Course Management vs. Strategy

[Steve Wilson]

Several threads running concurrently set me to thinking about this.  Are course management and strategy the same thing or are they two distinct entities that sometimes overlap?  

Is strategy the choices created by the architect and course management our reactions to those choices?

Or is course management a product of each player's appraisal of his capabilities?

Much has been made of the fact that the very best players are able to ignore strategy due to their length, the heighth and spin rate of their shots.   Much has also been made of the poorer players inability to enjoy strategy due his inability to execute.

Course management is usually an expression that is applied to "conservative" choices made the pros.  But is that too limiting a definition?  

I think of strategy as a player choosing to be bold as he dares and course management as being a cautious approach?

Am I making any sense here or just wasting bandwidth (talk about leaving yourself open for an overhand right)?

[JohnV]

Steve,

This same question occurred to me yesterday and I almost started the thread.

I think that Strategy is something that is setup by the architect's design decisions and is an important portion of what the player must analyze when practicing course management.  Obviously his abilities, the situation in his match or tournament and the risks/rewards are other factors in course management.

Course management can also include a decision such as how far to try to advance the ball from under a tree or in a bunker and may not be a cause of the architect's design, but the player's preferred distance or angle for his next shot.

So I guess I would say that strategy and design should influence course management as much with ability and situation.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Steve,
I would add this to John's very clear explanation. Even the best players in the world look at what a course has to offer and devise their game plans, or strategies. Their management skills include knowing where and when to play boldly, not just cautiously and they are better able to manage where they miss it.

I would differ with John on one count. I think the extraordinary abilities that we see in the top Pros influences their decisions more than strategies of designs.

[Mike_Young]

I have always considered strategy to be a trait of the golf course itself and that course management is a personal trait of individual players.  Each individual may have different ways of managing a course's strategy. IMHO

[angie]

i love posting right after bart!
imho, each hole has an ultimate goal (ball go in cup) and a number of tactical approaches to that goal.
you can do some tactical planning off a good course book. but until you actually get on the course on the day you're playing, you can't define and execute your strategy for each hole because wind, rain, heat index, windchill or finding that you have only a bunch of sad old dingy pinnacle seconds in your bag all factor into your hole-by-hole strategy. which is to say, your hole-by-hole managment. which is management of the grass, lie, wind, etc. AND management of things like the condition your mind & body are in. being an inherently optimistic person means you have different management concerns than does an eternal pessimist.
i don't think the architect builds in all of the "strategy", but the architect delineates some strategic parameters.
jeez, i sound like a philosopy professor.
hey, i guess that's because i used to be one!

[Steve Lang]

Mgt. vs Strategy...  I think they're the same animal viewed from the real and imaginary quadrants by some, but mostly from the mixed complex quads like:

Risk vs Reward...

Feel vs mechanical...

just think and execute... then rethink and try to execute agin or resign and go to the next test... if you can manage that it's not a bad strategy.

Hope this isn't too pedantic to some

[Steve Wilson]

I thought this thread had died a quick and easy death.  But here it is, alive if not thriving.

Strategy, to me, is the plan the player develops as a response to the problem presented by the designer's intent.

I think it was Napoleon who was credited with saying that "No  battle plan survives contact with the enemy."   And that relates to this topic how?  Every golfer (emend that to every golfer who posts on this site) stands on the tee with a plan in mind and that plan is his appraisal of how to best accomplish the goal of putting the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes.  This represents breaking down the strategy into tactical elements, and tactics have to be flexible.  The quality of execution of each shot affects the player's course management because the problem may have changed or a new problem may have arisen due to poor execution.

I agree with Dave Schmidt that the best players are using strategy.  Of course, it's the Ulysses Grant strategy--basically a steam roller.  If you have the ability take the direct line in the sure and certain knowledge you have the resources to overcome any deviations from your intent, it would be pointless to get cute and out think yourself.

For mere mortals, and the more mortal you are the more this applies, the strategy may have to be more complex and elegant--the Chancellorsville model comes to mind.  

What I'm getting at is I think the middle handicapper can perhaps benefit more--in terms of lowering the number of strokes--by judicious strategy than anyone else.  Conversely the mid handicapper--other than the enlightened who post here--may be unlikely to apply it.

Many people could lower their handicaps more through clear thinking and analysis than by endless hours on the range honing a bad swing.

[TEPaul]

Steve:

It's so interesting what you said in your last post and you said a lot about how various players may or may not look at a golf course and it's holes strategically, tactically, applying their own form of course management etc.

