[DMoriarty]

In another thread Shivas asked a question which I think deserves an answer, or at least some discussion.  Here it is, in my words:

If two options exist, but almost all golfers choose the same one of the two options, is it really accurate to call this a strategic hole?  


My answer is No and Yes.  

No, when one of the options will never be the smart play for anyone in any situation.  Think of a split fairway with a long difficult carry to a narrow fairway which is further away and offers a less advantageous angle.  


Yes, when the risk/reward ratios are fairly equal (so that each option will be the smart play for some of the people some of the time, depending on the player and the circumstance.)

I view strategy as being more about what people should do as opposed to what they do do.  Sometimes an architect builds a hole with an option that is so tempting and enticing that it is almost impossible to resist.  Likewise sometimes one option is so novel, camoflauged, or unusual, that it is hard to even notice the less traveled option.

In both these situations we have the makings of a great strategic hole.  In the former, it takes not only the correct analysis but also the mental fortitude to resist the temptation and to do the right thing.  In the latter, it takes a golfer who is willing and able to look critically at the hole in a way that not many have before.  These gofers may be rare, but they certainly deserve the advantage they receive for figuring out the smart way to play the hole (given the circumstances) and actually being able to do it.  

[JLahrman]

It's like the old CAPM finance model.  If one stock is northwest of another (higher expected return, lower standard deviation), who is going to choose the southeast stock?  Only an irrational investor.  But irrational wouldn't describe people who spend ungodly amounts of time posting about golf architecture, would it?

[Mike Benham]

I'm confused (or may just tired of reading all these back and forths ...) but what is the definition of "strategic" again?  Seriously ...

Just because a hole has options, it doesn't make it strategic.

Take Dave's example where two options exist but no one ever uses one of them, but switch it around so that it states that a hole has two options, but neither of them give an advantage over the other, can we call this a strategic hole?

[Scott_Burroughs]

Dave,

Geoff Shackelford presented this exact thing during the Nissan Open earlier this year when the newly "restored" double fairway 8th had no one (ZERO!) taking the left fairway "option", because it really wasn't an option at all, blaming the f'd-up restoration on the restorer (who I won't name   )

Can't link it since I can't visit Geoff's site at work (all that porn).

[JLahrman]

Of course not Mike, that's like saying "What would you like to drink, water or water?"  The terms strategy and option imply some combination of risk and reward.  When two choices are in fact the same thing, there is no risk nor reward.

[Mike Benham]

Of course not Mike, that's like saying "What would you like to drink, water or water?"  The terms strategy and option imply some combination of risk and reward.  When two choices are in fact the same thing, there is no risk nor reward.

Yep, is the answer to Dave's inquiry ... Yes and No, Yes or No, Yes and Yes, or No and No ...  

[Chris_Clouser]

I've got the perfect optionless/option hole.  It is the 15th at a local public course called Gray Eagle.  It is a dogleg with a creek bisecting the fairway at 320 from the tee.  From the tee the dogleg is in view but trees block the view of the green, but no one even thinks about getting to or carrying the creek because a clear option exist from the tee.  The fairway is split by a 70 foot tall oak tree.  If you want to drive on the left side you would think you have a much longer shot into the green.  The right side is basically a small island that requires a little longer carry over the deep rough to the safe zone.  Well your assumption would be right about which side it is smarter to go to.  But all it provides you is a view full of trees.  Yep you guessed it.  The only clear view of the green without having to hit a punch shot under the trees is to hit a power fade over the creek.  I should rephrase that, there is a 5 foot window on the short side of the creek right next to the fence marking OB that is clear to the green, like that is realistic for a large number of public players.  But if you decide to carry the creek all is not clear.  There is 20 yards of deep rough, I'm talking lose your bag if you aren't careful deep, until you get to the fairway for a shot into the green.  So a 340 yard power fade through a narrow shoot between the top limbs of the trees is what you need to get to have a clear shot.  Oh I forgot to tell you this.  The shot better land with the spin of a wedge because the fairway is only about 15 yards wide at that point and just past the fairway is OB.

This was my first time playing the course so I didn't know all the secret involved with this hole.  Next time though I will.  Walk to the next hole and speed up my 4+ hour round.

Man I love routing golf courses through housing editions!

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

A perfect example of your question is the 2nd hole at Trump National (formerly Briar Hall).

