Strategy, Experience, and Astronomy.

[TEPaul]

"But that's probably because having played so much fast and firm golf over my life I can very easily imagine how any soft and slow golf course might play when "tuned up."  A substantial part of the enjoyment of golf--and the ability to play strategically--is the use of one's experience, self-knowledge and imagination."

Rich:

That's a very important statement. In my opinion, on courses that offer ground game multi-strategies and fascinating architecture that enhances them are miles more interesting and enjoybable than those where you hit the ball from A and stick it at B. Unfortunately most Americans have not seen that sort of thing to the max here in the States. That's why NGLA that one time was such a revelation to me--call it an epiphany, whatever. I guess you could say the same for little Mallow that time but the thought processes of what the ball would do weren't anywhere near as complex and interesting as on great architecture like NGLA. But it was fun to see the ball run-on like that anyway.

And definitely having that kind of fast and firm experience as you say you have can make one look at architecture that can provide that but doesn't in a different light. But basically what it's done to me is make me more annoyed than ever that some great courses and great architecture aren't being maintained to anything close to their potential for interest and play!

[THuckaby2]

David M:

I'm not surprised you DON'T find your first post antagonistic.  
But that's enough of that.

In any case, I still don't get the big revelation to be gained here.  OK, so some golf courses reveal the proper strategic choices more slowly than others.  Again, this is a given.  These are the more interesting courses.  Yet another fundamental given.  And some golf holes reveal the proper strategic choices more slowly than others, and can fool one initially.  These are the best examples of the worth of strategic golf course architecture.  Still more obvious, fundamental givens. What am I missing here?

Your last post to Shivas does rephrase the question better though - my apologies for missing it to this point.  I'd say it's not at all unreasonable for you "to wonder whether immersion would improve understanding of that concept?"  Nope, not unreasonable at all.  It's just surprising that you would even ask, because the answer to this again is just so obvious, such a given, that I assumed you were looking for something deeper.  OBVIOUSLY one learns more about ANY subject through greater immersion.  Why would strategy in golf course architecture be different?  Again, what am I missing?  And does one learn more about this subject by actually doing (I'll call it playing the game, you seem to call it immersion) than by reading about it?  Again, asked and answered - WAY up above.  Of course one does!  I also find it obvious that one learns more by doing than by reading in ANY subject.

So I guess once again, the answers to these questions are just so fundamental and obvious, I just assumed you were looking for more - your typical posts here are far more provocative.

I suppose this whole thing could have gone smoother by either Shivas or I saying "ok, yes, it sure does."

I just couldn't believe that was all you were looking for here.  

BTW, particularly since we are supposed to be friends, I would request one thing:  please do be careful putting words in my mouth.  I never expressed any disappointment with The Old Course.  On the contrary, I enjoyed my recent two rounds there very, very much.  I do find it to be a GREAT golf course, for many reasons.  What you might be referring to are statements I made regarding the repetitiveness of false fronts - I do find it repetitive that the same sort of false front occurs on so many holes there, and no one else had ever mentioned this to my knowledge, so I brought it up.  Didn't get any comments really.  That's ok, it's just yet another unique thing to that wonderful course.

Rich is right re The Road Hole btw - there ain't no epiphanies to be gained there.  I do find it to be a GREAT golf hole, but the strategic choices are very clear.  

The course in general features so many blind shots, obviously one can't "see" the proper line because one can't see period!  But once one has played it a few times, the general strategic approach does become apparent:  stay left to be safe, right to be bold, miss the bunkers.  That's a huge overgeneralization, and there is a lot more to be learned there, but in any case that's the type of "innate understanding" that a lot of golfers have.


TH

[THuckaby2]

Shivas:

I think this comes down to what "jazzes" one about the game - that is, from what part of the game does one derive the most joy?

I'd venture to say the vast majority of golfers want a quantifiable result from their efforts, and derive their joy that way.  That is, they want the best score they can get, or they want to win their match, or maybe they just want to see each particular shot go where they intended.  If use of strategy helps toward this aim, great.  But if they achieve this without thinking at all, oh well, it's still great.  Obviously a large subset of these golfers also love the strategic challenges that golf provides, but in the end, it is a result they are after.  For these golfers, all of your issues in your last post make perfect sense.   The hole where there are two equal options wouldn't be any big deal to them, they'd just pick one and derive joy from how the shots work out.

