The Beauty of Classical Strategy...

[Charlie Goerges]

...To me, is that it doesn't need to have a major effect on your score in order to make the game better.


I want to get onto the other side of the "angles don't matter" discussion. I'm definitely willing to admit that angles don't matter to scoring as much as I used to think. Additionally, for the purpose of discussion, I'm willing to stipulate that angles don't really matter much at all.


My point being that even given that disputed notion, I (and many others) believe it is more than worthwhile for architects to continue to design-in strategy. So the question I want others to answer is the following:


If angles don't matter much to scoring, what are the other reasons to persist with creating classical strategy?




I realize that a lot of people, myself included, don't fully agree that angles don't matter at all, but this discussion shouldn't relitigate that point. Show me why strategy is good regardless of whether angles matter to scoring. I have an idea, but there are many others I'd like to hear on this.

[Charlie Goerges]

In my opinion, even if I can't really control my direction well enough to purposely take advantage of strategy, the designed-in strategy will give me diverse shots over time.


So imagine a typical strategic, straightaway par 4 with a fairway bunker left and a front, right greenside bunker. Even if I don't have much control over my tee ball direction, if I go left, I'm in a bunker but I'm facing a view of the green with few obstacles in the way. If I go right, I'm standing in grass, but I have to fly over a bunker. And so on. The point being that a very penal course (say bunkers left and right both fairway and approach) leaves me with similar shots no matter where I miss it (and only one different shot if I hit the fairway).


This diversity of shots may not mean much on a course I'll only play once, but on courses where the player is meant to play more than once (the vast majority of courses), that diversity makes the game more fun, even if accidentally.

[Niall C]

Charlie


The main other reason is to create interest....but that only comes because it matters, so if you really think angles don't matter then I'm not sure the course is going to be much cop.


And I do fully accept that for many playing the angles is about playing away from trouble as it is for others who chance their arm to possibly get some benefit.


Niall

[Charlie Goerges]

Charlie


The main other reason is to create interest....but that only comes because it matters, so if you really think angles don't matter then I'm not sure the course is going to be much cop.


And I do fully accept that for many playing the angles is about playing away from trouble as it is for others who chance their arm to possibly get some benefit.


Niall

Just to clarify, it's not my opinion that angles don't matter for scoring. My thought is that that subject has been covered well, so no need to argue it again. That said, I think strategy might be able to be justified on grounds other than effect on scoring. I suspect others who are smarter than me can explain it better, but I did put forward my own simplistic idea on the matter, but I'd love to hear more.

[Charlie Goerges]

Here's another: strategy's ability to cause a player to alter their choices can have a profound effect. Especially in match play, if the strategy causes the mentally stronger player to lay back from trouble, thus giving them the first shot, it may not alter their score, but if it puts pressure on the mentally weaker player, it may be a mistake generator totally irrespective of the angles taken.

[Michael Felton]

So an example - take 16 at Pine Valley. Assuming that you can't make the longest carry on the right hand side off the tee, then "classically" you probably want to get as close to the right hand side as you can. That means that you're playing up the green and don't have the water behind the flag. Under "new" strategy, you want to center your shot pattern such that a minimal number of shots wind up in the bunker. That's a target further left than the "classic" target. You still have to estimate where your shot pattern is going to land and figure out what part of the bunker is the longest part that you can carry. So there is still a decision to be made there, which you can't necessarily make on google earth because you don't know what the temperature will be or how you're swinging it that day or where the wind is. If the better angle was on the safer side, then there'd be no question - you would just aim at the safe side. Because the better angle is on the more dangerous side, you still want to get as close to that as you can - it's just changing what line is considered "as close as you can".



Another good example of a hole that can be tough to figure out is the 5th at Pebble (the par 3 - I think it's the 5th). There is water right, a bunker right, the green, a bunker left and then a steep hill. A lot of people get scared of the water and hit it left. If you hit it enough left that you wind up on the hill left of the bunker, then there is a significant possibility of your next shot going in the water. Since it's better to hit it in the water with your first shot than your second, the optimal target is tough to evaluate accurately.


