[DMoriarty]

Tom,

Again, perhaps yo should address your comments to Bob, instead of me.  

It was Bob who said that the essense of the strategy at 13 was the "go no go" decision.  If you've carefully read all my posts above, then you know I have been saying that there are other more subtle strategic features (such as the slope of the landing area).  But the subtle strategic features dont register in your model.  

I know why Bob is using Pros as his test group.  Nonetheless, doing so doesnt give an accurate projection of the golf hole's strategic merits for a range of golfers.  But again, it was he who said that holes that dont tempt and punish cannot be strategic.  I simply pointed out that this is a dangerous premise, as the types of holes he likes might not tempt another level of golfers in a manner which will produce the results he expected.    

Tom, please dont tell me what points I should and should not make with Bob.  If you had read his posts carefully you'd understand the reasons I need make such obvious points.

So there's no reason you should be disagreeing with what he's attempting to prove with that example.

Why not?  If your methodology uses too narrow a sample to be meaningful to 99.9 percent of golfers, then why shouldnt I question it?
 
Tom regarding your example from Behr, let me spare you the trouble.  A 'line of charm' is only such if it tempts the golfer by the possibility of success, not by the fear of punishment.  
 
And again, it is Bob who says that the hazards  were attractive, not me.  If you are going try to rehabilitate what he meant, please dont do so from the starting point of dismissing my response to his faulty premise.  

And Tom,  What of my examples?  You asked for holes and I gave them to you?  Does your theory work for these holes?  
______

Bob,

First, that may be how you measure a great strategic hole, but not me.  A hole which is only strategic to a narrow group of golfer is hardly a successful strategic hole.

Second, I do believe you-- this is the exact point I just made to you.  If you dont believe me, read what I just posted above:

Hazards arent points of attraction.  The chance at pay-off is.  
. . .
I want to flirt with them only because I want the advantage which comes from successfully flirting with them.

[A_Clay_Man]

David-Getting back to the original contention, graphing average golfers disparagies on a hole, the only logical conclusion we could make is that holes with a narrow spread in scores, sucks.

Also,

Below is a quote which I have to ask about.

Tom regarding your example from Behr, let me spare you the trouble.  A 'line of charm' is only such if it tempts the golfer by the possibility of success, not by the fear of punishment.  
 

Is that the line of charm, or the hazard placed on it?

[DMoriarty]

Adam, the way they are using wide scoring spectrum, they arent just talking about a range of possible scores (ex. 2-8)  Instead, they are weighing each score, and looking for a number of scores spread throughout the range.  

So, by their calculation, Riv 10 had a narrow range of scores.  Yet I would hardly say it sucked.  

I am not sure what the "that" means in your question regarding the line of charm.  Some architects (such as MacKenzie) believed in placing hazards along the line which was most attractive to the golfer.  Does this help?  

[gookin]

Most of the discussion on this thread has been on the large risk/reward decision being the foundation for a great strategic hole.  But there is plenty of room for  more subtle strategic decision making.  I love the hole which requires the player to assess the pin position while walking to the tee.  That pin position will determine the most desireable portion of the fairway to make the pin most accessable.  That decision making should include how far to hit the tee shot and whether to be right or left.  Often it will include where do I not want to be. The next shot should provide the same thought process. And perhaps this same hole can offer similar but different options depending on the skill level of the player. Then lets string together 18 holes that require this same type of decision making.  While each individual choice during the round may not result in a large risk reward payoff, the cumulative impact of each choice will. Now rather than a great strategic hole, you have a great strategic course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()