But I'd also say there is a minority of golfers for whom joy is derived not from results, but from other things... scenery, camraderie with friends, excercise, and yes, the attempt to discern the correct "answer" to the question that every hole asks - that is, what really is the best way to play it?  For these golfers, your hole with equal options would be their ultimate joy - since the answer is such a challenge to discern, they would relish the challenge and play the hole again and again and again trying to figure it out... they would love this hole more than any other, and it wouldn't matter if the answer comes out 50/50 - they'd spend their lives trying to get it to 50.1/49.9 and love the heck out of the challenge.

My guess is the golfers who derive joy from the game in this manner are a very tiny minority of golfers in general... And also many golfers might not see this as completely black and white and derive joy from both aspects, depending on the course, the round, the presence of competition or not....

One way or the other, I just do believe how you see the worth of "strategic golf course architecture" would just depend then on how you derive joy from the game.

And no way is right or wrong.

TH

[DMoriarty]

Rich.  
-Me commenting on the Old Course?  Lets see, I said I was entertained by your willingness to equate the options presented at the Old Course with the options presented at Torrey Pines.  I also questioned whether TH could really step onto the tees at TOC and know by "second nature" what the best play is for him.   If you consider either one of those a comment on the Old Course, then guilty as charged.  But I will stick by those comments, site unseen off tv.   On that subject, thanks for the lecture on TOC 17 (which I didnt realize we were even discussing), it will come in handy if I ever make it over.  
-Sorry my use of bold offends you.  I often get the feeling that some readers dont read all of my long and boring posts, so I occasionally bold something to make it stand out.
-I looked up all the words you suggested, but really I fail to see why I would need a dictionary with a semantic watchdog like you a round.  Ruff. Ruff.  

A substantial part of the enjoyment of golf--and the ability to play strategically--is the use of one's experience, self-knowledge and imagination, which is what Tom and Shivas are trying to say and I don't think Dave M. "gets" yet.

Experience . . .  self-knowledge . . . imagination.   Experience . . .  self-knowledge . . .  imagination.  I think I get it!    But wait a minute, we are missing something . . .  oh yeah . . . the course, we are missing the course . . . the options . . . the illusion . . . the temptation . . . But you dont think the course matters . . . Darn it now I've lost it again.  

Tom H

It sounds like topics that I find worthy of discussion are second nature to you; fundamental; obvious . . .  so OBVIOUS that it is ridiculous to even discuss.  What can I say?  I told you I am a little slow on the uptake.  

Shivas

You need to see it, see it fairly often, see it evolve and follow up with a legitimate attempt at understanding to really get it.

I agree with this, but do you think it applies to all golf holes equally?

To your one hole example.  Best option . . . sure I guess usually there probably is one "best option" given all the physicial conditions, the golfers mental state, skill level, position in match, what he had for breakfast, etc.   But on a strategic golf hole I am not so sure that it is so easy to determine for a golfer stepping onto a tee, especially if he hasnt had experience with the hole (mowing it, watching it on tv, caddying, i dont care.)    To my mind, the distinction is figuring everything and deciding what is the best option.  This brings up another result which seems more probable on strategic golf holes-- overthinking causing a failure to execute.  

Strategic golf course architecture creates grey in an otherwise black and white world.  It doesnt have to be a hidden choice or even always an even choice, just one that either causes the golfer to ponder which choice is best, or perhaps dupes one into not pondering when he should.  

Think of Els a couple of yrs ago in the masters (when Goosen played with Tiger on Sunday.)  If I am recalling the scenario correctly, Els' practice and previous rounds taught him that with the changed angle off the tee (from extra distance?) it was no longer a good play for him to try to bend a 3 wood around the corner to shorten the hole and get a flat lie.  He admitted this after the tournament.  Yet on the last day, he wanted to gain ground on Tiger, and tried to pull off the 3 wood draw anyway.  Something about the hole, the circumstance, etc. made him reconsider and change his mind.  This is what I think strategic golf course architecture creates,  indecision, reconsideration, more of a chance to err or succeed mentally and not just physically.  

As to your 50-50 scenario, I dont know that you could ever really get enough information to truly determine it was 50/50.  But lets assume we do have the information.  

Lets take a hypothetical hole with two clear options and hold all physical conditions constant.  Lets also assume that you have played and recorded hundreds of rounds, and know exactly your spectrum of possible scores.

Per 10 plays, the spectrum of possible scores is as follows:

Option A:  3 3 3 4 4 4 6 6 7 7

Option B:  3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6  

Which option do you chose?  If it depends on the match, etc. can you elaborate?  

[ForkaB]

Dave

Mea culpa.

I should have said something like:

"Experience, self-knowledge, imagination--in the context of the course and the conditions of the day."

