The One Dimensional Strategy of Tobacco Road

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Using your original aerial as a reference point, i launched Google Earth, and measured the carry to that front porch portion I mentioned.  It puts the carry at about 165.

I already covered that up above: you're basically laying up at that point anyway, so just lay up out to the left, because if you're trying to curve a shot up onto the green and you wipe it a little, you're in that sandy area short of the green with a small chance of making par.

Are you saying you wouldn't consider a 165 yard carry shot with a fade to find the front left portion of the green?  Its effectively the same distance you have to your grayed out lay up position in your last pic.

If you're gonna lay up, lay up. If you push it a little, great. Maybe you have a shorter chip shot.  The ball isn't running 20 yards - sideways - to roll onto the front of the green.

I can hit a fade, sure.

Carl, good job. That's the only strategy that makes sense for 98% of golfers (if they care about their score).

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

Here is a screen shot I took on Google Earth, showing the line from 200 yards out to a point 10 yards left of the green.

The red line is the approx flight path shown in your picture. The orange line a fade to an aiming point 10 yards left of the green.

Two very different profiles in terms of risk and shot difficulty.

[Jason Thurman]

I've made 4 from the bunker. To paraphrase a legend, excellent risk analysts usually lack any sense of adventure or artistry.


Tobacco Road might not be a great strategic course, or at least not a particularly varied one. But man, it sure delivers adventure and artistry.


I wonder if maintenance could solve some of the playability concerns in places like around the green at 13. There are some spots where the golf suffers a bit on the art's behalf. 9 green also comes to mind. I'm glad I've seen that one in person, but I enjoyed looking at it more than playing it.


I do love that golf course on the whole though.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Two very different profiles in terms of risk and shot difficulty.

Wow, your "Shot Zones" (to use a term of mine) for a shot that plays 220+ yards must be absolutely miniscule.

I don't agree with your analysis, and I don't think you're accounting for just how large a Shot Zone is. Some back of the napkin math confirms this for me, so you're not convincing me. Aiming 30 yards left of where you've marked greatly outweighs the risks of taking even your line, even with smaller than average Shot Zone sizes.

The only time you should really consider even your play is if you just happened to miss your drive well up the right-hand side and it chopped off enough distance that you could get to the back bit of the fairway on your line for with a 7I or less. Maybe a 6I depending on the player.

Shot Zone sizes for a shot playing 220 are pretty big.

[A.G._Crockett]

This is a VERY one dimensional look at the second shot on #11.  There is a LOT of room out to the left, which leaves a lot of green to work with on a chip and run third shot.  While going at the pin is often not going to be an option, depending on the tees that are being played, club selection to get into the chipping area vs. laying up to take the pit out of play is the real decision. 


To me, it's a fascinating shot, and it's set up by how close to the pit you want to be off the tee.  The farther left you go, the safer the tee shot gets, but the less likely you are to be able to get to the chipping area.  It's an incredibly interesting hole, and a great risk-reward hole where almost ANY golfer can make birdie or make a big number.

So is a golfer is "goaded into" going for the pin and ends up in the pit and makes double, perhaps that would be something of a playing lesson; often, the best way to make birdie is NOT to make double.

[Kalen Braley]

Eric,

The other thing to consider going back to the picture I posted.  The front of that porch is nearly 20 feet lower than the carry if going right at the center of the green. (19 feet of elevation difference according to Google earth).  This also significantly helps the "risk profile" in attempting the fade as the minimum landing area is only ~10 feet higher than the fairway instead of 30.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The other thing to consider going back to the picture I posted.  The front of that porch is nearly 20 feet lower than the carry if going right at the center of the green. (19 feet of elevation difference according to Google earth).  This also significantly helps the "risk profile" in attempting the fade as the minimum landing area is only ~10 feet higher than the fairway instead of 30.

Calen, everything looks manageable when you can draw a line that's about 6" wide in the real world. You're still ignoring how large a Shot Zone is for a shot of that length. Your "porch" is about 15 feet wide.

AG, you can slightly improve your angle on the second shot if you drive it further down the fairway, too. But come up short and the trees block you out, too. But generally speaking, the strategy doesn't change much whether you're 250 off the back tees or 270, left a little or right a little.

[A.G._Crockett]

The other thing to consider going back to the picture I posted.  The front of that porch is nearly 20 feet lower than the carry if going right at the center of the green. (19 feet of elevation difference according to Google earth).  This also significantly helps the "risk profile" in attempting the fade as the minimum landing area is only ~10 feet higher than the fairway instead of 30.

Calen, everything looks manageable when you can draw a line that's about 6" wide in the real world. You're still ignoring how large a Shot Zone is for a shot of that length. Your "porch" is about 15 feet wide.

AG, you can slightly improve your angle on the second shot if you drive it further down the fairway, too. But come up short and the trees block you out, too. But generally speaking, the strategy doesn't change much whether you're 250 off the back tees or 270, left a little or right a little.

Eric,

My post was in response to your phrase "being goaded into", which you explained as going for the flag on 11.  But there are other, better options anyway; the chipping area to the left of the green is accessible, but a much more dangerous shot than simply laying up on the second shot. 


And I'll disagree completely with the idea that 20 yards doesn't matter.  You and I both have hit hundreds of shots over the years that were much less than 20 yards from being sugar or s**t; that's golf.  20 yards changes everything on a LOT of par 5's, and 11 at TR is one of them. 

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,


I agree with AG on this one.  A 200 yard shot with 190 yards of carry to a tiny target with 30 feet of elevation gain is very different than same 200 yard approach but only 165 yards of carry and just 10 feet of elevation differential.  The margin of error, even for a duffer like myself, is almost apples and oranges....

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Eric,

It's still Erik, please.

My post was in response to your phrase "being goaded into", which you explained as going for the flag on 11.  But there are other, better options anyway; the chipping area to the left of the green is accessible, but a much more dangerous shot than simply laying up on the second shot.

My point remains that the "more danger" outweighs the risk. You'll average a lower overall score going to the layup area I've shown rather than even going at the "porch" to get 20 yards closer.

And I'll disagree completely with the idea that 20 yards doesn't matter.  You and I both have hit hundreds of shots over the years that were much less than 20 yards from being sugar or s**t; that's golf.  20 yards changes everything on a LOT of par 5's, and 11 at TR is one of them.

The math doesn't support that at all. Given the size of an average amateur's Shot Zone, even an average scratch golfer's Shot Zone, the 20 yards is more than offset by the added "danger" over the safer layup shot that leaves the 55-yard shot instead of the 35-yard shot.

I had typed out quite a bit more about how I think this is a difference between the "classic" way strategy is viewed versus the more "modern" way (mathematical way, Strokes Gained way, whatever you want to call it - I've got a LOT of data on this), but I'll save that for another time.

Given the sizes of Shot Zones, even a single digit handicapper will average a lower score playing out to the left and leaving a 60-yard pitch/chip to the green than going much closer  at all.And the thing is, when Strantz built the course, we didn't have as much technology to help golfers as we do now, so the decision likely would have been even MORE slanted in favor of laying up. We didn't have as many hybrids or game-improvement clubs then as we do now.

I don't hate the course, but strategically, I think it's kinda "meh." I keep hearing from people - even Keith Cutten said it on the Trap Draw podcast he did recently - that Tobacco Road is loved or hated. I don't hate the course. It's just not interesting to me, strategically. It's cool to look at, but that's superficial. It's like marrying someone who's pretty, not someone who's great to talk to and with whom you connect on a deeper level.

And, all that said, I'd like to be done discussing the 11th hole. I'm only re-stating things anyway at this point. It's fine that you guys like the course. It's fine if I've not convinced you of a single thing, too, because I assure you, you haven't convinced me of anything. I'm pretty comfortable with my analysis of the 11th hole from a strategy perspective.

I agree with AG on this one.  A 200 yard shot with 190 yards of carry to a tiny target with 30 feet of elevation gain is very different than same 200 yard approach but only 165 yards of carry and just 10 feet of elevation differential.  The margin of error, even for a duffer like myself, is almost apples and oranges....

