Do you judge strategy by the intentions or the actual shot?

[Ben Sims]

Mike,

All that matters is the result.  You can design strategy all you want, but if the result for a majority of golfers is different from the intention of your design, then the whole point of your design is moot.  I judge the strategy of a golf hole by what results it accepts, not what is intended.  How many poorly designed "risk/reward" holes have you seen where no one ever went for the risk because the intention was poorly realized? Or vice versa, the risk wasn't a risk and everyone hit the long club no matter what?

Another aspect to this is recovery.  Recovery at Old Mac is certainly different than recovery at ATL Athletic.  OM may have you playing back to the green, but accepting being out of position A with no real hope of birdie or par.  No lost ball, rarely a penalty, still in the hole, albeit at a disadvantage.  ATL Ath probably has you just trying to get back to the playing corridor, out of the hole.  One's for match play and one's for stroke play.  This difference in medal vs. match is a huge factor to designing strategy.  But it's still result over intention anyday. 

Btw, I wondered why you were being so sour this week when I read some of your posts.  Then I remembered that Richt is 9-1 against the trade school on north avenue.  Now that's a 10-year program setback! 

[Bill_McBride]

I took 20 balls out the other afternoon for a straight forward 80 yard wedge shot.  I live in Minnesota with bent grass and ability to stop the ball.  I first hit the lofted wedge to see how many I could get close.  20 shots with my wedge, I believe 19 hit the green and probably 8 or so were in good birdie range. The shot was slightly uphill. I was a little disappointed with only 8 being in a good birdie range.

I then took the 20 balls and hit a 7 iron to run it up on the green and see how different the results would be.  I believe 12 or 13 were on the green and probably 3 in a good birdie range.  

I'm a lower single digit handicapper, and love the ground game.  I was able to play 9 rounds in Scotland in August where often the higher percentage shot is definitely getting it on the ground sooner.  

However, if the higher percentage shot is hitting it higher and stopping it, I will rarely ever try the ground shot.  I like having variety, options, and decisions.  But rarely do I find turf and grass conditions here where it makes more sense (from the fairway approach) to get it rolling on the ground.

It is all about having fun, and although the ground game is a blast, I get more pure enjoyment out of playing the highest percentage  shot, and then executing it.

In the situation you describe, the higher percentage shot is the right shot for most.    In a 30 mph wind, the bump and run might reverse the percentages.   

In answer to Mike Young's initial question........I have played long enough to be able to comprehend what the architect WANTS me to do when playing a hole.   Whether I can do it or not is another question entirely.   

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - you keep intending, in as interesting and natural/site specific and subtle a way as possible, and keep doing it proudly, for that is the nature of your art-craft and that's where your talents lie and that's what you owe 'us', the paying customers/golfers; and meanwhile the rest of 'us' will keep playing and talking about and stumbling around and praising and criticizing and misunderstanding your intentions for years to come.  This is the way it should be.

Peter

[Matt MacIver]

In the situation you describe, the higher percentage shot is the right shot for most.    In a 30 mph wind, the bump and run might reverse the percentages.   

Turf quality and fairway width are 2/3rd of the equation, but wind is the last leg: a great design will allow you to get the ball towards the hole when the wind is howling.  In the US we don't interact with the wind often enough because our courses aren't built on windy sites. 

[Mike_Young]

Ben,
Recovery is part of strategy....

Bill and Peter,
Thanks for answering the initial question.     My mentioning ground/air got this a little off base...

[Ben Sims]

Ben,
Recovery is part of strategy....

Is the recovery--or lack thereof--intentional?  I thought you were going to geek out with me for a sec and give me more than that.  Dang!  Oh well, as Ron Paul said tonight...

"All this talk is just talk."

[Mike_Young]

Ben,
Recovery is part of strategy....

Is the recovery--or lack thereof--intentional?  I thought you were going to geek out with me for a sec and give me more than that.  Dang!  Oh well, as Ron Paul said tonight...

"All this talk is just talk."

Of course it's intentional part of the strategy.  That's what separates the good from the bad IMHO. 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mike it is all about what the good player would do?  I do think strategy and shot making options can and should be part of design. There are places where leaving a ground option will be used by the better players. An example is a where the second shot is down wind in the prevailing wind settling. And the green complex design makes that the better approach strategically.  I have always liked a ground option because I think it keeps the game fun and moving for higher handicappers or older players. When I was a kid learning the game. We would play the air game at the country club where the turf was plush and full. Even as kids we could spin it. Then one never knew when it would be wet or firm in front of the green either. We played the ground game at the local muni because the turf was hardpan or tite.  Both were fun but it sure made my first trip to TOC fun. I already had the shots.