The Strategy of Strategy

[Tim_Jackson]

Strategy.  What does it mean?  What is the definable characteristic of strategy?  What causes some courses to be critiqued as strategic gems and other courses as deviod of 'IT'?

I think for many people the simple definition is options of play.  They have the ability to discern several paths and choose the proper play.  Usually, one of the plays contains inherent danger but high reward, while the safe play may leave a more difficult following shot.  I think most people who recognize these types of holes or courses, are either skilled players or well read and or traveled amateur architectural critics.  Which courses possess these supposedly highly sought after traits, is a matter of voluminous discussion here.

The problem I have with this defintion is the number of people it applies to.  Many, in fact the vast majority of golfers, have neither the skill nor the desire to tread so deeply into the game.  A more appropriate defintion of strategy to them is just getting the ball into play or simply avoiding the hazards.  I do not think poorly of this.  I just think it is how they percieve the game.  They tend to enjoy courses that are forgiving off the tee and allow them to advance the ball somewhat freely.  These are the courses which tend to be looked at negatively here.  Courses which possess these supposedly negative traits are also a matter of voluminous discussion here.

There is, I believe, many more definitions of strategy as well.  It means many things to many people.  It is the perception of the individual that is key.  Most every shot I play I see strategy.  Playing closer to a hazard for a better line, distance control for a flater lie or correct yardage, taking advantage of contour, keeping a shot below the pin, etc.  The strategy of the proper play is there  - if it seen.

So I have two problems.  First, many architects designs are derided for being devoid of strategy and 'dumbed down' as it has been stated, for the poorer player.  So essentially the architect is being accused of designing for the vast majority of the golfing public.  Think about it.

Secondly, I think that many people who make these accusations fail to go deeply enough into the game to realize the strategy that lies in each and every shot.  They criticize the forty yard wide fairway as they fail to notice where the best place to hit in the forty yard wide fairway was.

I also think that the particular golfers in this category have enough game to score well from the 'members' tee (the distance from which the architect has made the course 'more playable') but not enough length to play the back tees.  Many times it is the back tees which contain the most strategy, because of the high level of golfer who is expected to play from there.  I know this begs for the cry of, "make it interesting from every set of tees!"  I don't think that is very easily done.  

Hazard placement for one set of tees will leave others wanting.  I know you would say, "place the tees so that the hazard is approximate for all of the tee yardages."  Remember, they are TRYING to make it easier for the poorer player, more difficult for the better player.  Just a thought.

[TEPaul]

We might talk about options in an architectural sense on here as strategy but that's no way to explain strategy to the everyday American golfer.

Mostly they just want to take out a driver and hit is as far as possible hopefully in the middle (the middle has to be the best place to be, right?) and from there just get it as far down and as close to the target as possible.

There's no real reason to talk to good golfers about strategy because they probably understand it anyway either intuitively or actually or they wouldn't be good golfers.

But for the rest, the best and simpliest thing to lay on them is Tommy Armour's old saw that's been around for a long time but should be repackaged by anybody and everybody who might be interested in teaching the everyman golfer not only a basic but extremely valuable and effective lesson in strategy.

Armour's remark was: "On every shot choose the shot that is LIKELY to make the next shot easiest!" Blissfully simple and effective, and the "LIKELY" part refers to the present shot as well as the shot that follows it!

And the place to mention to them to really concentrate on this old saw is on shots that follow shots that have been missed and on "recovery" shots too. Most golfers would be amazed how many strokes a dedicated application of this old saw can save them if they can concentrate enough to do it for an entire round!

But there's another strategy that I think should be mentioned more often to the everyman golfer! That's the simple strategies near, on and around the greens themselves. Some people even practice their chipping and putting but still make poor choices and decisions that do not even relate to  execution on this little democratic area of the game that really doesn't take strength at all, just smaller but still important applications of strategic sense!

[Tim_Jackson]

TEPaul:

All of that makes emminent sense.  The point I was trying to get around to was how our perception of strategy impacts our perception of gold course design.  

This whole thought came from a thread a long time ago on Pelican Hill.  I was trying to reconcile why I think Pelican to be a very solid golf course that contains many strategic plays, while T. Nacarrato seemed to have quite the opposite view.