Sorry.  I thought the concept of context was implicit.

PS--the answer to your question to Huckaby is 42.

[THuckaby2]

David:

I never said they were ridiculous to discuss.  I just did say I thought you were looking for something deeper, given the answers you are looking for do all seem to be givens/fundamental/obvious.  And it's just this thread, Dave.  All the other threads you start are VERY provocative - thus my incredulity at this one.   Simmer down.  

But shifting to how Shivas re-positioned things, do read my reply to that, if you care to.  Does this better sum up the issues here?

Re TOC, I answered your queries.  No further comment?  I'd appreciate an acknowledgement there.

TH

[TEPaul]

I love reading this thread, particularly the back and forths between DMoriarty, Shivas and Tom Huckaby. it seems to me one is trying to almost formulate EXACLTY what options that go into making up multi-strategies in golf are all about--almost in the absolute. I don't think that's possible and I think it's less than necessary--because eventually really great holes this way just enter into the realm of what's between the ears of any player at any time. The other two seem to be trying to stress that even multi-options and multi strategic holes are all pretty clear to most golfers, pretty obvious, so why bother to think about it or discuss it.

Golf holes that have a multiplicity of options/strategies that are distinct enough and bona fide enough to be used by a spectrum of golfers, or better yet to be all used by a single golfer over time are fairly rare although I have no doubt these are the best holes of all particularly when those optional strategies are in such a complete balance or equilibrium that nothing seems obvious. What's best? What's the best option or strategy? Basically you never really know!

This is probably why we come back to the mother of all well-balanced multi-optional, multi-strategy holes, Riviera's #10 over and over again. Offerieng a set of options and strategies and risk/reward factors that are anything but the same risks and rewards, for some reason so many players such as tour players either have a hard time EVER figuring out what the best thing to choose is but they actually all tend to use the vastly different options all the time which is very rare at that level!!

Ever notice how tour players in the LA Open stand on that tee just staring down the fairway or throwing up grass or whatever they do when something isn't real clear or even wandering around on the tee in tight little circles like a dog honing in on exactly where to take his shit? It happens all the time on that hole and always has as long as I've been watching the LA Open.

That's great stuff to me. Why? Not because they can't see something or understand something about any and all of the hole's multi-options and multi-strategies--the entire hole is short and right there in front of them--they're staring it in the face and it's staring back at them!

So what's the beauty of it in a strategic sense and a strategic discussion. The beauty to me is it's their CHOICE, between a number of things that are anything but obvious. This is the type of hole that is the exact opposite of some of those modern "yellow brick road" designs with salvation in the middle and peril on both sides. What's the choice in that? There really isn't one--it's completely obvious and it's reduced to no more than incremental shot tests in a one dimensional sense.

How does one know if the choice he made on Riviera's #10 was the right one? He really doesn't. If he does well that day than it seems to him he made the right choice and he just might continue to try that choice/option and strategy until the time comes when even with good and apparently well executed shots something goes very wrong. Then he'll probably go to the other extreme next time out and see how that goes for a time.

This is so much more interesting than a one dimensional demand hole, although there's no question there's very much a place for them too on great golf courses.

But this thread is about multi strategy holes--sort of the other kind--the kind that makes all golfers CHOOSE their own way instead of basically having the total obvious dictated to them by an architect. And when every single one of those very diverse options and strategies both reward and penalize a player over time and create a fairly wide scoring spectrum--how can golf and architecture get better than that--strategic architecture anyway?

Can something like that be reduced to the obvious or to a formula of what actually all goes into determining what strategy is? I don't think so and not unless you track what's between all golfers ears at all times and analyze that somehow!

[THuckaby2]

You're absolutely correct, TEP - this cannot be quantified, cannot be made an absolute - none of it.

But I think there is merit to my thought that the worth of strategy depends on one's motivations... Obviously for a tour pro the motivation is clear:  make the best score, earn your living.  So it's very cool when a hole like Riviera #10 puts them in a quandary... the instances of that are so few and far between!

But for the rest of the golf world, the motivations can be very different.  Obviously there are the slaves to score who would just mirror the choices of the pros (if they think as well as the pros do in general, which would be no mean feat).  But one can and should play golf for many reasons beyond score... Then the changing motivation also changes the worth of the strategic options.

In the end, this actually is fascinating stuff and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise in my post to Dave.  I do find the answers to his initial questions to be very fundamental, but the concept of "strategic golf architecture", the worth of such, how to discern such, is definitely one that deserves great study.... and can never be fully defined and put away!

