[Niall C]

Sean,

I was referring to the intent, not the execution of the shot. As an aside I'd suggest most players play better if they have a definite goal in mind when they swing the club. An anywhere in that general direction type attitude doesn't produce the best play nor is it as much fun as trying to achieve a specific objective be it carrying an area of rough, skirting a bunker or even on occasion just keeping the ball in play on a tight shot. As I've said before, wide fairways in themselves don't really produce strategy, they just give the player the opportunity to flail away regardless.

Niall

Wide fairways do not produce strategy, but they are necessary for it. Without width the golfer's options are limited to biff it down the middle. It is cleverly positioned hazards within the context of width that produces strategy.

so, you are agreeing with me ?


Niall

[Niall C]

Maybe you are right Niall, but we shall never know because these designs are from a time which has made it possible to go miles beyond what Dr Mac and Simpson did in terms of turning sites not suitable for golf into golf courses.  Dr Mac may have put in 200 bunkers or 30...depends on when any sort of job like this may have come up during career. I instinctively feel like Simpson would have produced a course I would be more at ease with, but so what?  What we have now is excellent design...better than 99% of the courses out there so the complaining is really a 1st World problem.


Ciao

Sean


I enjoy KB and CS despite you trying to infer I don't. I just don't think CS in particular is anywhere as near as good as billed. Aesthetics seem to have taken over from the quality of the golf in judging the course. While they might have moved many times more dirt at both KB and CS than either Mac or Simpson did at any course in their career I'd contend Mac and Simpson achieved far more with what they did.


Niall

[Niall C]

Jon


Its not about a switch where strategy is turned off or on.  There can be no doubt that width provides more choices for golfers and that is what strategy is about...choices.  That doesn't mean having only two choices, which is usually the case when narrow corridors and/or flanking/fronting hazards/rough are present, is not strategic...just less so.  Maybe you and Niall are not fans of choice...no worries...you are of that age where penal golf was king     Things are moving on by looking back in time.


Ciao

Now I'm really puzzled. When did I ever say I wasn't a fan of choice ? My point has been that firstly (very) wide open fairways don't in themselves produce strategy, and that without the strategic element are you really being asked to make a choice ? Yes, you can hit the ball left right or centre and some of CS's 90 yard wide fairways lets you do that but if it makes no material difference to the next shot then where is the need to make a decision ? Hence my comment about golfers flailing away regardless.


Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall

Thats okay, we can each have our opinions about the relative merits of Kingsbarns and CS.  It is clear to me that each course is more than eye candy, though the candy helps...as it should with any design.  The day I walk a course and cannot or will not appreciate its beauty as an added element of design is the day I should stop playing golf.   

Please site specific examples of too much width at Kingsbarns and what you would rather see.  Discussion in the abstract is getting nowhere because I have no idea of where you think width is not a desirable element. Although, I highly doubt any such specific discussion will lead much anywhere because I fear we see things very differently where width is concerned. 

Ciao

[Matt MacIver]

Width: I've played KB one time, in a massive wind. It continuously knocked over the two push carts our foursome had and the caddy said it was the worst wind he'd ever seen (this was 2007). Hyperbole?  Didn't seem so to me, but perhaps. Windiest day I've ever played that's for sure. I lost one ball day and thank the width for that - I rolled the ball along the ground all day, where I could, and loved every minute of it. The others in my group couldn't come to grips with the concept and/or fought it, and paid the price - I.e. High scores or bitterness of wasting the coin on the course. For my part KB is my all time favorite course and I can't wait to play it again.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon


Its not about a switch where strategy is turned off or on.  There can be no doubt that width provides more choices for golfers and that is what strategy is about...choices.  That doesn't mean having only two choices, which is usually the case when narrow corridors and/or flanking/fronting hazards/rough are present, is not strategic...just less so.  Maybe you and Niall are not fans of choice...no worries...you are of that age where penal golf was king     Things are moving on by looking back in time.


Ciao

Sean,


I was responding to Adam's assertion that you need to have width to have strategy which I do not agree with. Though rarer it is possible to strategic holes that are also confined. This has nothing to do with lack of choice or penal school both of which are not my regular cup of tea.


Jon

[Sean_A]

Jon

Again...I think Adam was really saying you need to have width to have more options...which is what strategy is.  I don't think this concept is refutable.

As with, Niall, it is best to talk about specific holes...the abstract talk leads nowhere.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon


Again...I think Adam was really saying you need to have width to have more options...which is what strategy is.  I don't think this concept is refutable.