You're not accounting for the size of Shot Zone, and I feel like AG was talking about the 20-yard difference between my proposed layup out to the left and going at your < 10-yard-wide "porch." Yeah, going for the "porch" is a smarter shot than going at the green. But going further left is even smarter.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

Yes the porch is only 10 yards wide, but its also only 5 yards deep until you have the full width of a very wide landing area.  So we'll amend the 165 to 170 and another foot of elevation differential.    Still apples and oranges

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Yes the porch is only 10 yards wide, but its also only 5 yards deep…

I never said it was the same as going for the green, but that still doesn't make it the optimal play.

[Ryan Van Culin]

I hope you guys don't mind if I pump some life into very dead horse. This thread is what convinced me to finally email Ran and try to join the group.


My opinion is that we have become too comfortable with the idea that all par 5's should provide us a reasonable option to reach the green in 2. I have played far too many par 5's where it made almost no sense to lay up, and going for the green in 2 is the more sensible option. I like to look at a par 5 as a short par 4, where the tee boxes are in the fairway. I feel like a lot of people would consider this a great 270-yard par 4, where it tempts you to take on the hazard, but leaves the option to play safe.


Also, I hate to see so much number-crunching in reference to strategy. It makes sense from the perspective of a coach to a student, but unless you are in a tournament, does the lowest score always matter? I have played TR several times and have laid up on 11 only 1 time. Not because I don't care about my score, but because I want the thrill of pulling off the incredible shot, especially with a match on the line amongst friends.


I can see TR being one dimensional if all you care about is your score, and you have your TI-85 out to calculate the most risk-averse way to get around the course. But, if you play golf for the shots, rather than the score, the course really comes alive.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Also, I hate to see so much number-crunching in reference to strategy. It makes sense from the perspective of a coach to a student, but unless you are in a tournament, does the lowest score always matter?

Playing for the best score is inherent in "strategy." Strategy is defined as "a plan of action designed to achieve a major or overall aim" and the assumption is that aim or goal is the lowest score.

You could have a goal or aim to "have fun" or "do whatever suits you in the moment" but that's not a "strategy." Strategy means planning, while "fun" has the connotation of being spontaneous and making things up as you go.

When you talk about the strategic options of a golf hole, it's pretty much always with the idea of making the lowest score possible - and the risks and rewards inherent in doing so.

I said a number of times if you want to go play TR for fun, sure, go shoot a high score but pull off one or two shots that make you smile. I think that approach is why a lot of people like TR. But others can see a golf course as a series of questions, and the answer is making the lowest score, or performing to the best of their abilities. Nothing wrong with either approach, but "strategy" is definitely aligned with the latter.

[Ryan Van Culin]

I get what you are saying. I was using options and strategy interchangeably, and that is wrong of me. I do believe that TR has a ton of options for shots. That being said, I used the Arccos Caddie to see what it calculated as the "optimal strategy" for me at my home course to shoot the lowest score, and it is not even close to how I play the course.


So, I guess what I'm saying is the appeal of a place like TR isn't about shooting the lowest score as much as it's about hitting the shots you can't hit elsewhere. What always sets me on edge is when a person says a course is easy, or in this case one-dimensional, because they shot XX. That's one of the things that makes a great course, imo, when someone can play safe and have a good round, or go for the hero shot several times in one round.


I do appreciate your patience in this belabored topic. I've just started getting into architecture in the last few years, and want to learn.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I get what you are saying. I was using options and strategy interchangeably, and that is wrong of me. I do believe that TR has a ton of options for shots. That being said, I used the Arccos Caddie to see what it calculated as the "optimal strategy" for me at my home course to shoot the lowest score, and it is not even close to how I play the course.

Yeah… We helped GAME build their "smart caddie" thing, but those technologies are in their infancy.

So, I guess what I'm saying is the appeal of a place like TR isn't about shooting the lowest score as much as it's about hitting the shots you can't hit elsewhere.

Well sure, but again, that's not really the topic. No? The topic is about the strategy and thus the scoring at TR, not about how fun it is to play or to take on all the options and try five hero shots per round or whatever. Right?

What always sets me on edge is when a person says a course is easy, or in this case one-dimensional, because they shot XX. That's one of the things that makes a great course, imo, when someone can play safe and have a good round, or go for the hero shot several times in one round.

I don't know if you're referring to my posts with that, but if you are, that's not really what I said.

IMO a good course shouldn't make it so easy to shoot a good score. A golfer just looking to go shoot a good score at TR can do so even if their game isn't really hitting on all cylinders. It might even play easier for better players than for poor players.

I do appreciate your patience in this belabored topic. I've just started getting into architecture in the last few years, and want to learn.

You likely won't learn much about architecture from me. I try to read only in the architecture topics, or to ask a question or two. I try to only speak up when I feel I know a good bit about something, like this "strategy" topic, given I literally wrote a book about it. (Well, the last 1/3 of the book is about GamePlanning/Strategy.)

[Kyle Harris]

I agree with the idea that if you're not out there trying to score or beat your opponent you're really not qualified to discuss strategy.

But then again, there isn't much strategy for players that have a certain toolbox regardless of the golf course.

[Ryan Van Culin]

I get what you are saying. I was using options and strategy interchangeably, and that is wrong of me. I do believe that TR has a ton of options for shots. That being said, I used the Arccos Caddie to see what it calculated as the "optimal strategy" for me at my home course to shoot the lowest score, and it is not even close to how I play the course.

Yeah… We helped GAME build their "smart caddie" thing, but those technologies are in their infancy.

So, I guess what I'm saying is the appeal of a place like TR isn't about shooting the lowest score as much as it's about hitting the shots you can't hit elsewhere.

Well sure, but again, that's not really the topic. No? The topic is about the strategy and thus the scoring at TR, not about how fun it is to play or to take on all the options and try five hero shots per round or whatever. Right?

What always sets me on edge is when a person says a course is easy, or in this case one-dimensional, because they shot XX. That's one of the things that makes a great course, imo, when someone can play safe and have a good round, or go for the hero shot several times in one round.

I don't know if you're referring to my posts with that, but if you are, that's not really what I said.

IMO a good course shouldn't make it so easy to shoot a good score. A golfer just looking to go shoot a good score at TR can do so even if their game isn't really hitting on all cylinders. It might even play easier for better players than for poor players.

I do appreciate your patience in this belabored topic. I've just started getting into architecture in the last few years, and want to learn.

You likely won't learn much about architecture from me. I try to read only in the architecture topics, or to ask a question or two. I try to only speak up when I feel I know a good bit about something, like this "strategy" topic, given I literally wrote a book about it. (Well, the last 1/3 of the book is about GamePlanning/Strategy.)

Firstly, is there a tutorial in how to pare down the quotes into small segments like you do? Sorry, it's my first day here.


Secondly, in reference to your statement about strategy being the topic of this thread: once again, you are correct. I was going off on a rabbit trail. But, don't you think you had moments in the round where you thought you might save a stroke by taking on a bold risk? Hole 13, for example. It's easy to hit 3-iron, 9-iron, wedge into that hole and make no worse than par if you hit solid shots. But, I've also taken driver straight over the trees to the second portion of fairway and had 8-iron into the green. That strategy can only be achieved if the wind is right and you carry it about 265. That being said, you guys have changed my mind on a few holes, like 16. You're pretty much forced to hit hybrid off the tee and have a short iron/wedge to the green, or some variation of that.


What I'm trying to say is that I've played there only on golf trips, and within my group I have seen the holes played a myriad of ways, with varied outcomes. If you were doing a playing lesson with a student, or caddying for a player, wouldn't you recommend they take on some risk based on the strengths of their game?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Firstly, is there a tutorial in how to pare down the quotes into small segments like you do? Sorry, it's my first day here.

It's just text editing.    Copy and paste the little {quote} blocks (with [] instead of {} of course).

But, don't you think you had moments in the round where you thought you might save a stroke by taking on a bold risk?

Of course, and again, I wrote a book (or 1/3 of a book) about course strategy. We strongly encourage "going for it" in most cases, in fact, and generally argue against "laying up." But going for #11, strategically, makes no sense for most players.

What I'm trying to say is that I've played there only on golf trips, and within my group I have seen the holes played a myriad of ways, with varied outcomes. If you were doing a playing lesson with a student, or caddying for a player, wouldn't you recommend they take on some risk based on the strengths of their game?

In the case of #11, the risk far, far outweighs the reward for the vast majority of players.

You have read me really, really incorrectly if you think I advocate for laying up, for avoiding all risk, etc.