TH

[DMoriarty]

"Experience, self-knowledge, imagination--in the context of the course and the conditions of the day."

Sorry.  I thought the concept of context was implicit.

Implicit?  No wonder you and TH get this so much more than me.  The importance of undertanding the context of the course is implicit.  And here I thought understanding the context of the course was what this whole thread was all about.  

Tom H.  No need for me to simmer down.  I find this quite entertaining. Okay, you didnt describe the topic as ridiculous.  How about banal?  Trite?  Ordinary?  Insipid?  Perhaps Rich can help us come up with a word which more concisely captures your opinion of the topic . . .

In any case, I still don't get the big revelation to be gained here.  . . . Again, this is a given. . . Yet another fundamental given. . . Still more obvious, fundamental givens. What am I missing here? . . . It's just surprising that you would even ask, because the answer to this again is just so obvious, such a given, that I assumed you were looking for something deeper.  OBVIOUSLY one learns more about ANY subject through greater immersion. . . . Again, what am I missing? . . . I also find it obvious that . . . the answers to these questions are just so fundamental and obvious, I just assumed you were looking for more - your typical posts here are far more provocative. . . I just couldn't believe that was all you were looking for here.  

Your take on Shivas' reorganization?  It comes down to what one "Jazzes" about the game?  Well, perhaps.  But your description of the two Jazz Camps looses me.  Seems like you are painting it as hippie golf vs. businessman golf.  I see no sense in thinking of it this way.  Strategy and result are far from mutually exclusive.  

Also, for such a straight forward topic, you seem to be covering a lot of ground.  For a while you claimed that strategic golf holes required little or no conscious thought, it was just "second nature."  Now you have both the businessmen and the hippies spending at least some time considering strategic challenges.  What gave?  Also, not long ago you guys were painting me as the guy who was only concerned with score and couldnt care less about the joy of playing.  Now I am a touchy feely crystal wearing guru wannabe who would enjoy the game more if I got high before playing.   In short, I cant keep up.  

Let me break it down for you, as I understand it.  I look to strategic golf course architecture to make the game more interesting;  even to make it "fascinating;" and to give me more to think about than using muscle memory to duplicate motion and hit the sweet spot.  

Now, as far as what you guys are looking for, I am at a loss, and dont want to risk offending you yet again by  guessing.

You want some acknowledgement regarding your comments about TOC?   Okay.  You think it is the blindness of TOC that initially prevents your second nature from seeing the correct line.  You also think that after a few plays you understand the general strategic approach. I feel the same way about these comments as I did your general comments about "second nature."  I dont want to go further or I will wake the Dornoch Dragon, and be scolded for mentioning TOC.  

Oh yeah, I reread some of your previous comments about TOC and I can definitely see why I thought you were expressing some disappointment.  But since you tell me you were in no way, shape, or form expressing disappointment in TOC, okay.  I just must be having comprehension problems lately.  

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul, I agree with almost all of your thread, although I think you may have the wrong idea if you think I am trying to figure a mathematical formula to explain strategy.  I offered the numbers to Shivas to follow through with one of his theories which I find fatally flawed.  

My one question regards your theory that a wide scoring spectrum is an indicator of a strategic hole.  I am not sure that this is the case.  But I think I will save that for another thread.  
_______________

Shivas.  

Didnt mean to leave  you out of the fun.  I typed a long response and lost it to some late website snafus and havent had much time since.  This is an abbreviated version.

I figured that you would pick that one.  But let me ask you this, why didnt you view these options as identical, since an average they will produce the same result?

As I understand it, you argue that strategy is overrated (or perhaps non-existant) because:
1) For a certain player in a certain circumstance, there will almost always be only one "best option."  
2) Because there is only one "best option," the choice isnt really a choice at all.  The golfer just does what is best.
3.  In those rare instances where the options are perfectly balanced, it doesnt matter what the golfer does, so again there is no real option.  
Let me know what I got wrong.

I have one major and one secondary problem with your theory.

The major problem is that you assume perfect knowledge.  Perfect knowledge never exists, especially when it comes to quality strategic architecture.  On a quality strategic course, you will rarely if ever be able to identify the best option with any sort of certainty.  This is true even if the choices are set forth right before you.  

The secondary problem is that even if you had perfect knowledge, determination of the "best option" still entails making value judgments.  For instance in my example above you dont see double and triple bogeys to be much of a detriment at all, and this shapes/ is your choice.  Moreover, you have to decide when a match is important enough to care about doubles and triples . . .  

