[Mike Hendren]

Of Kinloch, Mark Saltzman opens his excellent tour with this statement:  "Strategic design is alive at Kinloch."    While I liked Kinloch I didn't see that much strategy in the options presented.  The alternate fairways seemed more either/or than risk/reward with the line of charm determined by the level of each player's game.  Certainly a single play doesn't provide much credibility for this opinion, but I can't help but wonder in general if options are inherently strategic.

You?

Bogey

[Peter Pallotta]

Bogie - seems to me most of us here have used those terms synonymously for years, and we've been wrong all along. 'Options' are designed into a course; 'strategy' is what the golfer brings to the design.

A good, smart golfer can think his way around any golf course. Yes, perhaps if a course has more built-in options, that thinking/strategizing takes on more interest or complexity (though even then, I'm hard pressed to remember many golf holes where the correct option -- for me, on a given day/weather conditions -- didn't present itself within five seconds of getting on the tee).  But the one can exist without the other, and indeed, options galore don't necessarily lead even to strategic choices (in any meaningful sense of the term).

Peter

[Mark Pearce]

It seems to me that "either/or" options, even when calling for stategic thought are the dullest kind of strategy.  Much more interesting is the sort of strategic approach engendered by hazards which ask the question (of the strategic golfer) "how close to that hazard do I dare play to give an easier following shot?"

[Lou_Duran]

Be careful Bogey.  Lots of folks make good money as "strategy consultants", essentially, telling their clients in writing what they already know for the important purpose of providing cover should things go wrong ("we only did what the smart people- the experts- told us; who knew?).  Very common in government, but hardly rare in the corporate world today.

I got a similar impression of Kinloch- lots of options based on ability, how one felt that day, course presentation, and weather.  Though I was also able to play the course in drier conditions a few days earlier, I chose similar options.

We've had this discussion many times.  All courses provide the opportunity to exercise strategy and apply the appropriate tactics.  Some golfers are better able to maneuver around a course based on their repertoire of shots.  That pros tend to go the direct, in-the-air route is not necessarily a lack of the course's strategic merit or their lack of imagination, but of their rational assessment of likely outcomes.  Those who believe the pros lack the variety of shots of their predecessors are, IMO, mistaken.  Even with equipment limitations, I've seen some extremely creative shots played on and off Tour.

I am not big on Behr, but if I get your gist, you don't believe that the risk/reward ratio is properly balanced or calibrated, e.g. the riskier option doesn't offer a sufficiently high chance of gaining a stroke relative to the safer option.  It seems to me that this is the rule rather than the exception in many of the split fairway holes I've played, but perhaps that's a function of my ability rather than the architect's.

Weather forces golfers to be more "strategic".  Wind more than rain.  Rough, wind, and dry conditions force the pros to be more "strategic".  For us mortals, they make for a long day.

[Ally Mcintosh]

As I said on another thread, I don’t like the term “Risk / Reward” because it too easily relates to “Either / Or” which too easily relates to extremely penal golf design, not strategic (e.g. a straight water carry to the green versus laying up).

Great golf design is all about shades of grey rather than a straight black or white choice.

[Alex Miller]

Bogey,

I understand what you are saying, but if the line the golfer chooses is based on skill, then what of the golfer whose skill is just right so the decision difficult to make?

I agree though, this is not strategic design as it should be. It's strategic for whatever small percentage of golfers actually have that decision to make. However, it's possible that what's strategic for one is a boring either/or shot or obvious choice for another.

[John Ezekowitz]

Here is another way to frame it:

If, after repeated play, I decide that the best way for me to play a hole is to consistently aim at a certain part of the fairway/green (or one of two potential fairways), does that hole cease to become a strategic challenge for me? If not, then strategy and options are not necessarily synonymous.

[Jeff Taylor]

Much more interesting is the sort of strategic approach engendered by hazards which ask the question (of the strategic golfer) "how close to that hazard do I dare play to give an easier following shot?"

Is this the closest that we can get to a specific definition of strategic design?

[Niall C]

Bogie - seems to me most of us here have used those terms synonymously for years, and we've been wrong all along. 'Options' are designed into a course; 'strategy' is what the golfer brings to the design.

A good, smart golfer can think his way around any golf course. Yes, perhaps if a course has more built-in options, that thinking/strategizing takes on more interest or complexity (though even then, I'm hard pressed to remember many golf holes where the correct option -- for me, on a given day/weather conditions -- didn't present itself within five seconds of getting on the tee).  But the one can exist without the other, and indeed, options galore don't necessarily lead even to strategic choices (in any meaningful sense of the term).

Peter

Peter

If startegy is what the golfer brings to the design as you say, then even the most one dimensional penal design would likely be termed strategic eg. do I take a 5 iron off the tee in order to hit the infeasably narrow fairway or do I rsk going with the driver in the expectation that if successful I'll have an easier shot for my second.

Niall

[Andy Troeger]

I'll agree that strategic design and options are not the same thing, but I'd say that options are a subset of strategic design, and an important one.

