A rare strategic choice for me

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm not a big fan of Par 5s in general; for me, liking one is rare and loving one rarer still. Because of that, and because my driver is twitchier and more unpredictable than ever, I came to a 515 yard Par 5 yesterday in a mood to shake things up a bit, to get myself out of the duldrums. And, since as with most Par 5s I play the 'strategy' was pretty obvious and the 'options' not as bountiful as Par 5 lovers like to suggest, I did what I don't remember ever having done before, i.e. I took a 3 iron off the tee. Yes, just as if I were coming down the stretch trying to win my first major, leaking oil and throwing up on myself despite a 2 shot cushion, I played the hole very conservatively. I bumped my 3 iron out there and hit the fairway.  Then, because the pin was on the left side of the green, tucked behind a bunker, I aimed a 4 iron (which I tend to fade) at the 100 yard stake and sure enough it drifted a little right, scooting just off the fairway and into the rough and leaving me a good angle in from about 130 yards.  I hit a 9 iron and landed on the green long and left, from where I two putted for a Par 5.  It was fun to play a golf hole like a real golfer (sort of), and to think of strategy and options not only in terms of left or right but also in terms of long or short, and it sure was satisfying to make a par (one of only 7 yesterday). But on the other hand, it didn't get me to change my mind about most Par 5s. Indeed, I think I got a handle on my dislike/disinterest, i.e. Par 5s: satisfying to play for a humble hack content to settle for (an easy) par, but this satisfaction is at the cost, more often than not, of architectural banality and a vague sense that golf isn't supposed to play like that.

Peter

[BCrosby]

"Indeed, I think I got a handle on my dislike/disinterest, i.e. Par 5s: satisfying to play for a humble hack content to settle for (an easy) par, but this satisfaction is at the cost, more often than not, of architectural banality and a vague sense that golf isn't supposed to play like that."

Darwin wrote an essay (I forget the title) about how dull it was to choose the smart, safe option. And so he found himself not taking it very often, even when it was the rational thing to do.

Great minds....  

Your point, like Darwin's, highlights a rarely discussed weakness of theories of strategic design. Even if a smart, safe option is offered, for a variety of psychological reasons we don't like taking it. Given the choice, there seems to be a basic human preference for failing heroically. 

Bob

[JMEvensky]

"Indeed, I think I got a handle on my dislike/disinterest, i.e. Par 5s: satisfying to play for a humble hack content to settle for (an easy) par, but this satisfaction is at the cost, more often than not, of architectural banality and a vague sense that golf isn't supposed to play like that."

Darwin wrote an essay (I forget the title) about how dull it was to choose the smart, safe option. And so he found himself not taking it very often, even when it was the rational thing to do.

Great minds....  

Your point, like Darwin's, highlights a rarely discussed weakness of theories of strategic design. Even if a smart, safe option is offered, for a variety of psychological reasons we don't like taking it. Given the choice, there seems to be a basic human preference for failing heroically. 

Bob

That 3 iron Peter hit is from,I think,a set of 1950's Hogans. You can't get more heroic than that.

[Brent Hutto]

Nevermind, golf is a big tent with room for all kind of games within the game.

[Garland Bayley]

You call yourself a hack, and bemoan only 7 pars in a round. You are hereby excommunicated from hackdom.

[Paul Gray]

Funny that this should come up on the day that I've resolved to treat par 5's as exactly that. I plaed my home course today and dropped 5 shots. Not terrible until you realise that all of those 5 shots were dropped on the three par 5's. Ouch.

I think what happens is, subconsciously at least, I'm so afraid about making a 6 on what should be a safe par hole that, without really giving it any thought, I go out of my way to make 4.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pete,

I think your experience proves what a "mental" game this is.

Your mindset was one of uncertainty, hence you played defensively.

Another golfer might view the same hole, and the play of the same hole, in an entirely different light.

How many times have you been over a 3 foot putt and doubted that you'd make it ?
And, over an 8 foot putt certain that you would make it ?

So much depends upon how we feel, not just each day, but, as the round progresses.

I know that certain holes just don't seem to fit my eye.
I feel very uncomfortable as I step on the tee, yet other holes seem made for me and I feel confident and look forward to playing them.

I think the neat thing about par 5's is that they probably present the most number of options in terms of playing them.

[Colin Macqueen]

Dear Peter,

Seven pars in a round is verging on transcendental not hackers' hell!  Playing  at that level certainly qualifies one to believe that strategic play could produce the desired outcome. However as I was reading of your progress on this hole I found myself slipping into the "duldrums" as well. It sounded dull and I was not at all surprised that an atmosphere of dissatisfaction descended as you prevailed.