Other than writing it off as simple difference of opinion, I began to think why.  My best thought was, designed as a resort course, Pelican did not offer to Mr. Nacarrato what it did to me.  From the tips, although neither course is overly long, Pelican is challenging.  I do not know what tees Mr. Nacarrato played, but judging from self deprecating assesments of his game he has stated in other threads, I am guessing it wasn't the tips.  

So, my next thought was, perhaps the individuals who have the ability or desire to view courses in a strategic matter, yet lack the length or ability to play from the tips, feel shorted.  The course, from that distance, has been designed to appeal to the vast majority of people who will play from there.  Not the few mentioned above.  And, is that wrong that the course has been designed for the vast majority of people who will play from that particular distance?  I don't think so.

I am not sure there is a right or wrong answer.  I was just trying to attempt to understand how people might look at things differently.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Jackson,

It all depends whether an individual learns through experience.

We know that Chimpanzees do, but do golfers ?

Remember also, that golf is a game, and some play it for different reasons.  

The PGA Tour Pro may evaluate a shot in mathematical terms.
An Amateur who loves the challenge of the game may possess a "Tin Cup" mentality, trying a difficult shot over and over again, with his single quest, being, that one pure execution of the shot, against all odds.   And you can't fault either player, they both seek to attain the goals they have chosen when playing the game of golf.

Sometimes that leads to the ignoring of strategy, or prudent strategy, and sometimes the strategy is clearly mandated.

Of all the courses I have played, NGLA seems to provide an infinite variety of strategy to most levels of golfers.  
Each shot, creates additional strategies for consideration.

I believe strategy at NGLA changes dramatically when engaged in a competition, that is medal play, versus match play, and strategy undergoes yet another metamophosis when just playing for fun, or trying new routes of play or different shots.

Perhaps your question on a players ability to understand strategy is clearly woven into the fabric of course management.  And.....some never get the banana !

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
I can empathize with what you are saying and have commented on this same topic many times in the past.  I coined the phase my 99% rule in that 99% of most golfers unfortunately fall into this category.  The average golfer barely breaks one hundred and most every architect understands this fact.  This doesn't excuse poor golf course designs, but it does put into perspective some of what we discuss on this site.  
Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have always found that good players and average players seem to like about the same things in courses, generally - good definition, open front greens (necessity for average guy, possible bail out for better player who has caught a tree), greens that hold, no real goofy putts, Wide fairways, (for choice or survival) Etc.  I know not all agree here, and it does lead to some standardized designs, but they like the same type of things, even if they either don't know why or don't know how to use it.  So, why not design the same types of holes?

I had a professor once who taught us something and then said "You won't get this now, but you'll slap your forehead some day saying "Now, I know what he was saying".  And I did!  I like to think that even if strategy eludes the average player daily, that if he plays the course long enough, he will discover a different way to play.  And as any good teacher is apt to say, ....If I reach just one golfer, I'll be sucessful!

so, why not design strategy?

The funny thing is, in tying two current threads together, is that as TEPAul suggests, strategy COULD save the average guy a stroke a hole.  That new driver probably won't, and it costs a bundle!  Stategy is free!  Maybe we are going about education of average golfers the wrong way!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tim
It sounds like you believe the average guy should be exempt from strategy, or that you can only provide strategy for either the good player or the average guy but not for both. Isn't that the reason for multiple tees?  

And truly great strategy is more than just presenting choices, truly great strategy forces strategy or thought.

Shouldn't the strategy of hole be designed backward - starting at the green back to the tee. If the greens are designed to present or set up interesting strategic choices, then chances are the hole will work strategically for all golfers - after all no matter how good you are or how long you are, isn't everyone required to face the ultimate target, the green. Another thought on strategy, I think the true test of a well designed golf course is - would it be interesting if it had no hazards. Not enough thought is placed in utilizing or creating interesting contours that effect the good, bad and average golfer - but yet are not especially punitive. Isn't that a major reason why St.Andrews has remained the greatest strategic test for all levels of golfers?

[George Pazin]

Tim -

I folowed most of what you were writing until you started talking about the strategy revealed by playing the back tees versus the other tees. This reminds me of discussions re: Pebble Beach, where some seemed to suggest that, if you weren't playing the championship tees, you weren't seeing the brilliance of the course.