Options force the golfer to make a decision, which to me is part of the golfers strategy to play the hole in as few strokes as possible. Even if the golfer always makes the same decision, it is still a decision every time. It also does not guarantee the golfer is always making the right choice!

Of course the quality of the options has a big impact too...

[Niall C]

Bogey

To answer your basic question, I don't think that having options is the same as startegy. One of my issues with the width at Castle Stuart for instance, is that on quite a few of the holes (not all) there is no perceptible benefit to approach the green from one side or the other. The width is simply an excuse for letting rip (nothing wrong with that in small measure).

What you describe at Kinloch seems to be a bit different in the sense of the alternate fairways at least calling for some degree of accuracy compared to 90 yard wide fairways at Castle Stuart, but the lack of appreciable benefit of one shot over another seems the same.

Niall

[Josh Tarble]

Peter, Niall,  I think you bring up a good point.  I believe all (maybe should say almost all) golf courses are inherently strategic.  They are strategic in that they give the golfer an opportunity to either risk it all or play it safe.  However, this gets at the crux of Bogie's question - are options strategic design?

In my opinion yes, they are...but like others have said before me, they are the most boring kind of strategy.  Black or white.  These are the (potentially) the worst types of courses in that the course forces strategy onto the player.  The absolute best courses allow the player to make decisions without forcing them to pick a correct or incorrect answer, but yet they punish the indecisive.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Bogie - seems to me most of us here have used those terms synonymously for years, and we've been wrong all along. 'Options' are designed into a course; 'strategy' is what the golfer brings to the design.

A good, smart golfer can think his way around any golf course. Yes, perhaps if a course has more built-in options, that thinking/strategizing takes on more interest or complexity (though even then, I'm hard pressed to remember many golf holes where the correct option -- for me, on a given day/weather conditions -- didn't present itself within five seconds of getting on the tee).  But the one can exist without the other, and indeed, options galore don't necessarily lead even to strategic choices (in any meaningful sense of the term).

Peter

Peter

If startegy is what the golfer brings to the design as you say, then even the most one dimensional penal design would likely be termed strategic eg. do I take a 5 iron off the tee in order to hit the infeasably narrow fairway or do I rsk going with the driver in the expectation that if successful I'll have an easier shot for my second.

Niall

Niall - indeed, and that is why I have trouble with the way the terms are used and what they seem meant to signify and not signify. The penal-strategic divide that we use to characterize and debate and rank courses has increasingly less resonance for me.  It strikes me as artificial and reductionist, and is further marred by the fact that so many see 'options' as the be-all-and-end-all of so-called strategic design. I wouldn't try to foist a 'strategic' label onto a 'penal' golf course -- I just wouldn't use those terms at all anymore. And to your point: to me, the golfer who tees off with a 5 iron is indeed making a choice and using an option that is available to him. Isn't that strategic?

Peter

[Niall C]

Peter

Agree.

If Melvyn was still on here he would be making the point that you need a degree of penalty in order to have startegy, which I think is correct, even if the "penalty" isn't necessarily what we would normally term a hazard or involve penalty shots.

Niall

[Mark Bourgeois]

Startegy: noun. The name of a plan everybody has until they get punched in the mouth. Specifically, a startegy defines a plan abandoned after one is punched in the mouth.

[Sean_A]

Of course "strategy" is used incorrectly, but only to try and capture the essence (or one essence?) of design.  It doesn't much matter what we call it. What does matter is that the concept definitely exists.  No matter what folks say about choices not adding to strategy, if a course is narrow, flanked by hazards and/or rough - what is there in terms of strategy?  Not much I would say.  I think this conversation is pre-supposing that these shot defining courses don't exist or are inconsequential.  To me, that is a wrong assumption in a world that has seen countless courses buried in trees, countless courses with fairways narrowed and at least one modern ideal of hazards on the wings.  I think strategy and options are like roast beef and yorkshire pudding.  Its very difficult to plan a strategy when a course has few options other than up the middle or dead.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

If the option is to choose between two narrow hazard flanked fairways, on a par 5 where the player in question cannot make the carry demanded by one of those fairways, that's less "strategic" than one wide fairway, with a serious hazard on the shortest line, isn't it?

[Sean_A]

Sean,

If the option is to choose between two narrow hazard flanked fairways, on a par 5 where the player in question cannot make the carry demanded by one of those fairways, that's less "strategic" than one wide fairway, with a serious hazard on the shortest line, isn't it?

Mark

I agree.  Usually to offer 50 shades of...width needs to be present.  Though I would say that for courses to achieve greatness they should offer a variety holes from wide open to tight as a drum.  Having little strategy on some holes can add to the overall quality of a course.  Of course, many think of little strategy as the banger par 4, but I am quite partial to the short 4 providing this aspect of tight design.  I know many like the short 4 to be full of options, but thats hard to pull off. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Great golf design is all about shades of grey rather than a straight black or white choice.

Exactly!

Black and white choices offer little in the way of strategic choices for the golfer.  Either you can hit it far enough to take route #1, or you have to take route #2.

It's much more interesting to have hazards here and there and a green which rewards play from a certain angle, and have to determine how close to the hazard you are willing to risk playing, in order to gain an advantage for the next shot.  Today's professionals don't have to take on any risk, because they play on courses where the greens are so tame, that they can get close even from the poorer angle.

[Brent Hutto]

I have a very simple mind when it comes to this stuff, perhaps because my golf game is by necessity very simple. There aren't many "options" on offer at most courses when you only hit the ball 170-175 yards at a time through the air and you must allowed considerable room for left-right misses even on "safe" shots.

That said, the obvious element that can bring a degree of "shades of gray" to even a rather puniishing and demanding course is the use of angles. Now "angles" presupposes a certain amount of width to be really much good to anyone but elite players. But if you are going to have heavy rough and/or trees and/or lots of water features on a golf course the absolute worst way to route it through all that junk is with stark choices of "lay up vs. go for it" and "play well out to the right vs. trying to carry the trouble".

There was talk on TV this past week of the angles in play at TPC Sawgrass. Does that mean there is sufficient width available there? Or is it "sufficient" only for the most accomplished ball strikers in the world and the angles degenerate into a bunch of routine don't hit it there type punishment for lesser players?

[Charlie Gallagher]

Just to add to the discussion, I think "either or" or "pick a route" is enhanced greatly by a key factor in addition to angle and length of approach. That factor is hole location in conjunction with green contour. Additional factors in that equation can include backstops, and roll ons and roll offs, in addition to hazards that might be in the line of approach.  Greens contoured with approach angle in mind given certain hole locations can present an even subtler challenge where suggestion of a choice is disguised by lack of fairway hazard, where one gains advantage picking one side of the fairway or the other, depending on hole location. Add the ground game option in with a nice firm sandy surface to play from and nice tight lies, and  you have the best of all worlds, especially if there is wind.
   What is so delightful about this sort of design is the process of discovery it suggests and the creativity it invites. To me it's way more entertaining than 25 yard wide fairways and 4 inch rough.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Good points.

I haven't played Kinloch, so I am only commenting in general here.  

I agree with the idea that 2 distinct fw choices is generally an option for few, strategy for a just a few.  That is, if the carry limit is an effective (after wind, elevation change, etc) 275, then only players who carry 276 to about 280 have a strategic decision to make.  For longer players, its a go, for shorter players, its a no go, unless they hit about 270 carry, and think they can swing real hard for extra distance.  Even so, that is a ten yard swing, tops.

Much better are subtle angles, which provide the same choice to nearly all players, and subtle narrowing of the fw where you might trade distance for a better chance at being in the fw.  All tied to hazard design and green contours, of course, as well as hole length.

I have heard good golfers say they need at least a two club advantage to challenge a hazard.  If the hazard is benign enough, maybe one, if real hard, maybe three or four.  Also, most think that the most significant advantage goes from hitting over 180 or so to something under 180.  In other words, for top pros long par 4's provide perhaps the best options for strategic choices based on pure distance.  

Shorter fours really need to get tricky in features to be strategic.  I have designed reverse slope greens and the like on medium length holes and most good players just hit more spin to hold the green, and can do it.  It may be best to give them a unique feature (as in Pat M's suggestion of some Raynor template par 3 greens) or make them precision holes.    

And, playing away fro the hazards twice, BTW, is also a strategy!  As Pete Dye has said, on long 4's he often bunkers the inside of the hole at DL and green to sort of force it to play longer.  In reality, the inside/outsid bunker combo is most effect on downwind holes where there is some chance that the wind will reduce spin on shots.

Short version, strategy as it exists today is quite a bit different than all the writings of the old guys in the Golden Age, where bunker placement ruled the roost, without much else going on.  As oft discussed, the longer ball and slower courses are major factors in that.

[Jason Topp]

The most interesting tee shots for me are those where a fairway bunker or other 1/2 stroke type hazard is placed exactly where, if the hazard did not exist, I would try to land my tee ball. 

The approach can be overused and is difficult to implement given the wide disparities in how far people hit the ball, but when it is placed correctly, the best line varies nearly every day depending on the game and wind. 

I am not sure Kinloch is so devoid of strategic choices.  I thought it was but I was not focused on that issue.  I was focused on staying dry.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

As I said on another thread, I don’t like the term “Risk / Reward” because it too easily relates to “Either / Or” which too easily relates to extremely penal golf design, not strategic (e.g. a straight water carry to the green versus laying up).

Great golf design is all about shades of grey rather than a straight black or white choice.

I agree... well put.  and, would it be fair/correct to say that the B&W choice is more tactical vs. strategic?  I'm always confused to that point when strategy becomes tactic. 

[Colin Macqueen]

Wayne,

Strategy, for me, is to get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible and it is tactics as soon as I have teed off on each hole!  My strategy is a constant but my tactical approach is a many splendoured and varied thing by dint of not being quite consistent enough.

I agree with Sean in so far as I feel that the word strategy is mis-used in the context of golf course architecture and in my mind's eye I often substitute tactics or tactical. Am I misguided?

Cheers Colin

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()