Further, you have to decide where to put the pendulum.  In the example above you had no trouble choosing an options even though the options have the same average result.  Some would consider this to be balanced options.  But since you dont care about high scores,  you put your balance somewhere else regardless of the average score.  

So I dont think your example explains away the importance of strategic architecture.

But your theory might be more helpful in explaining non-strategic architecture.  This is in part why I wonder about the importance of experience in understanding the concept of strategic architecture.  

[TEPaul]

DMoriarty said;

"My one question regards your theory that a wide scoring spectrum is an indicator of a strategic hole.  I am not sure that this is the case.  But I think I will save that for another thread."

David:

What I said was this;

"But this thread is about multi strategy holes--sort of the other kind--the kind that makes all golfers CHOOSE their own way instead of basically having the total obvious dictated to them by an architect. And when every single one of those very diverse options and strategies both reward and penalize a player over time and create a fairly wide scoring spectrum--how can golf and architecture get better than that--strategic architecture anyway?"

That theory is that a wide scoring spectrum is an indicator of the quality of golf holes not just that they're highly strategic although in the context of all this that too might be a very strong implication.

Bob Crosby, sometime ago, (perhaps before you came to Golfclubatlas) attempted to statistically track that "wide scoring spectrum" theory against various holes in the Masters tournament to determine if, in fact, a wide scoring spectrum really does conform to various holes at ANGC that have always been respected and considered famous.

From the data he compiled it would seem to indicate that to be true--that the widest scoring spectrum occured on holes that were considered the best holes--and probably not incidentally were also considered the most strategic holes--eg #13!

 

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,
I recall some of those discussions.  At the time the whole notion of looking to a wide scoring spectrum made me uncomfortable.  But I was having trouble formulating a coherent counterpoint so I stayed out of the conversations.  

Unfortunately I am still not sure I can come up with a coherent counterpoint, but when I get a little time I will try. Cant do it now though.  Duty calls.  

Regards,

David.  

[THuckaby2]

Gee Dave, get up on the wrong side of the bed when you  typed all that to me?

You completely missed all the meaning in my posts.  No matter, it's likely not your comprehension but my poor writing skills.  In the end, this is a very complex topic and I doubt any of us has the time or energy to fully explain what we mean, even if we could do so, and even if we could get the other to understand it.  

Maybe some day in person.  That would be interesting!

TH

ps - I never said you personally had any particular way of looking at the game, nor do I, nor does Shivas, nor does any one.  My post regarding what jazzes one about the game was meant to be general, and in fact, how any of us looks at the game can change from day to day, round to round.  It does for me, I'm sure it does for shivas, it must for you.  None of us is absolute on this, and that is the real point here, what makes this even more fascinating.  If you care to respond to this outside of taking this personally, I'd love to hear your take... To me it is very interesting.

[TEPaul]

"Unfortunately I am still not sure I can come up with a coherent counterpoint, but when I get a little time I will try. Cant do it now though."

Dave:

Why do you want to come up with a counterpoint? Don't you think the best thing to do, as Bob Crosby did, would be to track scoring on various holes throughout a tournament such as the Masters to see what the scoring spectrum is on various holes and whether or not the higher scoring spectrums conform to the known reputations of various holes, including what has for many years been known to be their strategic ramifications?

[Steve Lang]

I have to observe and chime in that this thread is what a discussion group is all about!  Also, it was much more interesting to read it all on Sunday afternoon than watching the NEC..  

Not so long ago there must have been what I call professional students of GCA, as there was no robust way to see all of the courses that one might like to see, as it is today.  When horse/mule drawn plows etc. ruled the world before D9 Cats.. and men of letters wrote into the darkness and waited for the next post office arrival!  They certainly took their education, experience, and thoughts to the fields and built golf courses.  It was an apprentice, journeyman, master of trade world.

I am reminded of a guitarist I met once that didn't want to see any live bands, how else could he be original?  And he was a very accomplished technician and musician!

I think today, if you hold the purse strings, you can be an architect.  How good or bad depends on your diligence in studying and exercising the trade aspects.  Its really not much difference in the "playing" field.  If you can do it, you do it, sometimes conservatively, intuitively, recklessly etc..  Strategy must have a purpose or objective to be worth pursuing, be it score or fun.

Since we can’t forget physics when studying astronomy or golf stuff, some of Newton’s famous quotes may provide some perspective to your discussion..

"I keep the subject of my inquiry constantly before me, and wait till the first dawning opens gradually, by little and little, into a full and clear light."
Isaac Newton

"If I have ever made any valuable discoveries, it has been owing more to patient attention, than to any other talent."
Isaac Newton
 
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton, Letter to Robert Hooke, February 5, 1675

Carry on.