There is a second fairway to the right of a creek that bisects the fairway, however, out of bounds looms large as the right side boundary with the creek as the left side boundary.  
The fairway is very narrow, and the angle of attack into the green is worse, not better than the wider fairway left of the creek.

While the option is there, it is not a realistic option, more an option of error, providing safe haven for a mis-hit or slice.

I believe that it is not a real option, that any prudent course management would consider for a nano-second.

I think these types of visual, but not playable, options may be just that, window dressing.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas okay that question is fine, but I really dont see a significant difference.  
_______________________

Patrick, thanks for the example, I couldnt think of one that many would know or be interested in.  

But pretty much everyone is focusing on one of my examples:  The hole with two options, one of which is an obvious bad play for everyone.  

I think the other example is more interesting to the point of what Shivas' and my question:  

What about the hole which presents a real choice for most golfers-- where both routes have their advantages and disadvantages?  Can you call this hole strategic if almost all the golfers choose the same option?
   
  The obvious example here is CPC 16 (yes, 16 again) at least with non-club members they almost always go at the green, even when going left would be more prudent.  So does this make the tee shot at 16 bereft of strategy?  

[ed_getka]

16 at CPC is not without strategy. It is only due to exclusivity that you go for the green, and of course if its your first crack at it that you go for it. Consider if you have $5,000 on the line in a match  and there is a bit of wind that makes even a good drive iffy to get home, are you still going for it? (substitute an amount that puts a lump in your throat if 5K doesn't do it). There is an option to the left and you have to decide what to do to win the match (or not lose it at least). Isn't that strategy, or would you just call it course management?

David,
 How's miss Ella? Any new milestones Mr. Mom? I'll be down in Sept for a round at RC, see you then.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

Every hole can't be all things to all golfers.

# 16 at CPC may be strategic, if not heroic for me, but a 20 handicap who hits the ball 190 max, may find it one dimensional.  It probably is optionless to him.

I think, what makes NGLA so spectacular, is the multiple options for almost every level of player.

As TEPaul states, there are greens within greens.
At NGLA, there are options within options for every level of player.

[Darren_Kilfara]

 The obvious example here is CPC 16 (yes, 16 again) at least with non-club members they almost always go at the green, even when going left would be more prudent.  So does this make the tee shot at 16 bereft of strategy?  

Now there's a bogus argument if ever I've heard one! (Said affectionately, of course...) If you've got one chance in a lifetime to play CPC #16, are you going to follow the "strategic" option? Hell no - let's let realism trump strategy, OK? Now, if you invited me to play in a four-round tournament with a 36-hole cut at CPC and gave me a couple of practice rounds beforehand, and say I'm grinding hard toward the end of round two to make the cut (the reward for making the cut primarily being two more rounds at CPC)...well, now you've changed the parameters, haven't you? In that instance I'll pick the option that I think will give me the best chance of making the score I need, period.

The point being, golf course architecture - and indeed golf itself - isn't only about strategic options.

Cheers,
Darren

[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren Kilfara,

That's very true.

One's play can be influenced by the circumstances or environment in which they are playing.

But, when it counts, the brain is still a very important club

[DMoriarty]

Patrick and Darren.

Okay, CPC 16 isnt a pure example, you have to limit it to guests (which I did).  The problem is I just dont think these holes exist anywhere, and CPC 16 is the closest I could come up with.

That being said, there is definitely something about CPC 16 which causes most people to abandon all reason and go straight at the green.  It is probably some combination created by the euphoria by the exclusivity and the beauty, or maybe the "fog" there blew down from Humbolt and is altering peoples judgment.  

Patrick, most of your 20 handicappers would go for the green, even without any chance of making it.  

The example given on another thread was ANGC 13, at least for better players who can hit it 260.  Sight unseen, I dont think ANGC 13 fits the description, but it was a discussion of this hole which lead to this thread.  

I think I will start a new thread to see if anyone can come up with anything better.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

The 13th at ANGC is a lot harder than it looks on TV.

I'm not so sure that the default option is going for it.
That lie in the fairway, and the way the creek and green set up is anything but easy, irrespective of the distance.

I think you have to present your example in a situation where score means something.

As a lark, it's one thing to try to reach the green # 16 at CPC or the green at # 13 at ANGC.

But, if your golfers were playing in the club championship,
and you can take your pick of class, championship, A, B, C or D, you can bet that they won't be so cavalier with their shot selection.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

I think you may be reading my posts upside down.  Augusta 13 looks plenty hard to me, and I dont think I would even entertain going for it.  But it was suggested (not by me) on another thread that all good golfers went for it.  

