Strategy: Opinion Poll Number 1.

[DMoriarty]

A long time ago, probably before the supposed beginning of the end, a popular theory around here was that a wide scoring spectrum was an indicator of a great golf hole, and quite possibly a great strategic golf hole.  I thought I'd find out whether this theory is still in vogue.


1.  Is a "wide scoring spectrum" an indicator of a great hole?  

2.  Is a wide scoring spectrum an indicator of a great strategic hole?

My answers, by the way, are "no" and "definitely not," but I'd like to hold off on justifying my answers for a while.  

But since I am a hypocrite, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain yours.  

[ed_getka]

Okay Mr. Hypocrite, I'll take a shot at this as I run out the door. The wide scoring spectrum can just as easily, and more likely apply to a penal hole. A great strategic hole can certainly IMO have a wide scoring spectrum. For instance, if coming in from the wrong angle to a hole your likelihood of a big number increases, coming in from the advantageous angle increases the likelihood of a low number. However, I don't think one can say there is a direct correlation between strategy and wide scoring spectrums.

[Carlyle Rood]

I would think that a strategic hole would be a hole that yields the median score in the most diverse number of ways.

[DMoriarty]

I would think that a strategic hole would be a hole that yields the median score in the most diverse number of ways.

What do you mean by "diverse number of ways?"

[Jeff Fortson]

David,

Good question.

In answer to them I say this.....

1.  no

2.  no



Some great strategic holes do have a huge variance in score.  But some other subtly great strategic holes don't have the range in score that others have.  The reason?  Some holes aren't inherently penal.  

A hole like #13 at ANGC or #2 at NGLA can have scores ranging from 2 to 10.  The reason is if you hit it in the wrong place you can make a BIG number but if you hit a proper shot you are heavily rewarded.

Other holes like #18 at TOC or #6 at Winged Foot (West) are usually played with score from 3 to 5.  Sure you get the occasional 6 or 7 but they're rare.  Just because their range is smaller doesn't make them less strategic.  On both holes if you play proper routes birdie is very attainable and if played from incorrect angles then par becomes a good score.  Bogey is there to catch any misplayed shot.  

If anything the holes with less of a range in score are more strategic because they will entice the player to go for the birdie more because their fear of a big number isn't as great as other holes.  Therefore, creating more risk taking.


Jeff F.

[CHrisB]

1. Is a "wide scoring spectrum" an indicator of a great hole?
2. Is a wide scoring spectrum an indicator of a great strategic hole?

Not necessarily. There are some terrible holes that have a big scoring spectrum, particularly those holes with such a small target and such a big penalty for missing that the line between birdie and quad is too thin.

So just because there is a wide scoring spectrum does not mean that the hole is great, or strategic.

Can a hole be great or strategic with a narrow scoring spectrum? Say, a hole that you'll never eagle unless you hole out from the fairway, but you'll never double unless you absolutely butcher it because the features of the hole are not that severe?

I'd say it is just as easy for a hole to be strategic regardless of the width of the scoring spectrum. But it is probably harder for a hole to be truly "great" with a narrow scoring spectrum, unless it is a hole like the 18th at The Old Course (which relies on setting as much as strategy for its greatness) or a hole with a brilliant use of a natural feature (I'm thinking of Foxy at Royal Dornoch, but I'm sure there are better examples).

[Carlyle Rood]

I would think that a strategic hole would be a hole that yields the median score in the most diverse number of ways.

What do you mean by "diverse number of ways?"

I mean that a desirable score should be afforded with the greatest number of unique routes, plays, and risks.

[TEPaul]

To question #1 I'd say generally yes. I think if you look at most all holes that have been considered "great" over time you'll find they do have a wide scoring spectrum and particularly at the level of the good player. I think the reason being is they somehow do reward intelligent thought and execution (high shot value) really well but they also penalize something less than intelligent thought and execution quite severely! Over time that creates a wide scoring spectrum!

