Bogey,
It’s certainly one type of strategy.
The classic concept is the “position paradox” tee shot, where you really want to hit a well guarded area of the fairway to gain an advantage of shorter approach, better angle, green contours that assist in stopping the approach, better target visibility or work to take major hazards more out of play (which can apply to the tee shot or the approach shot, but would hate to miss, due to penalty. In a way, that seems like a reduction of strategy and an increase in precision requirement. I’m not sure this Golden Age concept was ever quantitatively measured to see if golfers really thought the risk was worth it. Or, did they prefer to challenge hazards on the approach rather than with the driver?
Many holes have “Variable Strategy” designed to be different every day, depending on hole length, wind direction and speed, pin and tee positions and the state of the golfer’s game and confidence. However, it’s still usually just 2X options on the position paradox.
Slightly different is the ”Democratic” tee shot, which offers approximately equal choices every day, allowing players to use their game strengths. Positionally, it seems less strategic, with no real consequences. But in reality, choosing your best shot and executing is strategic, too.
Another common tee shot strategy is the “Diminishing Returns” tee shot - Gradually diminishing fairway width makes golfers judge the crossover point between the advantages of a shorter approach versus missing the narrower fairway. These are better on mid and shorter length holes or Par 5’s, where it’s a reasonable option to lay back, but can be quite vexing, especially in head and tailing winds.
There are also several tee shots where the strategy is mostly figuring out (and executing) the best way to hit the fairway or best fairway position, regardless of green design, which is what I think you are alluding to:
- Forced layup, good downhill and either head or tail wind complicating distance judgement
- Forced Carry,
- Forced shot pattern (by trees) or highly suggested (by ground hazards)
- Precision, (too a narrow or island fairway target) Penal?
- Open fields (with no advantages)
- Open fields with delayed consequences due to green design to add strategy
- Battle scarred with hazards (sometimes truly random, but usually offer multiple distinct landing zones
- Cross slope fairways where the contours require a certain type of shot to hold,
- Rumpled fairways, fully contoured with just one level position as the advantage, desired despite angle.
So, not all strategy has to be the classic position paradox in a balanced round of golf, does it?