Jeff Silverman ( in his essay http://www.golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/jeff-silverman-may-2003/)  quotes from Darwin I think and says

"..that we have to decide between on the one hand, a highly dangerous but highly profitable course that may lose us several strokes but may gain us one invaluable stroke, and, on the other, a comparatively safe, easy course that ought not to lose us much but may just lose us something intensely important.’

What is this "…something intensely important"?  Methinks it is the thrill of the chase, the very essence of the gemme!

Bernard Darwin in his essay ‘Architectooralooral,’ quotes John Low who says

"The fine player should on his way round the links be just slipping past the bunkers, gaining every yard he can, conquering by the confidence of his own "far and sure" play. The less skilful player should wreck himself either by attempting risks which are beyond his skill, or by being compelled to lose ground through giving the bunkers a wide berth."

Now Peter enough of this wishy-washy poking about, no mincing around, channel Ballasteros and play with verve, vigour and even vehemence for evermore!!

Bob Crosby said it all better than me but I cannot help but lend my tuppenceworth!

Cheers,

Colin

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks much, gents - you made it a good thread. The mental game, the various possible approaches, Darwin: all very relevant and interesting. 

But mostly, to GJ and others, I need to stress: I didn't mean to suggest that 7 pars were an "only" for me; indeed, 7 pars are very good for me, and a rare accomplishment.  I meant that anyone but an average golfer like me would not be happy with 7 pars plus the assortment of doubles and triples and lost balls and bogies and that made up the rest of my round!

But I got a five on a Par 5!! (And Bob and Jeff, bless you for supporting my usual irrationality and for noting my use of Hogan blades!!)

Peter

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

In a less frivolous vein Peter's statement at the end of his introduction "….and a vague sense that golf isn't supposed to play like that." set me to thinking.

Strategy is mentioned time and again on this forum. I often wonder what level of expertise needs to be reached before playing with an eye on strategy shows real benefits. Now I'm not suggesting complete abandon when playing golf shots is the answer. For arguments sake I imagine one has to have a single digit handicap before getting a reasonable return for your thoughtful effort. Do others agree?

On the other hand does it depend on the nature of the golfer ….  perfervid, staid, dour or exuberant. Would members on this forum like to align their nature with their golfing strategy!! Or is it as Bob Crosby writes an inherent weakness in the human condition?

Peter's attempt worked out very well for him on this occasion but I would posit that, as far as I am concerned (an 11-12 handicapper), the positive outcome would not be consistent enough to warrant playing in this manner and "failing heroically" would be a preference in the medium to longer term. I am as likely to mess up playing strategically as I am playing relatively heroically.

I guess what I am asking is does the "smart, safe option on offer" really only apply to the better player? For mere rabbits there may be too much randomness in our play to make the architecture germane? We may see it and appreciate it but we cannot utilise it with any prediction of success.

Cheers Colin

[Peter Pallotta]

Colin: I think your point in paragraph 4 is central, but it is left unsaid in the majority of discussions about strategy and options, especially in regards to specific great golf holes/courses, probably because raising it in that context simply muddies the waters. But I do think the point (and your question) lies behind my thinking that, somehow, Par 5s "work" (or don't) differently than do 3s and 4s, and that this difference has to be very well understood before an architect can design one that works great (and even then, he needs the right site).

Peter

[JESII]

It is exactly that "inherent weakness of the human condition" that sets the table for the architect. They know we (all levels of golfer) are going to try to reach just beyond our limits to pull off a shot. Like bookmakers setting a line that may not seem logical but still draws money from the home team fans.

The very fact that this is a game makes it all the more likely that we'll take on a shot that logically we maybe shouldn't because after all, failure can be forgotten quite quickly.

Adding a small bet or entering the weekend competition puts a bit of teeth into the thoguht process and soon enough the golfer really feels like they're active and engaged in something. You have to want to get into the hole in the fewest strokes...it's an insult to the architect to not aim for a score.

Peter, your "conservative" play on this hole simply adds another option for you upon future plays of this, or similar, holes. You'll have it in your back pocket in the event you become worn out from failing heroically and relish an easy par...

[Brent Hutto]

Peter,

Are you talking about them "working" differently in as much as you have an option to at least try and reach the green or its surrounds in two shots?

Or is your strategy of laying back off the tee and with your second shot merely opting to hit an iron for your third instead of a wedge?