To question #2 I'd say not necessarily. I have my own definition of what a strategic or highly strategic hole is---to me it's a hole that has some interesting and perhaps multiple choices (options) that somehow come into a form of balance or equilibrium well that makes decision making tough which serves to weigh on execution.

But there are a number of great holes in this world that aren't particular strategic--at least not to me, but they are great. This type I'd call the straight high demand holes--the strict "shot testing" holes. On these you either attempt and exeute what's obviously required of you or you play very safe which is generally quite obvious and expect to drop a shot. These types of holes can certainly have a high scoring spectrum because although the strategy to success may be patently obvious and the strategy of the very safe play may be too most golfers tend to both overestimate and overreach their capabilities to some extent and when they do that on holes like these the risks involved are generally very costly---again creating a wide scoring spectrum over time!

Great holes with wide scoring spectrums can offer a wide array of not only how one looks at strategy but where and how on those holes it presents itself.

Again, to me on highly multi-optional holes one's strategy can be very nuancy (Riviera's #10) while on high demand "shot testing" holes (Riviera's #18) the strategies are fairly obvious!

Both of them contribute to the greater variety of a golf course.

Personally, I think many of the recent threads and discussions have minced to death the definition and the concept of options and strategies. In my opinion, they're just not all that complicated---although there's little question when golfers apply them in play they can be highly subjective---and should be!

[A_Clay_Man]

David- How would you describe the 10th at The Riv?

Didn't it show a wide range of scoring this week?

As with Tp, I agree that we have a semantical mincing to death.

Here's an example of a hole I thought of as I read your thread. The 16th at Pacific Grove. Straightaway downhill par 4 with two bunkers on either side of the green. This hole can yield any combination of numbers depending on just one unexpected kick of the ball.

Similar to the gripes about RSG this last year, the unpredictability of nature is what should cause the scoring disparagees.

[TEPaul]

"David- How would you describe the 10th at The Riv?
Didn't it show a wide range of scoring this week?"

There's no question at all that Riviera's #10 is one of the world's most highly strategic holes from tee to holeout both mentally and actually and it supplied that wide scoring spectrum once again amongst the best players in the world just as it has been doing year after year since it was created!

Is it a great hole? Yes
Is it a highly multi-optional strategic hole? Yes
Does it produce a wide scoring spectrum? Yes

And all this on a basically flat piece of ground and on a hole that's not much more than 300 yards!

There's no question to me that in a strategic sense and in play Riviera's #10 is probably the ideal in architecture!

[ForkaB]

I'm not yet convinced as to the usefulness of applying the "Tom Paul Factor" (or whatever Bob Crosby called it a couple of years ago) to individual holes.  For courses, however, it might well have some significance.  I was pleasantly pleased by the dispersion of scores at Riviiera--the guys who were playing well shot lights out, but the guys who were just a little bit off their game played like crap.  And Parnevik, who as we all know is at least 10 shots/round better than Rick Hartman, shot 69-69-83 in the first 3 rounds.  I think that's cool, even though Jesper might not......

This is quite a difference from the normal PGA tour stop where scores tend to cluster around -2/-3 adn guys who shoot 2 over can book their plane tickets for Saturday.  Or, to USGA set ups where scores cluster at +2/+3, and guys who shoot 83 in the first round can still think about making the cut.

I think that great courses allow the great player to shoot great scores when he has a great day, but also can kick the butt of a great player who is just not playing so great on the same day.  Comprende?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I sure do comprende! Basically I couldn't agree more. It certainly is true that some courses, as well as some holes, have a very wide scoring spectrum amongst fields of very consistent quality and ability--and of course that alone is an interesting comparison with architectural quality, strategic strength, greatness whatever!

That surely must mean something and perhaps something extremely important and very likely in an architectural sense--and likely going to the heart of what architectural quality and even greatness is all about!

