[Joel_Stewart]

This is an excellent thread.

Golf like life requires many decisions.  What I'm seeing here is as a golfer gets better the options get better, the strategy gets broader.  Like anything else, experience helps.

Tom:  Funny story.  Did the ponytail golfer win the tournament?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Sometimes, confidence overrides strategy.

Your story could be told by.......Jack Nicklaus,
commenting on how he would play St Andrews in the British Open when the cameras were following John Daly.

Nicklaus expounded on how he would strategically play each hole, Daly made him look foolish by just gripping and ripping it,
playing the golf course his own way, far beyond conventional strategy.

I don't know that architects carve out a universal, or sole strategy, I think they provide a field of play, for each of us to select OUR strategy, based on our game and our confidence levels.

I also don't think that architects envisioned guys carrying bunkers placed at 250 to 300 yards from the tee.  In the old days, they used to place greens 250 to 300 yards from the tee.

[TEPaul]

shivas told me he might be as crazy as me sometimes when it comes to odd strategies!

Now here's a strategic story that's one of the most tragic I know of. This is a good friend of mine from Philly, qualifying for the US Amateur in Wlimington--maybe 175 players for 6-7 spots and he comes to his last hole, the 9th, par 5 with a carry over water to the green. He hits a great drive, is well with in range of the green. This guy is mathematical and he KNOWS he needs a par 5 to qualify on the number!

He quickly puts out of his mind going for it in case he hits a terrible shot so now he's into layup strategy in front of the lake. He figures he has about 165 to layup in front before getting to the lake. He takes out a 7 iron and then thinks of Hogan's adage that if you're gonna lay-up, really lay-up. So he goes to an 8 iron, then he thinks what if something really bizarre happens and he goes to the 9 iron. He's almost ready to hit it and for some reason he puts the 9 iron back in the bag grabs his PW hits a nice full wedge, the ball is sailing down there looking to land maybe 40-50 yds short of the lake hits the ground bounces about 50 feet in the air and takes off and goes into the front of the lake!! He jumps about 10 feet in the air runs screaming down the fairway to where it landed and sure enough if he didn't hit a sprinkler head!!

Missed the Amateur by a shot too!

[George Pazin]

Tim -

Now I'm more confused than ever - you're saying Riviera #10 is not a strategic hole for you - or I can rephrase it in Goodale-ese: you were not faced with any strategic options when playing Riviera #10, it was simply pull out the driver, whack it on & 2 putt for birdie? Interesting how the 140-odd pros who will be playing there this weekend find this simple hole quite vexing.

I'm not trying to be rude, but that has to be one of the biggest simplifications I've read on GCA yet. I'm starting to better understand the argument between you & Tommy - you are both quite black & white with your examples & analysis. There doesn't seem to be much room for anything left to say other than you agree to disagree.

Old pictures would show you that those tree-lined fairways were not the original plan for the course - it was pretty barren back then. Even so, I read a book detailing Davis Love's tournament thoughts during the 93(?) Nissan Open when he lost to Freddie in a playoff. He seemed to put a lot of thought into virtually every shot played at Riviera, especially #10.

I agree that most golfers play the wrong tees. I don't understand the "play the whole course" logic at all, & I'm a mid- to high-handicapper myself. All playing the tips usually does for me is make me have less fun & feel pressured that I'm slowing down better golfers in my group. I think most courses would be better off posting some kind of sign saying that you must produce a handicap card showing a single digit handicap before you play the tips, but, unfortunately, they have to make a living, too.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tim
It is MacWood with a capital W, but you can call me Tom.  

I don't have the fogiest idea if Pelican Hills is strategic or not. I was only trying to answer Mark's odd question comparing why the average Joe enjoys playing this great game on their local goat track and the larger question as to why courses designed by golf architects should be designed with strategy or not. Obviously I am of the school that says that the average Joe will apreciate and enjoy golf courses with strategic choices (even if he is not conscious of architecturial strategy) more than courses without interesting choices.

All I know about Pelican Hills is what I've seen on TV, the poor review of the course from Tommy (not a fan of Fazio), the poor review from Tim W. (a objective fan of Fazio) and evidently you hold the course in high regard. But I really don't know or care about Pelican and only used it as a hypothetical example. But I'm confused is this thread meant to defend your opinion of Pelican or is it meant to defend Fazio who has been accused of building courses lite on strategy or are you trying to say that there are only 1-5% of the public that understands strategy so it is unfair or unreasonable to present strategy to the remaining 95%. Or maybe all three.

Is it important that a golfer be consciously aware of strategy? I don't think so, at least intitially. You yourself claimed that the 10th of Riviera presented no strategy to you, it could be said that you were unaware of the strategy (not unlike your 95%), but did that prevent you from enjoying the hole or getting a thrill from playing the hole? And there isn't much debate that most students of golf architecture believe the hole is one of the great strategicly designs.

If a poor 95%-type golfer finds himself off a green at Pinehurst #2 or The Old course, and contemplates whether to use a wedge or a 5-iron or a putter is he unfairly taxed? Might he fail to execute whatever he chooses? Would it better if he were not given that choice?