For my game, even playing my home course way up at the 5,750 yard tees, the thing that distinguishes Par 5's is my occasional ability to hit a sand wedge or best-case maybe an intermediate-length pitch shot for my third instead of coming in with 7-iron through fairway wood as I do on Par 4's (and most Par 3's).

P.S. Just to show I'm not totally talking out of my nether regions, I'll admit to three occasions (in 20+ years of golf) on which a Par 5 green was reached in two stroke. But it's so rare as to not really enter into my normal reckoning of how a given hole might play for me.

[Steve Salmen]

Pat M,

You are so correct.  Some days it's impossible to miss a six foot putt.  Others, 3 footers give you hell.  The key to consistency IMO is being able to consistently strike the ball on the sweet spot of the putter.  If you can do this, you can eliminate a lot of doubt on how or where to hit the putt.

Late last year, I added a final form of preparation before I hit my putt.  I do all the pre shot things as before. When I stand over the ball, I try to focus 100% of my energy on the dimple of the ball that I intend to strike with the putter.  I seem to hit more solid putts and thus make a few more tool.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - really good post there, several interesting points, thanks.

Brent - I have only rarely reached a legitimate Par 5 in two, and I don't even try much anymore because, though I am improving slowly, that 3 wood off the fairway is still just too tough a shot for me, and the results are completely unpredictable. (At best, I flare it out to the right some 10 yards from the green in a bunch of rough, sort of pin high).  And so for me the 'short' Par 5 just isn't inherently more interesting or nuanced than any Par 4 -- if fact, it usually includes a boring second shot (which the Par 4 doesn't); and the average length Par 5 lives and dies (quality and interest wise) on the interest and challenge of the 2nd shot and of the 3rd (usually a PW-9 iron), with the green of course playing a big part in the latter. All that too say, I'm not sure I know exactly what I mean when I suggest that Par 5s "work" differently, other than to suggest that the risk/reward formula -- for me -- has to be different than it is on other types of holes.

Peter

[Steve Salmen]

As for Par 5s,  I find most of them kind of week for the following reason:  the second shot.  Too often I hit a bad drive, lay up, and have a wedge.  There is not enough punishment for a bad drive.  I will hit an iron over 90% of the time on my second shots because I like to hit short irons it, rather than take the chance of missing a 3 wood 30 yards.  

To me, great par 5s demand a good drive and second, whether going for it or laying up.

Not to pick a fight, but Tom D argues that Muirfield's par 5s are some of the best.  I would argue that the second shots are not that demanding if you lay up.  Number 5 is definitely an easier second if either laying up or going for it.  I think the second shot at the 5s of Machrihanish are incredibly demanding if you either go for it or lay up,  especially if you are blind on the 10th.  The lay up on 12 makes you nervous because of the dunes that stick out on the left, the preferred line to the perched green.

Note, every time I've played the 9th at Muirfield, it plays as a par 4. Only 5 and 17 are Par 5s on my cards.  If I had ever played 9 at 550, I think the second would be quite a demanding lay up because the fairway tapers in until the green is finally guarded by bunkers right and the wall on the left.

[Paul Gray]

.......On the other hand does it depend on the nature of the golfer ….  perfervid, staid, dour or exuberant. Would members on this forum like to align their nature with their golfing strategy!! Or is it as Bob Crosby writes an inherent weakness in the human condition?.......

For me, this really is the nub of it. And it matters not, within reason, whether you play off of 1 or 31. One of the biggest mistakes a player can make is to not listen to his or her inner drive. Since he's been mentioned a bit here lately, think of Seve....

[Patrick_Mucci]

As for Par 5s,  I find most of them kind of week for the following reason:  the second shot.  Too often I hit a bad drive, lay up, and have a wedge.  There is not enough punishment for a bad drive.  I will hit an iron over 90% of the time on my second shots because I like to hit short irons it, rather than take the chance of missing a 3 wood 30 yards.  

Steve,

Have you ever played Ridgewood (NJ).

The par 5's are all superior holes.

Rarely will you hit a wedge for your third shot.

In general, I would say that AWT was a master at crafting interesting, challenging par 5's.

To me, great par 5s demand a good drive and second, whether going for it or laying up.

Not to pick a fight, but Tom D argues that Muirfield's par 5s are some of the best.  I would argue that the second shots are not that demanding if you lay up.  Number 5 is definitely an easier second if either laying up or going for it.  I think the second shot at the 5s of Machrihanish are incredibly demanding if you either go for it or lay up,  especially if you are blind on the 10th.  The lay up on 12 makes you nervous because of the dunes that stick out on the left, the preferred line to the perched green.