What you said there is basically the same thing Bob Jones said in print--eg that great courses produce both high and low scores. His point was if a good player plays very well he should be rewarded by a low or very low score on a great golf course but if it doesn't play well he should pay for it with perhaps a high score.

Jones's over-riding point was tournament committees and clubs should never become fixated on limiting low scores at all costs! The far end of the spectrum of what Jones was saying a club or tournament committee should NOT do was what a professional golfer, I think it may have been Vardon or Hagen, once said;

"We weren't playing that course it was playing us!" That's exactly what Jones was saying should never be done! That's the very thing that writers like GeoffShac are pounding away at all the time these days!

[Jeff Fortson]

I think this question is a little tough to answer as some of the most benign holes will serve up a 9 or 10 to some golfers and some holes are the nemesis of some players.  I made my comments based on what I think low single-digit handicaps would score on a hole a large majority of the time.

Any hole will throw a 10 on some unsuspecting good player occasionally.  But on holes that these numbers are rare, they should not be included in the exercise put before us, IMHO.  


Jeff F.

[BCrosby]

I will try to work up some TEP numbers for Riviera. (I will lay out my methodology again with the request that you mathematicians out there correct my mistakes, methodological or otherwise. I'm still not sure I'm doing it right.)

The thesis is (i) high scoring dispersions are a sign of a good strategic hole, (ii) a high TEP number quantifies high scoring dispersion on a given hole, resulting in the big pay-off: (iii) the TEP number should confirm what are otherwise purely subjective judgments about the quality of the hole and maybe point to other holes that we have underestimated as good strategic holes.

There are lots of other ways to test the thesis. For example, penal holes should result in low TEP numbers because scoring dispersions will be tilted towards over-par scores.

A corollary is that scoring average is meaningless as a measure of the quality of a hole. It only measures difficulty. It is possible that a penal hole and a good strategic hole have the same scoring average but very different scoring dispersions. (All things being equal)

I'll get to work and do a couple of holes at Riviera and see what turns up.

Bob

[A_Clay_Man]

Jeff- What makes #10 at Riv so great? I've never golfed it, but I'd wager it has alot to do with The placement and severity of features. One miscue and the next, is problematic. Not impossible recoverywise, just demanding perfection.

The benign holes you referenced made me think of #15 at Pebble. While I wouldn't change a hair on her head, others feel there needs to be some added features to stave off the banality. These suggestions have no regard for flow, and the opportunity for the hole,(and therefore the course) to administer some Karmic payback, when not respected.

[BCrosby]

BTW, there is no reason why you couldn't do TEP numbers for courses. You could then compare TEP's between courses.

In fact, it sounds like fun. I'll try it.

Any candidates for penal courses played recently by the PGA that have scoring records I can find?

Bob

[Tommy Williamsen]

Certainly, a wide spectrum of scoring is one indicator of a good hole.  Number 16 at Cypress is a wonderful hole.  It is also a stragegic/penal/heroic hole.  There  is a bailout area which allows for a relatively easy bogey.  The last time I played 16 the scores ranged from three - 11.  Seventeen at Cypress is similar.  Number 8 at Pine valley gives up birdies and doubles without prejudice.  It is a great example of a short strategic hole.  As is 14 at Muirfield Village.  Some holes, however, give up a wide range of scores and are neither fun nor strategic.  We have all plaed them in housing developments.  Sycamore Hills, for instance has many holes that have OB left and right off the tee.  Any number is possible.  Why this course is rated so high is beyond me.  It is a dreadful excuse for a "green" use of land.

I like a hole that will yield a high number now and then, but let it be because of its great design not because of some artificially placed OB stakes.  

[DMoriarty]

"David- How would you describe the 10th at The Riv?
Didn't it show a wide range of scoring this week?"

There's no question at all that Riviera's #10 is one of the world's most highly strategic holes from tee to holeout both mentally and actually and it supplied that wide scoring spectrum once again amongst the best players in the world just as it has been doing year after year since it was created!