[THuckaby2]

Steve:

This thread is what GCA is all about, without a doubt.  Great stuff.  Just realize that shivas, Dave M. and I are like three old grandmas who have been arguing for years and sometimes do so just for the sake of doing so.  If some good comes out of it, it's usually because a wise soul like Tom Paul chimes in.

 

By the way, Sir Isaac rocks.  But that reminds me of another (in)famous quote...

"Newton tells us how, Shakespeare tells us why."
Huckaby, sometime in 2002.

 

Newton would hit a lay up left on #16 Cypress - it's the logical, smart, percentage, well-thought-out, scientific, brave in the sense of putting science before emotion, play.  Shakespeare most likely would go for the green, but might not, depending on the circumstances and who, besides himself, he was trying to impress.

TH

[TEPaul]

David:

This thread was started by you with these paragraphs'

"In particular, I have been trying to understand how some on this board seem to have no real use for strategic notions of golf architecture, except perhaps to occassionally pay them lip-service.  How can this be?  To me the importance of strategy to golf is self evident.  Golf without strategy is like sex without a partner; it can be fun, satisfying, and a good substitute, but it almost always pales in comparison to the real thing.

It seems that some of our biggest proponents of strategic golf course architecture have or have had extensive experience at very strategic golf courses.  Is it possible that one cannot learn about strategic golf but instead must experience it and discover it for oneself?

Is the opposite true as well?  Have those of you who just dont get the importance of strategic architecture spent much time playing strategic golf courses?  Not just vacation playing, but playing repeatedly?"

Let's just take your second question--- "Is it possible that one cannot learn about strategic golf but instead must experience it and discover it for oneself?"  

I think the only answer to a question like that has to be one of huge degrees. Can someone learn about the strategic implications of a golf course by reading about it? They can and they can learn that way to pick up certain architectural indicators that go into making up the general basis of hole strategy but that's about all. Even if something was written about a course's strategic ramifications in minute detail I doubt a golfer could pick up on how to play that course just by reading about it anywhere near as well as playing it a bunch of times and experiencing the nuances.

Furthermore, I really laugh at these little printed books that some architects come up with to explain to any golfer how to play the golf course. In a way this might be called a book on the strategy of the course. I once saw such a thing done by Rees on how to play Lookaway G.C. In that book he explains the strategy of every hole. But first of all who is that strategy for? It for basically the "ideal" golfer who hits his tee shots approximately 267yds (4" on a 1"=220ft) design plan, and who hits his various irons X yards, etc, etc.

So essentially who does that strategy apply to? To a very select and limited amount of golfers, that's who. What about all the rest and their huge spectrum of abilities?

Well those strategies and strategic ramifications aren't exactly accounted for so how could someone read about strategy and learn it that way alone?

All they can do is read about various strategic architectural indicators and apply them as best they can to various holes they see but that could never been as informative as going out and experiencing as much as you can about the strategies of any course by playing it.

Futhermore strategy applied correctly to any golfer is a constantly changing thing always depending on the shots he hits and how to best proceed with the next one. To understand how to best do that on any course takes a lot of experience far past just reading about architecture and its strategic implications.

I believe that golf strategy, particularly good golf strategy really is uniquely each golfer's own. If I went out and played a round against Tiger from the same tees and we both played as good as we possibly could clearly my ideal strategy, perfectly executed, and his as well would be vastly different.

And when you ask these questions;

"Is the opposite true as well?  Have those of you who just dont get the importance of strategic architecture spent much time playing strategic golf courses?  Not just vacation playing, but playing repeatedly?",

...the answers would have to be one of huge degrees as well. I firmly believe in a remark that the Great Bob Jones made that there's golf and then there's tournament golf and they are vastly different. In that remark Jones had to have been primarily referring to stroke play tournament golf, not just match play tournament golf. In my book there's no better way to truly learn the ramifications of golf strategy than to play stroke play tournament golf.

Match play is fine too but basically coming to understand truly the strategic consequences of stroke play golf are approximately 18 times greater than match play tournament golf.

And I feel that it's quite difficult for most to truly appreciate as well as even understand what strategy is really all about without the benefit of having real consequences attached to what they do and particularly what they do wrong. I see even plenty of good amateurs, good ball strikers who in my opinion never really come to understand how best to apply what they do know and understand about golf architectural strategy to what they can and can't do. Their inclination to continually take unnecessary risks (that almost always cost them so much) never ceases to amaze me.