So please, explaing this to me again: If your basic pro or low handicapper hits the ball 20-40+ yards further & his tees are set further back to reflect this, shouldn't things at least approach evening out? Not from a scoring point, certainly, but in terms of hazard placement & strategy of playing the hole. If anything, I've seen many courses where the back tees don't really make that much of a difference from the set just in front. And the view expressed by you and others certainly has done a lot to encourage people to play from the wrong set of tees, which just slows everything down & makes golf less enjoyable for everyone.

I liked what you said about people who failed to understand that wide fairways are not necessarily less strategic if there is a preferred landing area, but I think all too often this aspect is overlooked - in cases where it exists, most golfers are too clueless to realize it and, in most other cases, it simply doesn't matter.

I read most of that thread on Pelican, and while I can't fully understand the reason for the differing views you & Tommy had, I don't think it was because Tommy may have missed something by not playing the tips.

People define strategy a lot of different ways. I personally tend to favor options, options & more options, but I know plenty of golfers who see it as the architect providing them with clearly defined avenues of approach. Do it & you've executed the required strategy. I don't find this so interesting, but clearly many others do.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

George and Tom Mac,
Perfectly said!

Tim Jackson,

One verse for you.

"Riviera #10"

But if your buddy Fazio gets to it, I'm sure he'll recognize its greatness just like he has done with the rest of the course.

[Tim_Jackson]

Sorry, a little clarity:

I do not think desingers should or do 'limit' the amount of strategy in a design, based on who will be playing the course.  I believe, for the most part, they attempt to maximize the property to the owner's program.

I was just trying to wrap what little intellect I have around deciphering how different levels of golfers percieve a course and how people who understand strategy may see it differently.

Tom:  I do not think the average player should be or necessarily is exempted from strategy.  My question is, what percentage of them can see it?  I do not think it is a large number.  Not because they have the blinders on, but as you progress in the game you become more able to do things with your shotmaking that opens up new options.  Strategy is relative.

Strategy should be ultimately set up by the goal - getting the ball into the hole in as few as strokes possible.  How this may be achieved depends on your ability.  It is difficult to keep it down the left side of the fairway when your goal is simply to keep it in play.  It is hard to keep it below the hole when you are just trying to keep it out of the bunker.

George:  I feel very strongly that 50% of golfers play on a set of tees further back than they should.  I think starters, head professionals, directors of golf, etc. need to do a better job of getting the golfers to the correct tee.  I know it is difficult for them as a lot of people have the attitude of, "For what I paid I want to see the whole course."  I do not envy that task, but different avenues exist to entice golfers to the correct tee set.

Remember, that even if hazard placement is relative distance wise, many times the back tees contain more difficult angles than the forward tees.  Also, poorer players tend to hit it further off line and I think some architects account for that as well.  I have not played Pebble or St. Andrews so I can not account for those comments.

Tommy:  Nice to see the cynicism is still healthy and strong.  I played #10 at Riviera driver, 2-putt.  I am not saying it isn't a strategic hole, but for ME it wasn't, which is exactly the point I am trying to make.  People see things differently.  This may explain your aversion to Fazio and mine to others.  

Playing Riviera I stayed concious of looking at how I was presented each shot and what the options might be.  On every tee shot, there was a best place to be depending on the hole placement.  But were there options?  Not really.
So golfers who define options as strategy, may not find the tree lined fairways of Riviera that strategic.  You do.  Who is right and who is wrong?



 

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tim
Maximize the property to the owner's program what does that mean? Do owners specify that they prefer a strategic course not be built?

I'll tell you how golfers decipher courses, they find courses that lack strategy dull, no matter what level of golfer they are or even if they know what strategy is. Well designed courses are exhilirating and fun to play - who cares if a poor golfer does or doesn't understand 'strategy' or knows a strategic hole when he sees it or not? An interesting stategic design doesn't provide choices, it demands choices and that what makes the game more interesting and ultimately more fun. The average, good or poor golfer has a choice of A, B, C or D - make up you mind based on your ability and see if you can execute it. Even if you take the easiest choice you still have to execute to a certain extent. Are you saying a poor golfer is incapabable of aiming left or right or playing short? If they aim right and go left chances are they will pay the price, perhaps they will play short the next time. Sure it is difficult to stay under the hole when there is a bunker to be avoided, make a choice, avoid the bunker hit above the hole - a sound choice/strategy if you ask me. It sounds like you prefer the poor golfer should be spoon fed his golf - is that type golf you are defending. If a poor golfer makes a bad decision he will pay the price - golf ain't fair and strategy is not without penalties. In fact there is no strategy without penalties.  No strategy at Riviera? Hmm, you obviously will sacrafice your own reputation to defend you view of strategy (and TF).

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom and Tommy

Tim is right.  Every golfer needs to emply strategy on any golf course--even if the golfer is gormless and/or the course offers only the most simplistic of strategic options.  Please repeat after me:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "STRATEGIC" GOLF COURSE!

Golfers identify, create and try to execute golfing strategies.  The courses on which they do it are just venues--some more amenable to strategic thinking than others.  For a golfer of Tim's caliber, the 10th at Riviera obviously offers only one realtively achievable strategic alternative.

[Mark_Fine]

Playing the devils advocate, how do we explain golf courses that are a 2or 3 on the Doak scale (we all know that is the level of most golf courses) that do 50000 rounds a year?  Why do golfers keep playing there?  

[THuckaby2]

Mark:  There are a multitude of possible answers for that.

Cheap
Close to home
Don't know better
No other reasonable choices
Buddies play there
Ego-building for scores
Hot beer cart babes
Did I say cheap?

Amenable to strategic thinking is all well and good, but different people have different reasons for playing this game, that's for sure.

TH

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

MF
Would you describe Pelican Hills as a 2 or 3? Or are you saying that because the poor guy in rural Texas is forced to play a course devoid of strategy, its perfectly alright to design Pelican Hills without strategy? Ineresting logic.

[Richard_Goodale]

Mashie 1

What you say is true, but I think that we must recognize that "strategy" refers to what a person does in a certain situation.  The etymology is from "strategos"="generalship" in the Greek.

The battlefields of Gettysburg or el Alamein or "Fizzy Drinks" or jet engines or the Old Course or Pelican Hill are not "strategic" in and amongst themselves.  They are venues/contexts within which men (or women) can and do develop and execute strategies, with varying options and risks and rewards and varying degrees of success.

[Tim_Jackson]

Mr. Macwood

I do not think your statement was a fair representation of what I wrote or intended.  I was trying to understand how two golfers can see the same course in a totally different light.  Read a bit deeper.

Your opinion that Pelican has no strategy is fine - it is your opinion.  I can, and have, written on how and why I enjoy Pelican and the strategies I find there.  You, Tommy, and others have issue with the design.  I don't.  But let me say this, I do not feel that my 'reputation' is on the line for stating what I perceive.  I would much rather take an analytical approach and attempt to qualify strategy rather than say ANY course has no strategy at all.  That statement is devoid of thought.

EVERY course contains strategies.  Some obvious - some not.  WHO can see WHAT was the idea.  Riviera certainly contains strategy.  Drawing an iron into the green on 4, putting the ball on the right side of the green on 6, the options of fairway on 8, the iron or wood off the 10th tee, etc.  

Poorer golfers are capable of playing to a position, but it is much more difficult for them and they are less apt to be able to do it.  I think they recognize heroic shots and attempt them and get great satisfaction if they pull it off, but they enjoy the challenge regardless.  When they are finally able to hit such a shot successfully - it is an achievement.  But do they recognize the subtler strategies of positioning, taking advantage of contour, playing to the easiest putt not the pin, etc., perhaps not.  

I see you do not care for how or why they play the game at all.  But don't you think it is a bit nieve to think architects should ignore 90-95% of the golfing population?  I am not advocating spoon feeding!  I am simply trying to understand the situation.

Now if that tarnishes my reputation  - so be it.

[THuckaby2]

Rich, you have pushed this point well and often... but it's like forcing people to say "I played pretty well" as opposed to "pretty good" - the former is most definitely correct, the latter is what all too many want to say.

Thus I believe we will always have strategic golf courses, as well as heroic, penal, etc. even if the grammar is incorrect!  

Oh well.

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

TH

If you can tell me the differences between those kinds of courses, please feel free to do so.  Nobody else on this site has made any convincing case for this classification, so get that large brain around this problem and go for it!

Rihc

Ps--how is the pet gerbil doing?  I really didn't see him (her?) when I stated the downswing on my mighty new Ping driver.....

[THuckaby2]

You got to poor little Sparky?  Oh, the horror... the horror....

 

Hey, I can't describe the difference any better than anyone else here, that's for sure.  And I am NOT saying it's right to even try.  I'm just saying people always do classify golf courses this way, always will - grammar be damned.

Ever try to convince someone that the correct answer to "where are the ProV1's?" is "these are they" if you hold them in your hand?

Grammar is a strange beast, somewhat analagous to golf rules:  technically correct does not equal universally accepted.

TH

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I think it is the "price" and the architect that influences some people's opinion of Pelican Hills     They probably also believe the potential of the site was not maximized and maybe they are right.  However, you have to judge what is there and I’ve played both courses there a few times and I don’t think either is devoid of strategy.  I’m not a complete hack playing to a 2 or 3 handicap and you know I've seen a few good courses and have some idea of what constitutes an interesting golf hole.  Heck, didn’t Golfweek at one point have the one course rated in their Top 100?  It can’t be a complete dog track can it??  Frankly many of those holes have more strategy then you think especially with the wind blowing which I would think at Pelican Hills is always a factor.  Are the courses 10’s, of course not, but they aren’t 2’s or 3’s either.  It’s been probably five years of so since I played them last but I recall them being in the 5 range.  

Furthermore, how many rounds do these courses get a year?  Until golfers are unwilling to pony up the $175 or whatever it is these days, who is to blame them for charging what they do?  If they don’t like the golf courses, play somewhere else.  Then they will have to stop building these expensive courses!

Mark

[Tim_Jackson]

Sorry, I've digressed.

The original question dealt less with defining strategy, than individuals interpretation of architecture based on strategy.  I know the first couple of sentences skewed the idea.

My ultimate point was this:

If architects take into account the majority of the golfing population and attempt to make courses more playable for them from the tees they will play, will there be someone left out?  The player who can understand strategy and design, but does not have the ability to play the set of tees which has been set up stronger.  And, does this account for, at times, how two people can see things so differently?  That was the premise.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I like that remark of yours:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "STRATEGIC" GOLF COURSE!

I guess that explains why if you put me in the middle of the fairway with a green facing right at me and nothing on either side after a while I become incapable of even attempting to hit it straight, no I have to try some radical shot instead!

It might also explain why from the middle of the fairway on #9 Pine valley to the right green which fairly shreeks at you to hit a fade, I'm incapable of trying anything other than a big sweeping draw! There's actually a tree overhanging the right side a bit I have to get it around, over, or just skim by somehow and also a huge bunker guarding the entire right side of the most overt left to right green you ever saw--but I'm gonna get that draw in there perfectly one of these days!

I admit I've always been fascinated by the theory of contrary opinion, but.....

So, yes, golf courses aren't strategic and golfers can be very weird in their strategies sometimes!

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

If you found yourself in the middle of the 9th at PV with a right pin you either chose the wrong strategy off the tee or failed to execute the right strategy properly.  The golf course did nothing but just sit there and laugh at you when you ended up in the middle of the fairway!  He (she?) wasn't strategizing, just observing.

[TEPaul]

That reminds me of a time I was playing in one of the good local individual stroke play tournaments around here with a guy (can't quite remember his name now--haven't seen him in years--think he had something to do with drugs) but he was real good, a natural talent, hit the ball a mile--really had all the shots! He had a little pony tail which was a bit unusual in the field but anyway, this guy, me and our fellow competitors in the group had all been grinding out a good round all day. He was actually probably in contention to win and we're on the 17th tee of a fairly long par 4 that was pretty much straight-away! There were woods way out to the right and an enormous tree about 30yds off the fairway near the woods but sort of standing along. Actually the Exec. Director of GAP was near the tee watching us.

So this guy announces that just for the fun of it he's going to hit a hook around that tree way out there on the right and back into the fairway! To hook the ball around that tree would have to be about 60yds mininum! We were so stunned nobody said anything and damned if he didn't do it. You should have seen the look on the face of the Exec. Director!

Here's a guy who had been grinding away all day playing real smart golf and all of a sudden he does something like that at the 11th hour of competition! How do you figure? Pulling off a shot like that was insane to try, doing it twice would be 1 in 100 minimum!

Yep, golf strategy is strange sometimes!