I do not agree that 95% of all golfers are idiot hacks, there are certainly golfers of differing skill levels and differing knowldge of the finer points of architecure, but I give the average golfer much more credit that those from the 95% school. Of course it doesn't help when they continue to be presented with strategy lite courses. The more a golfer is presented with courses providing strategic choices the more apt he is to be aware of the concept.

I wonder if golf architects who design 'playable' courses or strategy lite courses don't expect these courses to be played more than once and design with that in mind. Perhaps they are consciously or subconsiously designing for the traveling golf rater who only sees the course once or perhaps they are designing for the photographer who snaps the single picture and then leaves - the course is designed for that single image, that one moment frozen in time.

[Tim_Jackson]

Sorry about the spelling error Tom.  I really have screwed up what I was trying to put my thoughts around.  I wasn't attempting to defend or advocate anything - honestly.  I just was trying to understand how two people may look at something so differently.  

As for #10 at Riveria, I believe it is a very strategic golf hole.  The short par 4 with varied options is almost always fun and interesting to play.  My thinking in the statement was just to show how length can overcome some of the strategy of a golf hole.  I meant no disrespect to George Thomas, Riviera, or Freddie Couples.

Here is what I keep fumbling around.  Strategy is relative to each and every golf depending on his ability.  As it was stated, John Daly removes much of the strategy of St. Andrews due to his length.  He plays the course differently because of his strength - length.   I was also trying to get across that there is strategy in each and every shot.  It is up to the individual and his or her ability.

I think there are quite a few people of average ability who desire strategy in their round.  However, it is the subtle strategies of course management which are missed.  That does not mean that it should not be presented, but it is not appreciated by many.

I just grow weary of so few courses receiving an approving nod here.  It seems that for many people, every design must be held up to Pine Valley or Riviera.  Instead of enjoying what could be a nice round of golf too much time is spent figuring out why the course isn't so great, why it doesn't stand in the pantheon of architecture.  After all of the time reading threads here I think the only two courses built since 1960 that Tommy N. approves of are Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes.  That is like 2 for 12,346.  I can't imagine that all of these courses are all that bad when strategy lies in each and every swing of the club.  

So, I have fouled up my original intent grandly, and wish askance for youthful exuberance.

[George Pazin]

Tim -

I'm starting to see the light here & I really appreciate your last post.

About the only thing further I can tell you is that you're wrong if you think the only courses built in the last 40 years that Tommy likes are Sand Hills & Pacific Dunes. He wrote a thoughtful critique of Rees' work at Torrey Pines recently, admitted there much both good & bad there, I think he likes Todd Eckenrode's work at Barona a great deal, I know he LOVES the work Gil Hanse is doing at Rustic Canyon... I could go on, but if you want to know what other course built in recent years that Tommy likes, you'd best ask him. Just don't ask him about Fazio.

It's easy to stereotype the many views expressed on this site as only loving a small handful of courses, but this could not be less accurate. I've said it before & I'll say it again: look at the first page of current discussion topics & see if that all looks the same. Hell, if you combined the 5 or 6 "sky is falling due to technology" threads into 1 thread, the list would be even more impressive.

[Slag_Bandoon]

  Strategy is an abstract idea,  being thus it is definable in a multitude of ways.  I'm beginning to understand that the first step in golf strategy is losing the ego.  Leave the driver in the bag; hit from apropriate tees, play the game of percentages not heroic possibilities, be supportive of other players*.   Perhaps it's the serotonin level that is climbing with age that is displacing my noradrenaline levels in my brain but I'm beginning to see the courses not as a battlefield of 'man vs' nature' but as a chess board.  (Is a Mulligan a legal "castle"?)  

  * Strategic ?   It's how we approach WHAT WE"RE PLAYING FOR that let's us win at golf.

[Mark_Fine]

Rich says there is no such thing as as a strategic golf course.  I say the exact opposite, every course is strategic (at least golfers will make it strategic)!  Someone name one golf hole (let alone one course) that they have played that has no strategy to playing it?  I guarantee you that if you have a group of golfers play that hole, at least one if not all of them will figure out ways to play it differently.  

[Richard_Goodale]

Mark

You and I are in complete agreement.  I'm just saying that the golfer is the strategist, not the piece of land he is playing on.  Some of those pieces of land require different strategies than others, and some offer the golfer more creativity to plan and execute his strategy for playing them.  For most people on this site, that makes them more "strategic."  That's fine, but to me, it's like saying that polypropylene or fresh milk are strategic."  Running those sorts of businesses requires strategy, but the physical products are not strategic per se.  At least that's the way I've always seen it.

To all

Sorry for my six-monthly sematics rant.

Rich

[Tim_Jackson]

George:

You are right.  I know Mr. Nacarrato most likely has multiple courses he enjoys and appreciates.  It was a poor statement.

I think though, the reality of it all is, that people simply see things differently, like different things - and it is just fine.  If someone receives enjoyment from playing a particular course, who am I to tell them why the course should have been this that or the other, really.  They encountered something, be it strategy, aesthetics, the form of the bunkers, the cart girl or whatever, that allowed them to have an enjoyable time.

If I do not like a course, I do not have to play it.  Why make someone else feel smaller by deriding the course they may like.  Why spend time worrying about the ones I don't like, when there is to little time to play the ones I do.  

Gents - it has been fun.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()