In other words, the theory is that there is one best way to go on the hole, and the other so-called option is a place that crappy golfers might end up if they miss the "best" line.  Now I dont buy this at all, and was just curious what others thought.  

[TEPaul]

"The optionless option....?"

Pretty good question. It seems to me whenever the subject of a really good multi-optional strategic holes comes up so does the example of Riviera's #10. Why? Because the hole has a number of options and because they are all used all the time by numerous players even tour caliber players. As such, I say Riv #10's options are in excellent balance.

In my book if an option is built into a golf hole and it looks good on paper or maybe even on the ground and it's never really used it's a poor option, probably a poor design as it's basically a non-option.

I also feel its important to check to see if a designed option on any golf hole is continuing to work and be used as it was intended to, was designed to, and perhaps used to. Checking to see the use and functionality of any option can help a club determine if something has gone wrong with a hole, if it's evolved incorrectly, in other words.

Such was the case with a hole at my course--GMGC's #7. Basically trees had grown up covering a risky tempting play across a quarry next to the green on an otherwise fine little "go/no go" par 5.

We took enough trees down to open up the green better to a risky "go" second shot to the green across the quarry and reworked the green a little bit to make it more optional. Now all the hole's options are being used more--the 2-3 options on the second half of the hole are in much better balance, and the hole is no longer one dimensional for most players as it had become through some negative evolution.

All the members seem to like it more now and the most interesting thing is some statistics that have been kept on the play of it this year. Many members said the hole would play too easy with what we did. The hole is only about 470 yds long as a par 5 and through the qualifying for the club championship and the championship itself only one golfer made a birdie, quite a few pars and an increased number of "others" with good golfers going for it in two.

Once they understand better how to play to the reworked green and the ramifications of playing across the quarry I think we will see more eagles and birdies and many more "others" than the way it used to be--primarily because more options will be USED and functioning and that all important "scoring spectrum" will begin to increase--what I think of as the best barometer for a good multi-optional strategic hole.

To me an 'optionless option' is not a good option indicating not a good design or hole. Options are the meat of interesting strategies--multi-strategies--and to contribute to that they have to function--they have to be used.

[Rick_Noyes]

TEPaul,

I certainly agree with your post.  It brings to mind a finishing hole at University Club in Columbia SC (I say finishing because they have 27 holes).  Par 5, split fairway with huge mounds separating the two with ankle high (at least) rough on the mounds.  From the tee, the player is presented with the option of going above or below the mounds.  Take the low road (albeit a shorter route) and you bring high rough and a pond into play hitting onto a narrow landing area.  If you happen to pull this shot off and attempt to reach the green in two, you are confronted with more rough, the same pond (which you now have to cross, bunkers and a tree directly in the line of play.  The high road makes the pond less of a factor and with a 5-6 iron to lay up you still have 9-iron or less into the green.
Clearly, at least to me, the option intended worked on paper but fails on the ground.  No one I know uses the lower fairway.  While the option exists, I would not consider this hole to be strategic.  But a risk/reward situation on the lower portion where the risk far out weighs the reward.

Rick

[Scott_Burroughs]

I've always been curious about one hole that looks not to have as many options on it as it may first appear, and it's the first hole at The Kingsley Club.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but look at it first:



An tell me that the lower fairway doesn't appear to be an option at all.  The lower fairway appears to tilted fairly severely to the left and given the supposedly f&f conditions  TKC is known to have, I can't see any ball without a big fade/slice staying on that lower fairway (like Cherry Hills #18 or Olympic #17 during Open).  As one who usually draws the ball, there's no way on earth I can aim for that lower fairway.  Even the upper fairway tilts some to the left, but all the options seem to be up there.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Too far for you.  Only Dave Carroll can clear them!  

[Nick_Christopher]

The bunkers can be carried only by the longest hitters.  Its ~260-275 to carry them, and the wind is in your face probably 35% of the time.  The left option is absolutely an option.  You can't hit a big draw over there, but I have often teed off into the wind, played it left of the bunkers with a three wood or driver (personal control issues), hit another fairway wood or long iron to get to about 160-170 out for my third.  Not the easiest way to go, but when the wind is up, its better than risking not crossing the bunkers to the right side and putting it into the bunkers, which is at least one stroke lost.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()