Is it a great hole? Yes
Is it a highly multi-optional strategic hole? Yes
Does it produce a wide scoring spectrum? Yes

And all this on a basically flat piece of ground and on a hole that's not much more than 300 yards!

There's no question to me that in a strategic sense and in play Riviera's #10 is probably the ideal in architecture!

My answers to your questions:

Is it a great hole? Yes
Is it a highly multi-optional strategic hole? Yes
Does it produce a wide scoring spectrum? No


In other words, I agree that it is ideal architecture and  a great hole, but unless dont understand your theory, I dont see a very large scoring dispersion.  Very little chance of a high end number, and very little chance of a low end number.

For the week:

Eagles:     3  (0.68 %)
Birdies: 134  (30.32 %)
Pars:     265  (59.95 %)
Bogeys:   37  (8.37 %)
Doubles:   2   (0.45 %)
Others:     1   (0.23 %)

BCrosby:  Thanks for taking the time.  I considered trying to repeat your methodology, but that would likely be a disaster.  

[BCrosby]

DMoriarty -

The numbers you give for #10 would yield a low TEP score. I am very surprised at how few over par scores there were last week. Shocked, in fact.

Maybe #10 is a hole embodying great stategic ideas (anthropomorphism alert!) that have now lost their teeth.

Bob

[W.H. Cosgrove]

A great hole is one that is a difficult birdie and an easy bogie!

[TEPaul]

I think there's probably a very logical reason the scoring spectrum on #10 was not wider this year with far fewer bogies (for such a short hole) this year then normally. The course was basically really wet including the greens obviously. If those green were FIRM I'll bet the bogie percentage would be much higher on that hole. Not only that if the greens weren't as receptive as they were this year I think the field's scoring, including the winner's score would've been higher maybe a lot higher!

[TEPaul]

I must say I do like those 3 eagles on Riv's #10 this week. That's pretty neat on  a par 4--likely the super reward for the aggressive play. We shouldn't forget the beauty and necessity of any wide scoring spectrum is a number of really low scores too!

[TEPaul]

Where did you get those hole scoring stats for Riviera--eg #10? That's pretty neat!

[DMoriarty]

Maybe #10 is a hole embodying great stategic ideas (anthropomorphism alert!) that have now lost their teeth.

I think there's probably a very logical reason the scoring spectrum on #10 was not wider this year with far fewer bogies (for such a short hole) this year then normally.

You two should be social scientists . . . when facts contradict methodology, question the former but not the latter.

But you  may be right, it may have been the benign conditions which narrowed the scoring gap.  Still, you'd think benign scoring conditions would have lead to a few more eagles than three (and one of the three eagles was holed from about 70 yds!)

Also, I am not sure that benign scoring conditions can account for so few high scores.  For example, on Thursday the lowest score recorded was birdie-- there were 33 (of 78 players.)  The highest score was bogey-- and there was only one bogey on Thursday.  (Scott McCarron, I think.)

It sure seems like it was still a good hole.

Where did you get those hole scoring stats for Riviera--eg #10? That's pretty neat!

I just made them up. . . .  Actually I couldnt make it to the tournament this week so I signed up for the free trial of PGA Tourcast which gives quite a few stats.  Since I dont care much about the rest of the PGA schedule, I'll cancel before next weekend.

If I have time, I may try to see which was the better percentage play, going for the green or laying up.  

[THuckaby2]

This is all great stuff!

Dave - re Riv 10, I assume what you'll find will also say how many pros went for the green PERIOD?  I'll be really interested to see that... here's a hole where going for the green would seem to be a very viable, and very tempting option... I've always thought that tour pros play very conservatively, just due to the nature of competition and what's at stake on tour - this will be a good test of that thought.  I'll be very surprised if the percentage is more than 10... in a field where probably 75% or more have the length to reach the front left of the green.

BTW, I'm with you on the issues you present in the topic - in particular if we're gonna use the scores of tour pros as the determiners.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags: