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

[Mike_Young]

There seems to be a constant discussion on here of the ground game vs "air".  I think the theorist often complicate it where the really good players just play it. 
Well?

[Garland Bayley]

Well, do the good players hit shots using the ground?

[Mike_Young]

Well, do the good players hit shots using the ground?

Probably sometimes...

[Mark Saltzman]

Mike,

I don't know if I qualify as a good player or not, but...

I'm not a guy that is really into the ground game vs. aerial game argument. I think the ground game can be more fun as it requires more thought over a stock full swing, but I won't use the ground game just because a green is open in front.

If you look at the Dormie thread I started:

Hole 1 is wide open in front and the ground came can be used, but it never crossed my mind to use it.  I was better-off hitting a normal 7-iron and carrying it to the green.

Hole 6, on the other hand, is also open in front but I felt the best way to play the hole was using the ground game approach.

So, basically, I agree with you (assuming I'm counted in the ranks of good players).  I try to play the hole how I think I will score the best, regardless of whether I could theoretically play it some other way.

[Terry Lavin]

The chop amateur hobbyist wants strategy off the tee and into the green. Loose translation:  Since I suck, I need a wide fairway and the ability for a greenside recovery shot.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I don't think intention vs. reality and ground vs. air are correlated to each other.

Everyone tries to hit a singular path.
Some paths are far more interesting.
And some holes/conditions require the interesting path for the lowest score or highest probability for the lowest score.

Tell us about the most interesting or deceiving hole at Long Shadow and how differently you play it, while still trying to get the lowest score.

Cheers

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I don't know if I qualify as a good player or not, but...

I'm not a guy that is really into the ground game vs. aerial game argument. I think the ground game can be more fun as it requires more thought over a stock full swing, but I won't use the ground game just because a green is open in front.

If you look at the Dormie thread I started:

Hole 1 is wide open in front and the ground came can be used, but it never crossed my mind to use it.  I was better-off hitting a normal 7-iron and carrying it to the green.

Hole 6, on the other hand, is also open in front but I felt the best way to play the hole was using the ground game approach.

So, basically, I agree with you (assuming I'm counted in the ranks of good players).  I try to play the hole how I think I will score the best, regardless of whether I could theoretically play it some other way.

Mark,
I just used the "ground game" as an example of one aspect of strategies.  And I am assuming good players for discussion are single digit.  AND I am not saying enjoying playing for the ground game is wrong.  I do think the good player works strategy from the hole backwards and often the higher handicap will work it as it pertains to each shot.  I'm just wanting to hear opinions....

[Garland Bayley]

Well, do the good players hit shots using the ground?

Probably sometimes...

Well, in that case, I would posit that another good player playing alongside might attempt the same shot through the air. In that case, I would say it is safe to judge strategy by the actual shot(s).

[Mike_Young]

I don't think intention vs. reality and ground vs. air are correlated to each other.

Everyone tries to hit a singular path.
Some paths are far more interesting.
And some holes/conditions require the interesting path for the lowest score or highest probability for the lowest score.

Tell us about the most interesting or deceiving hole at Long Shadow and how differently you play it, while still trying to get the lowest score.

Cheers

Mike,
IMHO the width of that "singular path" everyone tries to hit varies greatly from one player to the next.  I do think "highest probability for the lowest score" is what it's all about but whether or not it is interesting would be down the list IMO.  
As for Long Shadow...I don't think that much without being on the hole.
Cheers..

[Ben Sims]

Mike,

In my experiences with good players, they just do whatever gets them closest to the hole.  But very, very rarely is a shot on the ground the option they feel most comfortable with in getting the closest they can.  

My beef with the aerial game as the singular "king" in how to approach golf holes is that it is exclusionary in nature.  But you're a good player, you like exclusionary.  Most golfers just can't play it.  Me, I play for fun and couldn't give two tug toners about the final outcome.  

Unfortunately--in the US at least--this is all mumbo jumbo.  Agronomy and climate are the single biggest determinants on whether a ground game is even feasible.  Not actual results or intent.  

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike,
IMHO the width of that "singular path" everyone tries to hit varies greatly from one player to the next.  I do think "highest probability for the lowest score" is what it's all about but whether or not it is interesting would be down the list IMO.  
As for Long Shadow...I don't think that much without being on the hole.
Cheers..

You should see some of my paths...

I don't think interest is down your list - it is a different interest.
The golf swing and getting the ball in the hole are very high on your interest list - also - wind, match, lie, club...
The game is inherently interesting - If you weren't interested you wouldn't play.

