" in the sense I understand it - a choice between minimizing the expected value of the hole, maximizing the probability of a low score, or minimizing the probability of a high score.  Standing on the 18'th tee with a 3 stroke lead, the correct strategy is obviously to minimize the probability of scoring 7 or higher.  VandeVelde obviously did not make the tactical choices consistent with this strategy - and paid the price for that error.  

Given that, I still don't think that Carnoustie is a course which is rich in tactical options (strategic options come only from the particular situation a golfer finds himself in a match), and it does not give much emphasis to the short game and scoring shots.  It's a difficult golf course, but not one I'd label an "ultimate test."  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2002, 09:52:15 AM »
Golf Digest ran a reprint of an old interview with Hogan shortly after he passed away. They asked him about the 7 iron thing & he said it was simply a matter of wanting to get the 1 iron into his bag. If confronted with a normal 7 iron shot, he would simply have choked down on a 6.

Mark - I wonder if you truly meant the "weaker" player needs the options. Weaker players don't need options, they need easy, & I think there is a difference.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2002, 10:06:46 AM »
George,
Are you sure there is a difference?  I would say most of the time there is not at least when defined through the eyes of a better player.
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2002, 10:17:47 AM »
John McM

Have you played Carnoustie?

I cannot think of any course, including Dornoch, which requires one to visualise and hit more "scoring shots" than Carnoustie.  Whether you are trying to win the Open, as Hogan was, or trying to break 80, as I do when I play there, or trying to break 100..........

Cheers

Rich
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2002, 11:11:51 AM »
Mark:

Oh, I think touring pros certainly do have options! I don't know exactly what Pat Mucci meant when he said they don't have or don't use options. I'm sure he doesn't mean they totally disregard their options and have only one single way of playing. It's just that the options they do use and consider are significantly more fine-lined and sophisticated than what we think about as options. But they are definitely meaningful options to them--very much so!

Touring pros certainly do use what they call their "game plans" which is a basic course management outline or plan for how they want to or think they need to play a course any given day or round. That doesn't mean they don't use or don't consider options, it's just that their options are also considerably more preplanned then ours are. But they are certainly capable of reconsidering them, altering them at any time considering various situations.

For anyone who has never really analyzed or paid attention to how a Tour player and his caddy go about a 72 hole tournament or any particular phase of it would probably be quite surprised.

I guess the amount of information available to them at all times would probably surprise some, maybe not. However, the way they go about it in a shot by shot context always surprised me in how apparently casual they are about their choices and execution.

Unless in a highly meaningful situation they also make their decisions and execute quite quickly. There usually is little indecision all of which probably indicates how good they really are and how confident they are in what they can do. When a tough time comes though they do slow down far more than we might!

Mostly tour pros who are playing well sort of coast along in a real "percentage mode" weighing most carefully the factors of what not to do. They are acutely aware of the yardages to danger areas everywhere and are generally given approach yardages to front, back, pin and the short side of the pin, as well as the yardage to the spot they want to hit the ball, whatever that might be! Interestingly Tour pros don't consider the yardage to the middle of the green like almost all of use fixate on unless there's some other particular reason to do so!

Mostly that's what they mean when they talk about "patience" or "staying patient" or even "staying in the moment". "Staying in the moment" to them probably means it's Thursday or Friday, not Sunday afternoon so don't think it is and play in that mode which may have different options and choices.

To most of us "staying in the moment" probably means more to try to concentrate on what it takes to hit a good shot  and how not to get nervous or freaked by doubt or some external situation on that shot. If tour pro playing well thinks  about anything on shot mechanics it's probably just some general mundane thing that might surprise even us in its simplicity. Woods appears to be a bit different in this way in his ability to filter more mechanics through though while playing!

I think Tour pros very much have options, just not our type of options. To them I believe real tournament strategy is how to get to Sunday afternoon somewhere around contention. We certainly hear them say that enough. The rest of it, and what we call options are probably no more than tactical considerations that involved almost rote-like execution to them!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ed_Baker

Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2002, 11:12:03 AM »
I would tend to agree that the ultimate test would be over the entire duration of a tournament. There probably isn't a single course in existence that could be labeled the ultimate test based on a single round,particularly for the best players in the world, they seem to have the ability to humble virtually any venue for at least one round out of four. So by association we could probably conclude that the ultimate test is really the execution of the appropriate golf shots at the most desirable moments under the competition of a tournament on difficult courses in relation to the field of competitors.