What's even more interesting is your last sentence and the mention of any player spending more time considering all the ramifications of the golf course (and the particulars of the holes) than simply spending time hitting balls on the range!

I never thought much about it but spending a good deal of time on the range may even lull many players into thoughtless playing of courses simply because they become too reliant and comfortable with a certain type of shot and disregard the clear effectiveness of other types of shots they should practice but don't for whatever reason!

Course management, strategy, even tactics probably all basically relate to the same thing but in different increments but all boil down to any golfers handling of all the little risk/reward situations of any round.

Most of us probably envision course management and strategies as they relate to players a bit too much in the ideal--in other words the way the designer might present the problems and the ideal or semi-ideal solutions. But in reality tactics and strategies and overall course management devolve very quickly for most golfers to the far less than ideal on most shots and situations and that's where tactics, strategy and course management involves the whole idea of intelligent recovery.

That's the area where I've always seen most players fail to live up to their potential most of which in the recovery context is mainly mental--in other words this is where they make mistakes not in execution so much but in poor choices even before executing!

But I like GeoffShac's thoughts on all this which is basically strategies involve options and options involve risk/reward analysis and underlying everything is temptation and an architect's ability to create interesting situations that tempt any player in clever ways whether it be a drive, approach, pitch, chip or putt! And very quickly following all of that is the strategic implications of falling short of the plan and recovering intelligently.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Good posts, Tom and Angie, et. al

Amongst other things, good strategy requires good knowledge--of the nature of the course, of the elements present on the day, and of one's own capabilities and ambitions.

I'm sure I am not unique when I say that the more I know of a course, the more skillful and flexible a strategy I can devise to play it.  The rub is, what do we do when we play a course we have never played, and will possibly not ever play again?  we are forced to "stategize" blindly.  In some cases this works, in others it does not.  Is this perhaps one of the qualities of "greatness" when it comes to courses--i.e. that their subtleties only reveal themselves to us over time?  If this is so, how can anybody accurately "rate" courses after having only seen them once, or even 10 times?

Just wondering.

Rich

[Mike_Young]

Rich,
In your last post you suggest that good strategy requires knowledge of the nature of the course.  Could you agree that there is a great difference between shot strategy and course strategy??
When designing a course the arch will design a strategy plan.  In order to negotiate that particular project each golfer will apply his own brand of course management.  Within his course management will be shot strategies.
 For instance: no arch designs a strategy plan for the golfer that just topped it 20 yards off the par 3 tee.  After topping her would have to make a decision for the next shot and that decision would be a shot strategy that made up his course management philosophy.
As you say small subtleties reveal themselves over time.  And would you not agree that on many of the older courses we give the arch credit for these subtleties when he never even knew they were there.  Anyway, I agree with your comments but I think we greatly confuse the individual shot strategies with course strategy when it should fall under course management.

[Steve LAng (Guest)]

The thread weaves...

Rich,
Great posit/question... So there should be no ratings of a course beyond glossy hype for say 5-10 years, when the collective  result/experiences in the public at large can rate whether the architecture's form and function have stood some test of time?

[Ed_Baker]

Excellent posts everybody.

Course management is the personal strategy devised by the player to overcome the strategic architectural features of the course.

I think the most consistent mistake most of us make as far as course management is trying to hit every green in regulation even after a mediocre tee shot. It's surprising how many times we save par or make a routine bogey after we hit poor tee shots. But give us a 190 yard miss in the middle of the fairway leaving 220 to the green on a par 4 and watch us make double and triple by forcing the second shot.

We all have a tendency to base our shot selections on the  yardage of our best shots.

With age and infirmities setting in I can only advance the ball around 400 yards in 2 shots with any kind of control and accuracy. Factor in wind,wet conditions, elevation and it's actually less, this certainly limits my birdie opportunities, but par remains a reasonable goal on most holes, I'm getting used to "up & downs" from the 50 to 60 yard range.

What a great game, the biggest challenge remains overcoming yourself!

[A_Clay_Man]

One of the subtleties that has not been heretofore mentioned is the turf condition and lie. I have found that this is usually a major factor in determining what strategy to attempt to execute. While the archie, shaper and god are responsible for the roll of the terrain, it is the super who is responsible for the turf quality and condition. Deciding what's doable, is your headache.

[THuckaby2]

Corollary question, bear with me.

How many of you play to your best wedge distances?

By that I mean, if you have 270 to the stick and assuming nothing in the way, do you blast away with a 3wood trying to get as close as possible, or do you take the 6-7 iron and try to leave a full wedge in?