Note, every time I've played the 9th at Muirfield, it plays as a par 4. Only 5 and 17 are Par 5s on my cards.  If I had ever played 9 at 550, I think the second would be quite a demanding lay up because the fairway tapers in until the green is finally guarded by bunkers right and the wall on the left.

[Sean_A]

Peter's attempt worked out very well for him on this occasion but I would posit that, as far as I am concerned (an 11-12 handicapper), the positive outcome would not be consistent enough to warrant playing in this manner and "failing heroically" would be a preference in the medium to longer term. I am as likely to mess up playing strategically as I am playing relatively heroically.

This is usually my thought process as well.  Plus, there is nothing more maddening than screwing up a lay-up so I try to limit those opportunities  . 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

It is exactly that "inherent weakness of the human condition" that sets the table for the architect. They know we (all levels of golfer) are going to try to reach just beyond our limits to pull off a shot. Like bookmakers setting a line that may not seem logical but still draws money from the home team fans.

The very fact that this is a game makes it all the more likely that we'll take on a shot that logically we maybe shouldn't because after all, failure can be forgotten quite quickly.

Adding a small bet or entering the weekend competition puts a bit of teeth into the thoguht process and soon enough the golfer really feels like they're active and engaged in something. You have to want to get into the hole in the fewest strokes...it's an insult to the architect to not aim for a score.

You seem to understand the point, but that last bit seems to contradict it.  Many golfers are out there to just try to hit the shots and have fun at it ... they don't remember the score a day or two later.  But if the golf shots were fun to play, they're happy.  That's why it is hard to get most people to lay up, and why the guys who do may win the bets.

[JESII]

Tom,

Not sure which part you think might be inconsistent...the "insult to the architect" part?

My whole point of view on this is from thinking of golf as a contest, a competition. Even if only with ourselves. It does not have to be the scorecard and pencil mentality many here chastise. I play as fast and have as much fun as anyone, but I'm always trying shoot a score or win a hole. Is there a time and a place for goof around golf like One-Club or scrambles? Sure...but there's no need to discuss the architecture in that context, is there?

[Jason Thurman]

Jim, I think Tom was getting at what was also my first thought when I read your post.

Pete's original post suggests that maybe he could score better on par 5s by playing them very conservatively, such that reasonable execution will end with a par and even poor execution should still ensure bogey. Mathematically, that's probably the best way for him to score on such holes. But he doesn't find it especially rewarding, and he has more fun if he gambles a bit more, pushes the boundaries of his golf game, and risks bigger numbers while playing to hit the best shot he's capable of instead of the smartest shot he's capable of.

If his goal was to score as well as possible, he'd play conservatively more often. But it's not always about shooting the best score possible. Sometimes it's about trying to hit the best shot possible. Pete Dye talks about this in "Bury me in a Pot Bunker." A lot of people think his courses are too tough for weak players, but he always tries to do two things - give them a safe place to hack the ball around, and also give them the opportunity to hit a shot they'll remember forever if they choose to take it on and pull it off. They may shoot a huge score in the process of taking on those opportunities throughout a round, but all they have to do is pull one of those opportunities off and they'll remember the great shot long after they've forgotten their huge score.

[Brent Hutto]

I think for golfers of my own level (or Peter's) it matters very much what kind of game you're playing or, more specifically, what kind of score you are keeping. I'm talking here about players who shoot in the 80's or 90's and who are challenged to some extent in all elements of the game: distance, keeping the ball in play, recovery shots around the green. Most of these golfers can not count on hitting even a halfway decent shot after a duffed one. In fact, duffed shots tend to come in bunches interspersed with stretches of solid play.

For a double-digit handicapper, attempting to play the game we see on TV every week is very restrictive. If we're going to play it down, hole it out, keep going for 18 full holes without ever picking up and keep a purely stroke-play scorecard then the only logical choice is to be very, very, very conservative in every single decision. When a stroke-play score is the goal and the result of a bad Par 5 can be writing down 8 or 10 (or more) there is almost no risk worth taking. You are either playing to keep the ball between you and hole at all costs on every shot or else you're not making a good-faith effort to shoot your best score.

Now if we switch our focus to a game suitable for a bogey golfer, the kind of things Peter describes are worth pondering. If it's a match against an opponent (or a partners match against a pair of opponents) or even if it's a Stableford score where the "0" point minimum ensures a start-over after each hole then the "risk" side of risk-reward is the risk of taking zero points or of losing the hole.