The "test" then is the actual playing of the game rather than simply the physical elements of the  course!

The architectural merit (or lack of) of a particular course and weather it exibits elements of the penal or strategic schools of design certainly impact the quality of play neccessary to define the ultimate test, but the actual golf course is only a part of the examination.

Brains Goodale has repeatedly stated in this DG that EVERY golf course is strategic from the standpoint that execution of appropriate shots is neccessary to complete the round even if you can putt the ball from two hundred yards!

To Mark and Georges points the "test" and to what degree it approaches the "ultimate", is in the eye of the beholder and is largely determined by that individuals ability to strike golf shots and overcome the obstacles that the venue,weather conditions, and level of competition present to the individual at that specific point in time.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2002, 11:28:25 AM »
Geez, Ed, you misinterpreted me! ???

I thought I made it perfectly clear in my post of 3:32AM 14 May 1866 that it was possible to putt from a perfectly firm and fast maintenance-melded course to a similarly maintained green from a distance of no more than 237 feet, or approximately 70 metres.

Ask Pizza Man.  He knows.....
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2002, 07:03:46 PM »
Tom,
We're probably in agreement here, just saying it differently.  I had the good fortune at the 1992 Senior Open to follow Jack Nicklaus around during an early practice round.  I got out with him on the first hole before many people were around and we got to talk quite a bit about strategy on several of the holes.  On one of the shorter par fours that someone like Jack could cut the corner leaving a flip sand wedge, Jack hit both a driver and a fairway wood off the tee.  The ball with the driver had cut the corner and was no more than 80 yards from the green.  The fairway wood left him a good 120 as he had played it relatively straight off the tee.  I asked him what he would do in the tournament and he said, "there is no option on this hole, I will hit the 3W.  

When we got to one of the par fives that Jack could (and did)reach with two big shots we had a similar discussion.  Would he go for it in two.  The answer was clear, "this is a layup hole, there is no decison necessary".

He charted that course out hole by hole and knew exactly how he intended to play it.  So that is what I mean about few options for the better players.  Once he had things figured out, the "options" were gone!
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2002, 07:23:22 PM »
Mark

Please stop spouting facts.  We prefer to deal in theory on this site, as I'm sure you know.

Rich
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2002, 01:10:16 AM »
Mark:

Maybe we do agree about options (to tour pros) but are saying it differently. But let's be clear and not say that the pros do not consider their options and start to say things like "to them options are gone". If you say those things someone will inevitably think you mean that pros just plain don't consider options at all!!

I said in my post above that pros play tournaments using a "game plan" which they generally follow. Mostly they put together their "game plans" during practices rounds!

That was a good story of yours about following Nicklaus. He was putting his "game plan" together by hitting shots and considering his options during a practice round. Most golfers who consider their options who are not touring pros generally don't play practice rounds so they have to consider their options right on the spot. But they do about the same thing Nicklaus did only he happened to do it the day before!

But the fact is that both have options and both consider them! No difference.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2002, 08:00:40 AM »
We're close Tom to agreeing.  The only point I guess I'd differ on is "options" for the non touring pros.  When you and I play a golf course that we have played before, we generally have a pretty good idea (game plan) as to how we are going to play it.  Once we figure things out, the "options" that were originally there the first of second time around, are often no longer options for us because we don't ever consider them again.  The better the golfer, the more this rule of thumb holds.

However, I find on the greatest courses, cleaver golfers can sometimes continue to find new and innovative ways to play the same golf holes differently with greater interest and/or success.  But still, there is generally some preferred line of play for everyone.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2002, 05:42:33 PM »
Mark:

Realistically I would sure agree with your last post. But I have a bit of a barometer about that. If it turns out that a golfer (or golfers) play a hole the same way day after day (conditions of course a factor) the hole is probably not that great!

If for some reason--weather, wind, interest, the hole tends to be played differently from one day to the next it's probably a hole with interest and quality and if it inspires golfers to play it many different ways then it might be a great hole--architecturally!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Strategy" vs "the Ultimate Test"
« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2002, 06:11:25 PM »
Fair enough!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »