Is it all about knowing where to miss?

I once heard Jack N talk about the Strategy of Pinehurst No. 2. He was surprisingly focused on "There's a fw bunker left, and of course, you want to miss that" vs. thinking about the best angles, etc.

And Pete Dye is famous for saying "Once you get them thinking about where to miss, those dudes are in trouble."

Lastly, with new equipment, the "open front" green isn't that big a deal as it was when things had to run in.  Some players prefer to come in from the same side as the hazard, figuring, like taking a stance near OB on the tee so you can aim further away from it, they can aim further from the hazard.  Even if you prefer the open front approach, its so that when you are between distances, you can club down rather than up to get an easier uphill putt, and still hit your standard shot.

I suspect its about knowing where to miss, avoiding anything that could cost you one or more strokes.  As in football, playing defense wins championships.......

Quote from: Ted Kramer on May 23, 2005, 10:12:39 AM

No.
It is as much about where to hit it to make your next shot easier than it is about where to miss.
-Ted

Are these two sides of the same coin, at least most of the time? Isn't making sure that your next shot is NOT impossible another (but extreme) mode of "making easier"?

One is offensive (hit to XXX to gain max advantage) - That's a given,  sorry for not stating the overwhelmingly obvious, it's just about the "definition" of strategy. However, the other is defensive (miss here or here, but not here) looking to minimize damage.

Jeff Brauer quote And Pete Dye is famous for saying "Once you get them thinking about where to miss, those dudes are in trouble."

I am not sure that thinking about where your safety margin constitutes making one "In trouble".  

Compare it to say,  defensive driving, if you think about where you are going to be hurt least and live to see another day are you being stupid or smart? Compare it to strategy in F1 racing, "do I want to risk this pass (shot) to get another spot higher in the classification and risk losing it all today (this hole), or stay in the race to finish (or finish the hole) and complete the race and have a strategy for the season (round or tone-a-mint)?  Or is this above everyone's head. (Yesterday's Monte Carlo F1 race made me think this thread concept.)

The concept of risk/reward as used by the talking heads on TV broadcasts uses R/R as a fatalistic mentality much of the time and really discusses penal rather than strategic choices in this arena.  They often do this near the end when desperate measures are considered that are otherwise not.

What's wrong with occasionally using a defensive mode, too?  Why does Pete have us in trouble if we do that sometimes?

You have a point, the ideas are obviously related.
My issue with "where to miss" is that it sounds very penal and negative, as if one is expected to play the game defensively . . .

I feel that "Strategic Architecture" can the help the game to be played at a higher level by someone who gets it as opposed to the dullard who just aims down the middle and swings away.

-Ted

could it be boiled down to one word:  choices?