[Mac Plumart]

Isn't the "strategy" of each golf hole the same?  Get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible.

When we talk holes that have strategic options, don't we really mean "tactical" options?  That is, I can employ different tactics in an effort to get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible.

[Bill_McBride]

I think strategy would be, say, use the kick plate to the right to get as close as possible to the hole.

The tactics would be choosing the right club, trajectory, line to make that happen.

In military planning, the strategy would be an armored end run / envelopment.   The tactics would involve rounding up a bunch of tanks.  

[Garland Bayley]

I think Bill has the right idea. I think there are levels of macro and micro strategy and tactics. Mac has identified the Macro strategy. Bill has stated a more micro strategy and its associated tactics.

[Guy Nicholson]

I think for most of us, strategy is a matter of whether, or when, you accept that you won't actually take the fewest strokes possible.

[Steve Burrows]

Mac,

I tend to agree that the terms are mis-used.

To paraphrase the scholar Michel de Certeau's influential work, entitled "The Practice of Everyday Life," strategies are concerned with the institutions and power structures that create the world we live in, whereas tactics are a response to those strategies, that is, the way that we choose to interact with that world.  In other words (and to keep the discussion in line with golf course architecture), strategies are employed by designers in the creation of a golf hole.  Strategies are governed by design theory, technical knowledge and legal regulations (the superstructure).  Conversely, tactics are how people decide to execute shots in the playing of the game.  Interestingly, he defines tactics as "defensive and opportunistic, used in more limited ways and seized momentarily within spaces..."  In this sense, a player must know his/her limitations and play defensively, yet still be cognizant of those (in)frequent oppotunities to be bold and to attempt a daring shot.

[Guy Nicholson]

Alternatively, it's how you determine what "as few strokes as possible" means for you personally.

[Michael Blake]

Paging Kyle Harris.
He's been 'arguing' this for a while now on this board.
I think he's used chess as a parallel.

[Bill_McBride]

Taking as few strokes as possible is the objective.

How you plan to achieve that objective is the strategy.

The tools used to effect the strategy are the tactics.

Paging COL Lester George!

[Matthew Essig]

Taking as few strokes as possible is the objective.

How you plan to achieve that objective is the strategy.

The tools used to effect the strategy are the tactics.

Paging COL Lester George!

+1

[Ben Sims]

Fortunately for Mac, he was a Marine.  He gets it.

Merriam-Webster would contrast strategy and tactics by focusing on plan vs. execution.  Military planners would focus on a strategy for success, operational level goals to affect that vision or strategy and tactical maneuvers to affect those goals.  

In my opinion, the goal is always to get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible.  That's sort of like saying the goal is to win in war.  Duh!  A strategy to doing that would be to play "conservatively."  To enact that strategy, at the operational level, I would hit safer shots, take less risk, etc.  At the execution (tactical) level the operational goals would get even more specific, right down to trajectory, shot shape, club selection, where to miss, etc.  

[Lester George]

"Audacity is a combat multiplier".  

If score is your only objective, then conservative may be your strategy.  

However, like war, if your objective is to win, and you are playing match play (war), score matters less than defeating your opponent.  Given that, your strategy may involve audacity (boldness, risk) to accomplish your objective.  Of course, in match play, as in war, going on the defensive can obtain your objective as well.  

This is why golf courses must be designed for match play as well as stroke play.  Two different objectives, two different games.  

The Colonel

[Sean_A]

So the upshot is courses can be built with the aim of allowing players to choose different strategies - ie bold play VS conservative play - no? Given this, surely design strategy can focus on width and length options.  Our group tends to talk about strategy almost exclusively in terms of width options.  Hence the reason crossing hazards and trouble each side of the fairway are often shouted down.  Of course, they do limit options because the focus is purely on length, but why can't that be the focus sometimes?  

I have long argued that there are no bad hazards (using the term to include rough, mounding, hollows, trees etc), just poor balance in their implementation.  Championship courses tend to gravitate toward focusing on length options.  The few championship courses such as TOC and Augusta, which have traditionally been more about width options have over the years become more and more about length options often by using rough and trees as the main tools to accomplish this.  It would seem that the powers that be concentrate on trying to create a more robust challenge for the pros and elite amateurs and it is therefore assumed that the best way to do this is by reducing width options. Consequently, many championship courses and a great many courses which will never hold remotely important events have tended toward reducing options.  There is certainly a backlash against this trend of focusing on length options, but in the meantime, it seems more and more courses have been narrowed for championships.  

Is there a way in which the powers that be can be convinced that a better balance of width and length options will provide for more entertaining tv as a spectator sport and act as a model for the thousands of courses which will never host an event of any importance?  In truth, I am not sure this can be done because even many of the guys who like to play better balanced courses want to see championships played on courses with less options.  I fear we have just about lost all of our championship courses to theory of reduced options.  Is there any way back?

Ciao    

[Steve Kline]

But the two courses you mentioned were quite long when they were originally built as well as being wide, were they not? So the reduction in width to make them more difficult is a direct answer to the reduction in length.

[Mac Plumart]

Sean...

To your point on bold versus conservative play strategies, I think those are tactics employed to accomplish the strategy, winning a tournament, winning a hole in a match, etc.

Great holes many times offer tactical choices/options which can be employed to accomplish the overriding strategy.  Which is, again, getting the ball on the hole in as few strokes as possible, winning a hole, putting together a round with a score low enough to make a cut, etc.

[Sean_A]

Sean...

To your point on bold versus conservative play strategies, I think those are tactics employed to accomplish the strategy, winning a tournament, winning a hole in a match, etc.

Great holes many times offer tactical choices/options which can be employed to accomplish the overriding strategy.  Which is, again, getting the ball on the hole in as few strokes as possible, winning a hole, putting together a round with a score low enough to make a cut, etc.

Mac

To me, winning the tourny is the goal/objective.  Strategy is how one decides to achieve the goal.  Its likely semantics, but I am in Ace's camp on this one.  Where I do differ is that I think archies can build options into holes so varying strategies can be employed.  They can also reduce those options so fewer strategies are on the table.  

For instance

Objective: To earn a par 3.

Strategy: Play away from the hole, play at the hole, hit it high, bump it low etc.

Tactics: Which club and type of shot will enable me to be successful with my chosen strategy and therefore achieve my objective.  

But, as I say, I am not really bothered about the above because that is player specific.  For this website, I am much more concerned about how archies encourage or discourage options which in turn effect player strategies.  


Steve

I don't think there really are courses which challenge championship from a distance PoV.  None are long enough to create much of an issue.  I was referring to distance in terms of how far one wants to hit a shot given the features etc.  One can be bold and split bunkers or lay-up short of the trouble and go from there.  We saw a lot of both at Muirfield and we see it a lot at TOC.  

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I believe Jack Nicklaus once said something along the lines of 'if I can pull off a shot 8 times out of 10 I'll go for it. If not, I'll find an alternative way to make the best score on the hole I can'. Nice to be that good......and that smart!
All the best

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()