My premise is that golf can be both interesting for you and for me.
And sometimes that means the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, in the opposite direction.
Thank you very little.
Cheers

Ben
I'll remind you that you don't care about the outcome next time we are on the 18th tee.
Cheers

[Mike_Young]

Ben,
First, I don't really consider myself a good player.  I agree that it should not be exclusionary.  The ability of a particular course to allow for playing along the ground is what so many people like.  And IMHO frontal obstacles, whether bunkers, vertical slopes etc, don't actually affect the good players as much as the lateral bunkers or short side obstacles because the good player will usually carry the correct distance and his miss will be to either side. But no where did I say air game is "king".  I was just using "air vs. ground" as an example.

Mike,
I understood your original post to be "interesting paths" not whether "the game was interesting".  Of course the game is interesting to me.  I never said I wasn't interested in the game. 

As for Ben and "outcome".  Ask him what he would do if the aerial game took over college football but all the little UGA fans loved watching the remedial reading majors ground game and kept coming to Athens every Saturday to watch them lose.   The ground game is available but it ain't winning many games.

[Chris Johnston]

Ben - What the heck is a tug toner?

Mike - I agree that a good player can control distance better.  I think "Creating" a shot, be it air or ground is also a skiill and fun.  At the British venues, greens are hard and wind is a facotor, so many opportunities require a lower traj, a knockdown to allow for run.

I like creating shots.  Some are decent and some don't work so well.  Imagination is the key for all shots and it fun.  Especially out here.

wrt UGA et al;, let them play a few in the cold and snow.  Bet they like the ground game then.  Its all about conditions at hand.  I think Bama and LSU should play nexzt time in Chicago, in January!

[Carl Rogers]

Whether you want a ground game option or not, 98% of all courses on the East Coast or South (USA), turf condtions will give you no choice except to hit the high one.  Let's judge evaluate reality.

Where I play at Riverfront, I have yet to figure out how to hit an approach down wind to a front pin and a green that runs towards the back.  Very small target 2 feet in front the green with a small bounce forward.

[Don_Mahaffey]

There seems to be a constant discussion on here of the ground game vs "air".  I think the theorist often complicate it where the really good players just play it. 
Well?

Mike, the good player, on good courses, decides what he's going to do and then attempts to execute the shot. Take Old mac where you and I recently played. On the 3rd did you try and draw (fade for you) it around the tree and have a SW in, or were you content to hit it safely out to the right and have a much longer shot? How did you play 10, what sort of shot did you try with your approach to 11, how did you play 12 when the tees were back? 17? All those holes force decisions, even for the good player. Now, the good player may not come here and wax poetically about the course for 10 pages, but the design and conditions brought out options in how many of the holes could be played. Strategy for all levels of players.

Of course that's not true for most courses. Most courses have a strategy for good players of "hit it here, here, here, go to next hole, rinse, repeat." And while I'm well aware that many, many golfers are much more comfortable playing like that, and many golf architects pander to that mindset, I find it incredibly boring and mailed in architecture, and maintenance, in most cases. If that makes me a hobbyest who can't play in some people's eyes, I really don't care. I know good golf when I see it and I don't see it very often.

[Mike_Young]

Chris,
Here is the tug toner Ben was speaking of.  It's an exercise tool he keeps with him.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2ewsEKVJVA

Don,
I don't disagree with what you are saying but I don't want people thinking I'm trying to pit the good players against weaker players....I used "ground game" as an example.  My question is :  Do you judge strategy by the intentions or the actual shot?   IMHO if people judge a course's strategy by intention then it is just theory BUT if they judge by actual shots then it can vary greatly.  I'm not not trying to judge good, bad, ground or air.  It's a good golf dork question.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike,
you used the term "really good player" in your question. My answer is you judge strategy on how the course is actually played, by any level of player. But even if we just focus on the "really good player" I think you'll find a course like OM has really good players playing all kinds of shots. Our caddy looped in the pub links and we talked about that a lot over the three rounds at OM. he's also a really good player and how he viewed the best way to play each hole varied with conditions, tee placement and hole location. On the same hole, but different day, you had to hit different shots to use the best available option to score. That's strategic, and its based on hitting shots, not laying awake at night plotting the best route by the light of a miner's hat.

[Travis Dewire]

There is no wrong way to play a golf hole. And while an architect may have intended for a certain strategy to be found by the majority of golfers, we are unique human beings and everything is subjective.