These are the large group of golfers I've known who generally speaking say things like "if" all the time after rounds and also things like "I shot a 77 and it should have been a 71." I think I know golf strategy really well after playing so much stroke play tournament golf and I've always been one who was able to say things such as "I shot 71 and it should have been a 77!"

But as TomH and Shivas are clearly trying to imply understanding these things takes both experience and also a certain intuition through experience. Reading about them in books only goes so far.

And I did all that way before I ever became interested in golf architecture. But since I have I think its only served to help me understand some of the finer points of architectural strategy--but in the end it probably hasn't helped that much as a player.

What my education in architecture (only in about the last 6-7 years) has done for me bigtime is allow me to understand the subject so much better from the architect's perspective, but again not all that much more from the player's perspective--that player of course being me. I learned most of that a long time ago just from the experience of playing in lots of things that really mattered to me--that had very real longterm and important consequences. Without that I think one does lose a lot just because he never really gets introduced to the best of the ramifications of strategy.

Again, understanding golf strategy, truly, to me anyway, is how good you ever get at not just understanding the strategic ramifications of courses but how to best apply your capabilities (or lack of them) to to strategic ramifications on any course to not only get the best out of it and yourself but how best to avoid not doing that!









 

[THuckaby2]

Wow.

TEP completely nails this.

Truly nothing more need be said beyond:

"Again, understanding golf strategy, truly, to me anyway, is how good you ever get at not just understanding the strategic ramifications of courses but how to best apply your capabilities (or lack of them) to to strategic ramifications on any course to not only get the best out of it and yourself but how best to avoid not doing that!"

That's what I've been trying to get at, in my roundabout confusing way.  To me, "golf strategy" is all well and good, and a very interesting subject - but it's somewhat dry outside of how it is APPLIED, and each of us is going to do that differently, based on our motivations, what we want from the game, what's at stake, etc.

TH

[ForkaB]

Tom P

I think you should go back and edit your last post.  I agree with all of it, so something must be tragically wrong......

[TEPaul]

Rich:

All that's wrong is your thinking processes, heretofore!

[TEPaul]

And furthermore your outlook on golf strategy is remarkably simple and basic--consisting of hitting everything as far and as directly at the flag as possible.  Not sure over the longhaul how much that's gained for you or cost you but anyway....who cares about that?

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul:

Well Said Tom, in your long post above.  One thing you said that is true, definitely, but that really concerns me is this:

 

And I feel that it's quite difficult for most to truly appreciate as well as even understand what strategy is really all about without the benefit of having real consequences attached to what they do and particularly what they do wrong. I see even plenty of good amateurs, good ball strikers who in my opinion never really come to understand how best to apply what they do know and understand about golf architectural strategy to what they can and can't do. Their inclination to continually take unnecessary risks (that almost always cost them so much) never ceases to amaze me.

This may fill in the middle ground in my theory/questions above.  Some see plenty of strategic golf course architecture, but they just ignore it.  It is always more fun to take the risk, smart or not, so they do, no matter what the rewards of the other options. It is as if CPC 16 Fever has turned into an epidemic and at every potential thrill, no matter how mundane, the golfer just has to go for it, because who knows when he will be back there again . . . even if it will likely be the next week.  

But does this lack of appreciation for strategic golf course architecture in every day golf have anything to do with the types of courses that have been built over the last 70 yrs. or the predominant maintenance practices over the past 70 yrs?  Surely there was a time when golfers enjoyed thinking their way around the course, whether real consequences existed or not.

And if above paraghraph is true, then where does strategic golf course architecture fit into the future of golf.  The vast majority of us play all of our golf with little or no "real consequences" attached, then why bother with strategic golf course architecture at all.  Why not just build courses with one exciting yet unavoidable risk after another.  Thrill Seeker golf from the first hole to the last?  

And by the way, I am not so sure that those in competition are really strategizing either.  There may be competitiors who will almost always be conservative and those who will almost always be agressive, but I dont see this as strategic thinking.  Take a look at the way the PGA guys play Riv 10 and tell me that these guys are  great calculators who actually weigh the options.  

Maybe we've uncovered the real culprit and cure all at once.  Maybe golf balls are just way to cheap.

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

Bottom line is different golfers have different motivations - always have, always will.  Yes, not all PGA Tour players are the greatest "thinkers" but the vast majority are - they have to be, they're playing for their livelihood and won't have such for long if they don't weigh and play the percentages.  But the key here is even for them, what seems like the obvious percentage play may or may not be... So much goes into each decision and it is so wholly personal, with so many factors weighing in...