As with, Niall, it is best to talk about specific holes...the abstract talk leads nowhere.


Ciao

Sean,


so you to think that you need width to have strategy which I certainly do not agree with. If you have a wall which you need to get beyond but you can't go round, over or under yet it has a doorway then the strategy to get through is to use said doorway. You have NO options but you still have a strategy. What you mean I believe is having multiple choices not strategy.


To me a strategic hole allows multiple ways to play it but at the end of the day for each player there will be one optimal way to approach the playing the hole after taking into consideration the players playing strengths and weaknesses. Most narrow holes still fulfill this criteria. If you have a hole that offers multiple options of playing it but which are in the end all equally suitable to the player's game it could be thought as been less strategical as it does not require the player to think through their game plan nearly as much. More options does not necessarily[/size] [/size]mean more strategy[/size][size=78%] IMHO.  [/size]


For me, penal holes are holes where if you cannot play the required shot you are unable to negotiate the hole successfully. I suspect that we are defining the terms somewhat differently hence the difference of opinion.


Jon

[Sean_A]

There can be no doubt that width provides more choices for golfers and that is what strategy is about...choices.  That doesn't mean having only two choices, which is usually the case when narrow corridors and/or flanking/fronting hazards/rough are present, is not strategic...just less so. 

See above for what I said....so no....width doesn't need to be present to have strategy.   But if one is seeking higher strategic value then it follows that width must be present.  It is necessarily the case that up to a certain point more width equals more opportunity for strategy....assuming we are talking about competent design. 

If you have a hole that offers multiple options of playing it but which are in the end all equally suitable to the player's game it could be thought as been less strategical as it does not require the player to think through their game plan nearly as much. More options does not necessarily mean more strategy.

I think you are badly mistaken with the above statement.  I know its goofy logic because of the poor language, but strategic designs refers to what the design offers...not the choice golfers make.  On any given day one's choice may change from the previous play.  In the case of a lack of width (penal design), the choices are limited to one or perhaps two options...neither of which involve playing around an obstacle....they involve playing short....or between and short.  Either way one must necessarily negotiate the obstacles rather than giving them a wide berth. There is no wide birth without width and that is where more strategic options come into play.

For me, penal holes are holes where if you cannot play the required shot you are unable to negotiate the hole successfully. I suspect that we are defining the terms somewhat differently hence the difference of opinion.

Yes, I am using the corrrect definition and you made up your own definition 

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

[size=0px]There can be no doubt that width provides more choices for golfers and that is what strategy is about...choices.  That doesn't mean having only two choices, which is usually the case when narrow corridors and/or flanking/fronting hazards/rough are present, is not strategic...just less so.  [/size][/color]

[/size][size=0px]See above for what I said....so no....width doesn't need tp be present to have strategy.   But if one is seeking higher strategic value then it follows that wodth must be present.  It is necessarily the case that up to a certain point more width equals more opportunity for strategy....assuming we are talking about competent design.  [/size]
[/size][/color]
[/size] If you have a hole that offers multiple options of playing it but which are in the end all equally suitable to the player's game it could be thought as been less strategical as it does not require the player to think through their game plan nearly as much. More options does not [size=0px][/color][/i][/b][/size]necessarily[size=0px][/size]mean more strategy[size=0px][/size][size=78%] IMHO.  [/size][size=0px]

[/size][size=0px]I think you are badly mistaken with the above statement.  I know its goofy logic because of the poor language, but strategic designs refers to what the design offers...not the choice golfers make.  On any given day one's choice may change from the previous play.  In the case of a lack of width (penal design), the choice are limited to one or perhaps two options...neither of which involve playing around an obstacle....the involve playing or short....or between and short.  Either way one must necessarily negotiate the obstacles rather than giving them a wide berth.  There is no wide birth without width and that is where more strategic options come into play.  [/size][size=0px]
[/size]For me, penal holes are holes where if you cannot play the required shot you are unable to negotiate the hole successfully. I suspect that we are defining the terms somewhat differently hence the difference of opinion.[size=0px][/color]


Yes, I am using the corrrect definition and you made up your own definition 


Ciao

Sean,


I know it is probably because of one of the charming quirks of the current site but would you try to re-post your answer in a form that it is legible.


Thanks

[Peter Pallotta]

An enjoyable look at Kingsbarn, as Rick Shiels (starting at -10) takes on Adam Scott over 18 holes of stroke play, a week before the 2022 Open
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jGgt7btcdG4

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()