I ask because I've come to the conclusion after oh, 30+ years at this game (yeah, I'm a fast learner!) that those 30-50 yard half-wedges are HARD!  I seem to have them all the time and I screw those up on a routine basis.  I've also noticed the pros nearly never have those... while a lot of that is due to the fact they hit the ball so far that no green is unreachable, they also really do seem to play to their full wedge distance ALL the time when the choice exists, and I seemingly never do this, although the logic seems unquestionable.

I pride myself at least a little on being a smart player... So why can't I make myself play to these distances?  How many of you are able to do this regularly... and if so do you indeed have success?

Next time I'm on a short par 4 that is undriveable (so say anything over 270 for me)... or sitting 250+ out on a par 5.... I swear to God I'm gonna lay up to 100 and just hit the full SW.  Oh yes I will.  

Sorry for the rant.  I just really am curious particularly if our good players here do indeed follow this strategy...

TH

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom,
I was just about to write a post on this.
I coach high school golf, all players single digits who can hit it a mile.  One of my struggles with them is to get them to think backwards, esp. on par 5's, and play to a favorite club.  If they love their gap wedge, I want it to be more than a happy accident when they get to hit it!  They, of course, want to crush two and try to get home, regardless of lie, wind, etc.  I absolutely agree with you that good players routinely play to a club they like whenever possible.
This may be one difference between strategy and management.  The arch bunkers the green on the par 5 to put a high risk-reward value on the hole (strategy).  I play a second shot to 85 yds. instead of 40 yds. (management).
This is all somewhat like the distinction between strategic vs. tactical weapons, etc. in the military, with strategy being the overall goal and tactics the means of achieving the strategy.

[THuckaby2]

Thanks, Dave.  You're a big hitter so your "go range" is obviously out there way back from most of me that's for sure - but this is helpful!  You caught me on a good day at Barona so you're likely to chalk this up to my "aw shucks" attitude, but I too consider fairway woods and wedges to be my worst clubs...  So you and I really seem to be of like thinking on this.

God yes, is there anything worse than "playing safe" and hitting it into the shit?  Thus the "swing away" attitude prevails for me also...

Where we differ (I think) is that I've come to the conclusion that straight driving is a strength for me (and I'm ready to admit it!).  Thus this really isn't a "play safe or not play safe" issue for me - I feel like I can get a driver where I want it to go with enough consistency that I hit it way more often than big hitters like you (I also have to given my relative weakstick distance off the tee) - no, the issue for me is "playing to a distance".

That is, if I'm sitting on the tee of a 320 yard hole - thus totally unreachable to me - do I hit driver and get it to 60-70 yards, or do I hit 2iron and get it to 110?  In all reality the 110 yard shot SHOULD be easier... and the more I screw up half-wedges, the more this is becoming painfully true....

So why do I seemingly always hit driver in that case?

Same goes for sitting in fairway of a par 5 with 250+ left, as I say.

Oh yes, a CHIP is a better play than a full wedge for me... but if I can't get it to chipping distance, why do I have such a hard time laying back for the full wedge?

Sorry to reiterate these questions - you gave a good answer before that a screwed up half-wedge is easier to stomach than a screwed up layup... so maybe that's just all of it... I just can't figure this out.

TH

[THuckaby2]

ACG - you can console your high schoolers that here I am, a 30 year veteran of the game, sub-6 handicap for 20 years, and I still struggle with this.

On second thought, maybe you ought not to tell them about me.  

You're right in any case - this is a choice of weapons issue way more than an architectural one, so thus please do bear with me, gentlemen.  Obviously the hazards of the hole can force this decision and often do.  What I'm wondering about is situations where this isn't the case....

Why is thinking backwards on a hole so hard?

The pros do it perfectly nearly every time.  Maybe advise the kids to watch Tiger play and see his club choices... he is perfect at this.  Most pros are.

TH

[THuckaby2]

You know me too well, Dave.

And that is GREAT thinking!  Yes, I have to convince myself that hitting the 2iron is indeed the stud, aggressive play, given that it is giving me the better chance at birdie.

Damn this makes great sense.  Ego is a huge thing...

Now to pull it off...

This is VERY helpful.  Thanks!

TH

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Mike

To me, tactics (shots) are just strategies (holes) in miniature, just as holes are courses courses in miniature and require "grand" strategies in the Clausewitzian/Lyddel-Hartean sense.