Consequently, I think there is a lot of value in coming up with strategic architecture regardless of whether you think there is a clear optimal strategy. If you have OB right and OB left, with 65 yards between them, then "new" strategy would say aim it down the middle regardless. That's a fairly boring hole though. Much better to have OB one side and bunkering or trees on the other side and let it mess with people's heads. That's kind of like 14 at TPC Sawgrass. You've got the water left and those mounds in the rough on the right. The mounds are clearly a better option than in the water, so a lot of people wind up over there, but it's still far from a good spot. Lots of bogeys from over there for the pros. But the relative safety means people miss that side more than they would if there was no water left or even if there was more obvious trouble right. It's probably also true that the right side of that fairway is slightly better to play from than the left side because of the tree in the bunker, but that really means that classic and new strategy would have very similar targets on that hole.

[Charlie Goerges]

So an example - take 16 at Pine Valley. Assuming that you can't make the longest carry on the right hand side off the tee, then "classically" you probably want to get as close to the right hand side as you can. That means that you're playing up the green and don't have the water behind the flag. Under "new" strategy, you want to center your shot pattern such that a minimal number of shots wind up in the bunker. That's a target further left than the "classic" target. You still have to estimate where your shot pattern is going to land and figure out what part of the bunker is the longest part that you can carry. So there is still a decision to be made there, which you can't necessarily make on google earth because you don't know what the temperature will be or how you're swinging it that day or where the wind is. If the better angle was on the safer side, then there'd be no question - you would just aim at the safe side. Because the better angle is on the more dangerous side, you still want to get as close to that as you can - it's just changing what line is considered "as close as you can".



Another good example of a hole that can be tough to figure out is the 5th at Pebble (the par 3 - I think it's the 5th). There is water right, a bunker right, the green, a bunker left and then a steep hill. A lot of people get scared of the water and hit it left. If you hit it enough left that you wind up on the hill left of the bunker, then there is a significant possibility of your next shot going in the water. Since it's better to hit it in the water with your first shot than your second, the optimal target is tough to evaluate accurately.


Consequently, I think there is a lot of value in coming up with strategic architecture regardless of whether you think there is a clear optimal strategy. If you have OB right and OB left, with 65 yards between them, then "new" strategy would say aim it down the middle regardless. That's a fairly boring hole though. Much better to have OB one side and bunkering or trees on the other side and let it mess with people's heads. That's kind of like 14 at TPC Sawgrass. You've got the water left and those mounds in the rough on the right. The mounds are clearly a better option than in the water, so a lot of people wind up over there, but it's still far from a good spot. Lots of bogeys from over there for the pros. But the relative safety means people miss that side more than they would if there was no water left or even if there was more obvious trouble right. It's probably also true that the right side of that fairway is slightly better to play from than the left side because of the tree in the bunker, but that really means that classic and new strategy would have very similar targets on that hole.

These are some good points Michael, and take a different tack than I was. Thanks for the input!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Michael,


I like your concept of staggered or more/less difficulty on either side.  While aiming for the middle is still a strategy, as is picking an aiming point and shot pattern to get it there, I have to think there would be some temptation for most players to overthink it when there is an imbalance of penalties.  Of course, the most disciplined players will stay in the safest line/zone for their dispersion pattern.


I remember Scott Fawcette telling me that Rees Jones holes really offered the best strategy for pros, and I am sure that would apply to RTJ Senior as well, and maybe Dick Wilson.  So, holes bracketed with FW bunkers and greens surrounded by bunkers are by that measure, as strategic as any, while most of us would call them penal.  There must be some limit on just how close to the middle we can aim, but strategic nonetheless.


I have been debating this in my mind over the last year or so.  I have mostly changed my mind that if low score is your objective, the new strategy should probably always be employed.  My questions are, did the strategy develop because of the architecture players have seen the last 40 years?  Is it so bad if the strategy of any shot is to make that one successful, even if not the next one, as is presumed (but never statistically proven) that angles do matter?


It would seem that angles then might be reserved for a select few holes, perhaps favoring the last 4, where the end of the match might be the thing that makes taking a risk more likely, as in "what do I have to lose?"


Lastly, the old strategy always presumed that playing the non-preferred angle was sort of fatal, but in reality, if you come from the "wrong" side, it changes the angle and strategy just as much as if you approach from the so-called "right side."  Over time, you can again choose to be conservative and the putting vs hitting a hazard balance out.  It isn't "I can go for the pin" vs. I can't.  It is that I am 30% likely to do better from this side than that, and 70% less likely to do so.