Now we can separate risks into categories. There are risks that you're stupid to take no matter what the game (for me that would be any forced carry over water of more than 170-180 yards which is never, ever going to end well) and there are risks that you will generally judge a safe bet (and you'd only lay up if for reason a double-bogey wins the hole, etc.) and there's the most interesting category which is the judgment call.

Absent some limit or censoring of potential downside outcomes, most risks for a mediocre golfer would have to offer a three or four shot potential upside to offset the possibility of a wrecked scorecard. So the trick is to choose your game where the downside risk of any given "strategic" decision is one or two strokes. Because then it's worth considering those potential one or two stroke rewards if you pull the questionable shot off.

I assume Peter was talking about this latter type of game and not strict stroke play. The strategy of medal play for a handicap golfer almost always degenerates to "avoid the big number". Period, end of discussion. Fortunately we have other games available that keep risk-reward estimation in the realm of reality and not just wishful thinking.

P.S. And I totally agree with Jim S. that if you're out there playing no particular game at all and just hitting shots to see if you can hit them, any architect's intention of providing "strategy" or "heroic" shot values or "risk reward" is being thrown out the window. All of those concepts make sense only in reference to stipulated game with a meaningful outcome. Not that there's anything wrong with treating a golf course as a series of targets on which to hit context-free shots. But you're just using the course as an elaborate driving range, basically.

[JESII]

Jason,

Thanks for that explanation and perspective.

While I understand a bogey player is going to have less control and predictability than a scratch player, they still have opportunities to take a risk during the round to save shots. I'm not suggesting Brent tries to carry a creek 250 yards away when he knows he cannot under any circumstances do so, but there are opportunities.

It's the reality that golfers generally will take on a little more than they can predictably handle that creates the fun...or rather the opportunity for fun. This is the inherent weakness of the human condition.

Perhaps to further clarify my position, when I say the player has to try for a score, I'm referring to each individual hole. Standing on the first tee planning to shoot 72 or 79 or 99 or whatever the goal might be certainly leads to a more conservative mindset. I suggest people need to play each hole with the express intent of making the lowest score they can on that hole. Once they've tied together 12 or 14 better than average holes and realize they need to play the last 4 no worse than 2 over to break 80 for the first time I can accept a change in approach.

[Brent Hutto]

I suggest people need to play each hole with the express intent of making the lowest score they can on that hole. Once they've tied together 12 or 14 better than average holes and realize they need to play the last 4 no worse than 2 over to break 80 for the first time I can accept a change in approach.

I've shot 80 four times (if I recall correctly) and had a couple other chances like you describe where the 70's seem easily reachable with a few holes to play. On one occasion I needed to play the final two holes in level par but they are both harder than average Par 4's.

So I hit a fantastic (admittedly downwind) tee shot on the 17th and have a choice. I can hit a gap wedge safely to the middle of the green or try to launch a sand wedge over the front bunker and land it near the hole which was cut just 6-7 paces beyond the sand.

At any other point in the round I'd have hit the gap wedge without thinking twice. Two-putting from 30 or 40 feet for par is easier than getting up and down from a bunker. But all of a sudden I thought, "If I can make birdie here then I can afford to bogey the 18th. Brilliant!".

You can guess the rest of the story. Hit a beautiful sand wedge shot, the breeze behind me died, the ball hits the last foot of the bunker lip and kicks back in. Bogey-par finish for yet another 80. Still haven't broke into the 70's to this day.

That was a year ago and I've pondered it ever since. My conclusion? If I had it to do over again I'd hit the sand wedge. The bunker isn't that deep, the putt from way past the green is kind of tricky and it's a bloody sand wedge from a perfect fairway lie. Just a bad break with the wind shifting on me like that. It would be easy to learn the wrong lesson there but with time I think my perspective is pretty clear.

But that story really is NOT what I was talking about earlier. The "risk" of facing a routine bunker shot is a perfect candidate for a well considered risk-reward choice. I was only referring to lost-ball or multiple-stroke type risks in saying that a bogey-ish golfer has no real choice when playing for a medal score. There are still many of the little choices available to enliven the game.

That said, I still like some sort of Stableford scoring with a limit on hole scores. For instance when I get a chance to play links courses (solo rounds) I always just keep a net Stableford score and after hacking it in the waist-high fescue for a few strokes or taking three tries to get out of a pot bunker I do pick up. Those vacation rounds would never work for me in strict stroke-play mode.