And yet, as a couple of people have said, on this thread and others, parpaphrasing Napoleon, "shit happens."  I find it very hard to beleive that any architect, even the most clever nad most meticulous, can anticipate more than a small fraction of the strategic and tactical choices any player will face on any given day.  You're an architect, aren't you?  Am I wrong?

If I am right, perhaps this is why many of the courses we consider "great" are those which were nurtured over a long period of time by someone with a lot of patience and skill (e.g.  Pine Valley, Dornoch, Pinehurst #2).

Tom and Dave

With the skill and dedication youse two guys have and the technology that is available today, why don't you just learn to hit the 40-60 yard L-wedge and forget about ever laying up ever again?

[THuckaby2]

Rich - I am TRYING, God help me I am.  I've spent many hours trying to perfect the 40-60 yard L wedge... it's been a project for the last two years... and I've just come to the conclusion that shot is never gonna work as consistently well as a full SW or PW, for me anyway.  Maybe it's my outrageously slow tempo, maybe it's my funky swing, maybe it's a mental block.... but it just doesn't work as well no matter what I do.

Thus my questions here....

TH

[MainelyJack]

This now has more threads than a Navaho rug, but it doesn't cost anything to post - so here goes. To me, the terms are pretty synonomous. Golf course management is by definition a strategy. However, as a hole is played your original strategy may go out the window due to a poor shot or such and then you are more into course management of how not to compound the error. I agree with those that talk about the need to think backward on a hole. How many times have you pounded away only to end up within 100 yards but on a downslope. Knowing which club you can best control for your approach should always be a factor in the club you hit before that - Isn't that both management and strategy? In any event - whatever you call it - it's a wise thing to spend some time thinking about it before a round and before a shot.

[Mike_Young]

Rich,
We agree.  And especially regarding "aging of a project".  That is why I have said that we give the old guys too much credit in many cases.  The subtleties unfold over years just as you said.  But I do think that architects define a number of preferred strategies or all levels of players for each hole.  I know I do.  But then I take TOC and it makes me think we complicate it all.  Just play, wherever you are, what ever the season and whomever the architect.
Mike

[Mike Benham]

I started to read all the postings on this topic but ...

I disagree with Mainly Jack in that Strategy and Management are synonymous ... they are linear instead ...

Synonymous words for "strategy" are "plan, approach or tactic" ...

Synonymous words for "Manage(ment)" are "run, direct, administer" ...

Therefore, one develops a "strategy" on how they are to play a golf course.  Once the "strategy" is developed aka "a plan", the player "manages" the plan to fruition or in most of our cases, frustration.

I agree that almost all cases for the pro's, the "strategy" or development of a plan, is more based on their ability, playing to their strengths, than is the set-up or design of the course.

[Steve Wilson]

How about "Course management is the implementation of what the player deems the optimum strategy as the situation develops?"

TEP your point "Most of us probably envision course management and strategies as they relate to players a bit too much in the ideal--in other words the way the designer might present the problems and the ideal or semi-ideal solutions. But in reality tactics and strategies and overall course management devolve very quickly for most golfers to the far less than ideal on most shots and situations and that's where tactics, strategy and course management involves the whole idea of intelligent recovery."  

The key here is intelligent recovery, and perhaps the realization that recovery can apply to being on the wrong side of the hole and not just in the trees, sand, etc.  Mindlessly hitting the longest club may be one of the quickest ways (other than three putting from ten feet) to turn a hard par into an easy double bogey.

The Huckaby-Schmidt dialogue produced what I think is a really deep insight or perhaps just a reminder  "Maybe it's all in the mindset.  Instead of thinking of playing a 2 iron as "pussing out" or "playing safe", which 90% of us do, we should be thinking of that as the "aggressive play" while we stand on the tee, and convince ourselves that we are NOT pussing out, that we are aggressively setting up our best shot at birdie."

 I've seen the long drive philosophy apply so many times in scrambles (perhaps not a competition endorsed by this website),  
and the team ends up choosing the shot closest to hole rather than the one with the best angle or the best chance of getting the ball close to the hole.  

When I'm playing my own ball I do try to lay up to a full club (7 iron or shorter) from a good angle, but then I probably have more experience at laying up than most.
Rich's point about rating a course after one or even ten rounds is an eye opener.  If a course unbundles most of its secrets in one tour, can it be that good?
And in a slightly related vein how many times can you recall becoming difficult only after you have played it poorly and actually experienced the trouble rather than just observing it from the tee or as a spectator of another player's woes.