It also occurs that when the 50% make rate is about 8 feet, that it really is foolish to fire at flags, because you are only rarely going to get that close, while taking chances might raise your bogey rate by 50% or more.  That is balanced out by your competition - if they are all doing it, you almost have to, and many pros have told me that.  With so much money available, there may not be that big a risk to aiming at flags, as at worst, you will still make a nice living, even if you don't win that tournament.


For an important once a year tournament for high level ams, playing for pride, playing the odds probably still makes more sense.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If angles don't matter much to scoring, what are the other reasons to persist with creating classical strategy?

I listed a few reasons in my speech to the ASGCA, but here are two that are pretty specifically related to just this idea of classic strategy:

• those who know that angles don't matter much are a small, small minority - in other words, most golfers still try to play that way, or think that's the best way to score.
• even those who do can often be fooled or tempted to discard what they know and to choose a sub-optimal strategy (and sometimes, like at Tobacco Road, they do it 10+ times in a single round because they find it fun).

[Tim_Weiman]

So an example - take 16 at Pine Valley. Assuming that you can't make the longest carry on the right hand side off the tee, then "classically" you probably want to get as close to the right hand side as you can. That means that you're playing up the green and don't have the water behind the flag. Under "new" strategy, you want to center your shot pattern such that a minimal number of shots wind up in the bunker. That's a target further left than the "classic" target. You still have to estimate where your shot pattern is going to land and figure out what part of the bunker is the longest part that you can carry. So there is still a decision to be made there, which you can't necessarily make on google earth because you don't know what the temperature will be or how you're swinging it that day or where the wind is. If the better angle was on the safer side, then there'd be no question - you would just aim at the safe side. Because the better angle is on the more dangerous side, you still want to get as close to that as you can - it's just changing what line is considered "as close as you can".



Another good example of a hole that can be tough to figure out is the 5th at Pebble (the par 3 - I think it's the 5th). There is water right, a bunker right, the green, a bunker left and then a steep hill. A lot of people get scared of the water and hit it left. If you hit it enough left that you wind up on the hill left of the bunker, then there is a significant possibility of your next shot going in the water. Since it's better to hit it in the water with your first shot than your second, the optimal target is tough to evaluate accurately.


Consequently, I think there is a lot of value in coming up with strategic architecture regardless of whether you think there is a clear optimal strategy. If you have OB right and OB left, with 65 yards between them, then "new" strategy would say aim it down the middle regardless. That's a fairly boring hole though. Much better to have OB one side and bunkering or trees on the other side and let it mess with people's heads. That's kind of like 14 at TPC Sawgrass. You've got the water left and those mounds in the rough on the right. The mounds are clearly a better option than in the water, so a lot of people wind up over there, but it's still far from a good spot. Lots of bogeys from over there for the pros. But the relative safety means people miss that side more than they would if there was no water left or even if there was more obvious trouble right. It's probably also true that the right side of that fairway is slightly better to play from than the left side because of the tree in the bunker, but that really means that classic and new strategy would have very similar targets on that hole.

Michael,


On the final day of the 1985 Walker Cup, Bob Lewis hit his drives to the middle of the fairway on #16. He had 185 yards for both his morning and afternoon round. Lewis hit 4 iron in the morning and 5 iron in the afternoon (to take the water out of play).


Tim

[Thomas Dai]

Abstract discussions about strategy are one thing. Strategy during actual play another.
Do players adapt their strategy, assuming they are smart enough to have any such thoughts, depending on the difficulty to them of the shot(s) ahead, the wind, rain or heavy air, their slice/hook game, stance and lie, best/worst miss, grass thickness and direction, how their playing on the day, match/money on the line, heck even how many balls they’ve got left in their bag! There’s even green complex and putting surface strategy. Likely they do, well some might. And if it’s cartpath or other golf and the player has walked taking the wrong club to the far side of the fairway …….
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

Bringing this around full circle with the other thread where Mike posited that 95% of players don't use strategy.

I think it needs to be pointed out that most players do attempt to use strategy, even if in many cases its the wrong one.

The one I see the most often?  Bomb away with impunity, regardless of ability or what awaits in the form or hazards or otherwise.  And they get it from watching PGA Tour players  who almost always use their driver, combined with a basic understanding of strokes gained where longer is better. Weekend warriors have always been monkey see, monkey do, and it is a strategy, even if not always best suited for them.

[Michael Felton]

Bringing this around full circle with the other thread where Mike posited that 95% of players don't use strategy.

I think it needs to be pointed out that most players do attempt to use strategy, even if in many cases its the wrong one.

The one I see the most often?  Bomb away with impunity, regardless of ability or what awaits in the form or hazards or otherwise.  And they get it from watching PGA Tour players  who almost always use their driver, combined with a basic understanding of strokes gained where longer is better. Weekend warriors have always been monkey see, monkey do, and it is a strategy, even if not always best suited for them.

This is true. I think a large part of it is watching the pros play, much of the time, they are not aiming at flags. They aim maybe somewhere like 3-5 yards away from them a lot. But then hitting it close to the hole is still in their shot pattern. It's REALLY hard to see that from watching on the TV though. Someone hits it close to a tight pin and the commentators call it a great shot. Player may well have missed their target by 15 feet there, but it ended up super close. Those shots are the ones that wind up on the broadcast and people think that's what they were trying to do. It's the same way that people think the pros are much better putters than they really are (they're very good, but not as good as the TV would make you think), because they show the ones that go in and not the ones that don't. So the average viewer watches the pros on TV and they get a warped idea of what ideal strategy is. And that's the strategy that the best players in the world are using.


I was listening to Lou Stagner's podcast this week. He was talking about in the arccos database, he looked at scratch players and 15 handicaps when the flag is cut tight to the edge of the green. He said you can plot the full shot pattern from all of them and the scratch players you can clearly see that the center of that pattern is to the fat side of the green from there. For the 15 handicaps, the shot pattern is centered right on top of the hole. That shot pattern is also much bigger than the scratch players one, but with enough shots in the pattern, you can see they're aiming at the flag, even when it's a real sucker pin. I thought that was very interesting. And backs up what you're saying here.


Everyone has A strategy. The number who have an optimal strategy (or close to it) is pretty small. The hard part is it's fairly difficult to distill optimal strategy down into something that is calculable on the golf course while you're playing. Even more so to have it build in all the nuance (stuff like when you're playing downwind, your pattern tends to get longer back to front, but narrower left to right, or how you're playing that day or stuff like that). That's why books like Erik's or DECADE exist. They're trying to come up with a reliable way to come up with a good strategy. Not trivial.

[Kalen Braley]

All excellent points Michael, well said!

P.S.  I also think its easy to arrive at the perception that High Cappers aren't using strategy because they may only have 3-4 shots all day where it comes off just as they were planning.

For example, I may be aiming 15 yards left of a pin tucked on the right side of a green, and when I dump it in the bunker short right, it would be easy for someone watching to think I was pin hunting when I actually wasn't. 

[Michael Felton]

All excellent points Michael, well said!

P.S.  I also think its easy to arrive at the perception that High Cappers aren't using strategy because they may only have 3-4 shots all day where it comes off just as they were planning.

For example, I may be aiming 15 yards left of a pin tucked on the right side of a green, and when I dump it in the bunker short right, it would be easy for someone watching to think I was pin hunting when I actually wasn't. 

That's a fair point, although Lou seemed to make it sound like the spread of shots was centered right over the hole and it was the same whether the flag was left or right.


I think one of the big differences is commitment. A lot of players figure that aiming 10 yards left of the flag is the "right" thing to do, so they aim it there, but they don't really believe it, so they "try" to miss it to the right so it goes closer. I'm guessing a lot of the time they wind up overcooking that and actually end up more likely to miss wide on the thin side of the green.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Do players adapt their strategy

Yes, they should be. It's often not as much as people think… nor should it be a big change. But yes, strategy isn't set in stone. If you need eagle to make the cut… birdie or triple don't really matter.

He said you can plot the full shot pattern from all of them and the scratch players you can clearly see that the center of that pattern is to the fat side of the green from there. For the 15 handicaps, the shot pattern is centered right on top of the hole.

Yup.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Charlie,
When it's 'beautiful' it offers less skilled players a chance, or a path, to tie or possibly overcome a more skilled opponent; it can aid the less proficient when it tempts the bolder and better opponent into disaster, or it can reward the better player if they rise to the challenge; it can surreptitiously improve the play of anyone exposed to it over time; and it's generally more fun to play.