And the same goes for every golfer, really.  You had different motivations on the tee at CPC 16 than did shivas and I, obviously - to use the common example.  Neither was right, neither was wrong.  We each ended up pleased or saddened, based on if the shot we hit matched, or didn't match, what we were trying to accomplish.  

That's what makes this so fascinating and so difficult to quantify - "strategy" is so wholly in the mind of the golfer hitting the shots!

That's why even though it is kinda scary that so many people ignore strategy - and you and TEP are correct - this is pervasive - I'd venture to say the majority of players playing at all today just hit away with complete disdain for strategic choices, just going taking the straight line to the flag each and every time - there is always going to be a place for courses that require strategic thinking (or give benefit to such), because those are the ones that people will talk about and come back to.  Even the bombs away guys will see that there are different ways to approach things, whether they pay them heed or not... I really do believe this.

One thing though:  the thought of "courses with one exciting yet unavoidable risk after another.  Thrill Seeker golf from the first hole to the last" sounds intriguing to me... Oh, I know the problems associated with such (huge cost to build and maintain, among other things) - but at least for a few playings, that sounds pretty damn fun!

TH

[DMoriarty]

Yes, not all PGA Tour players are the greatest "thinkers" but the vast majority are - they have to be, they're playing for their livelihood and won't have such for long if they don't weigh and play the percentages.  But the key here is even for them, what seems like the obvious percentage play may or may not be... So much goes into each decision and it is so wholly personal, with so many factors weighing in...

I disagree.   It the pros generally play only courses where there arent many options, then "thinking" may not be a prerequisite for success on the Pro tour at all.  How often are these guys put in a position where they have to make a choice.  Again, stand behind the green at Riv 10 and tell me they have weighed the options.  

Or look at the greatest player in the world. Tiger Woods faced choices at the Open this year, and he "chose" to force what he does best, to his demise.  I didnt see him weighing choices or going away from his usual game because of what the course was willing to give him.  

As for CPC 16, if you want to call going for the green in a 5 club crosswind a well-reasoned strategic decision, then you are kidding yourself.

That's what makes this so fascinating and so difficult to quantify - "strategy" is so wholly in the mind of the golfer hitting the shots!

Strategy may be in the mind of the golfer, but strategic golf course architecture is not.  

One thing though:  the thought of "courses with one exciting yet unavoidable risk after another.  Thrill Seeker golf from the first hole to the last" sounds intriguing to me... Oh, I know the problems associated with such (huge cost to build and maintain, among other things) - but at least for a few playings, that sounds pretty damn fun!

Tom I dont think the problems with such courses are the costs to build or maintain, but the complete absense of the thinking aspect of the game.  Might as well go to the driving range and try to knock it over the fence.  Or go bungee jumping for that matter.  It aint golf.  

[DMoriarty]

Bingo!  My friend, you've finally admitted it!  You long for a game where you can just think your way around.    

There is a difference between "thinking your way around" and "just thinking your way around."  It is not just the ability to hit the ball that differentiates golfers.  

If you just want to hit the ball, go to the range, or better yet, join the LD tour.  

"How can you look back on a hole and know you made the right choice?  Especially with conservative play?  You play for the fat side and hit it there, then you play a conservative approach.  YOu have an easy 2 putt.  Who's to say that was the best play?  How do you know?  Conversely, you play aggressively and screw it up somethin' aweful.  You take a big number.  How do you know you wouldn't have done that playing conservative, too?  The only scenario I can come up with for KNOWing that you made the right choice is where you play aggressive and it pays off with eagle or something.  Then, if the conservative play would take eagle out of play, you can say that you made the right choice (short of holing a third shot from layup-land or something, but you can't count on that).  

You never know and you never will.  Even with an eagle you dont know that it was the best play.  You may know eagle is possible now, but it still doesnt mean that agressive is the best play next time.  But that is part of the beauty.  YOU NEVER KNOW.  Do you know you went to the right college?  Married the right gal?  Bought the right car?  Took the right job?

Yes, you never know.  And if you do know then it is probably not very good strategic architecture.  

Now, if you buy into this premise (and I'm not certain that even I buy into it; I'm kinda winging this), then what result?  Well, how can strategic decisionmaking be an important component of the game if you can't even say with certainty that it had an effect on the game?  Could it be that "strategy" is nothing more than guesswork before the fact and poorly-informed rationalization after the fact?  Say it ain't so, Joe....

Of course it had an effect on the game.  It is part of what got you from point A to point B.  Just because you dont know if it was the best route, doesnt mean it had no influence.  Did the college you chose have an effect on the rest of your life?  How about the law school?