I think we have to judge strategy equally amongst the parts. There is the strategy intended by each hole. Then, there is also the 18 total holes, does this course require good strategic thinking to get around? Or is it not a strategy intensive set of 9's. Then we have the golfer. A golfer can rely on his strategy, or abandoned it. No two strategies will be identical (possibly, if you are a twin - think dna here), yet their will be overlapping stategic choices they make, their strategies are inherently different and inherent to each player and their individual psyches and eyes/reality

[Jud_T]

Of course that's not true for most courses. Most courses have a strategy for good players of "hit it here, here, here, go to next hole, rinse, repeat." And while I'm well aware that many, many golfers are much more comfortable playing like that, and many golf architects pander to that mindset, I find it incredibly boring and mailed in architecture, and maintenance, in most cases. If that makes me a hobbyest who can't play in some people's eyes, I really don't care. I know good golf when I see it and I don't see it very often.


Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

[Mike_Young]

Don,
Again I'm not disagreeing here.  Let's define really good player.  For discussion sake I'm gonna say a PGA Tour player.  And Then let's add a Senior PGA Tour player. 

On the tee a hole has a couple of strategies or more that can be planned and implemented.  So on a given par 4 there can be a tee shot strategy and if it is carried out as to plan then there should be a planned strategy in place for the next shot to the green and if it is carried out properly it either goes in or leaves a makeable putt.  Right?  That is what I consider the INTENDED STRATEGY (may be more than one) for a golf hole.  HOWEVER, if one of those shots described above goes astray the strategy changes.  And that's what I am asking.  That's why a course like OM is so much fun.  AND why a course like Athletic Club is not as much fun to me.  I'm not talking ground or air..just whatever works. 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike,
I'm with you. The only thing I might add is sometimes the best approach will be on the ground. If a Tour player hits the perfect drive on the 11th at OM he can probably hold the green with a short iron and putt for birdie. But, if he pulls his drive a bit and the pin is middle to back left, what now? If he tries to hold the green he could end up in a spot where par is very tough, but if he bumps something into the right where it just runs up or comes up just a tad short, he has a chance; he might even try and miss the green to the left and putt from there. Either way, the design of the hole and the condition of the course has brought a number of different options and trajectories into the equation.

On a course like AAC, if he pulls his drive just a bit, he's in the rough, and his only decision is where to leave it for the next shot so he has a chance. Some of the same strategy, but without the need to really factor in trajectory because the ball is not going to do much when it hits the ground, and in most cases there is little room for the ball to be running around on the ground without getting into serious trouble. Taking trajectory out of the equation means its primarily an aerial, or power, game. That's the big difference I see and why we call some course more strategic then others.

[RJ_Daley]

I'm not a good player by any stretch of the imagination.  But, in the same vane as what was said, that I know it when I see it....

I think strategy and the queston of if a golf course design is a good one that employs good opportunities for strategy, the quality lies in the presentation of obvious and subtle intentions based on the routing and array of features and use of width and contour and slopes as a multiple choice.  The choices shouldn't necessarily be made by the notion of the best way to get in the hole in the lowest number as an absolute, if it is thought of as stroke play.  I think it should start from the notion of match play, where players of different skill sets, with handicap considerations have an array of options that they can imagine, and that they can consider their chances with their known ability to play the intended shot.  The actual shot is always in some doubt, for even the best player.  But, the best designed courses parcel out the percentages, based on intention to imagine the shot, and likelihood of pulling it off and consequences of the missed intention.  The ground game along with contours should be available to both types of players in a match play situation, where the higher handicap can imagine and intend a particular outcome to the attempted shots, that may not be the same risk reward ratio as the good player, who may not only be able to hit it further, but can control spin and stopping approaches better, to get a better chance at making a putt, yet consider the higher handi gets a stroke.

I judge good GCA by how many reasonable intentions in any given conditions my mind can conjure up to keep up in a match with a better player (almost anyone) and still have fun trying to pull off the intention with an actual shot that can keep me in the game.  None of that "hit it here or else, hit it there, rinse-repeat" as someone above said. 

I'll bet that the best players who never played Royal Melbourne prior, had their appreciation for the design go up by the day, as the conditions changed, and their intentions were altered and with repeated exposure, saw new options and stimulated newly considered intentions, the more they became familiar with the track.  Their actual shots were the fun part to see if they could match their intentions that changed from day to day. 

[Sean_A]

I'll put it this way.  In an ideal world, playing a meaningful designed course with great turf maintained properly, even a touring pro on his game should have shots where he has to decide to put it on the ground at great risk have a chance to get close or hit away from the flag.  Multiply that by however much makes up for the difference in quality between a touring pro and a 10 capper and that is what strategic design should encompass.  

Ciao

[Shane Wright]

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.

[Jud_T]

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.

Bingo.  Why us Yankee mid-handicap knuckleheads either A) travel large distances to play on sand and cool weather grasses or B) give up golf in favor of tiddly-winks...