[Andy Hughes]

I played two weeks ago at a fine Tom Doak course.  One hole, a par 5 that doglegged left, had a bunker smack in the middle of the fairway, almost exactly where I would like to have it my ball. This made me stop and ponder, decide how far I could carry my ball or if it was even worth it, or whether it was best to steer clear and steer clear which way?
The guys I was paired with had no such thoughts--they just stepped up and hit.
This pattern repeated itself a number of times--I would see a green that opened up far better from the left, they would just hit away off the tee.

Does strategy or architecture matter to only a tiny handful of golfers?

[Dan Herrmann]

Andy - great question, and the answer is almost certainly 'yes'.

You should've seen the kids from the AJGA at French Creek - they were hitting drivers from every tee and getting into a helluva lot of trouble.  I personally saw a bunch of 8's on #15, and heard there were several double digit scores on #14.

So I (playing to a 13 hdcp) played the holes myself later in the day and had a par on each.

I remember Eric Peveto telling me about a membership pitch he was doing.  The prospect asked Eric, 'why would there be a bunker in the middle of the fairway - right where I want to hit my shot?'

I felt personally gratified when a fellow French Creek member and friend told me that he'd recently played the new Ace course (Gary Player) in suburban Philly.  He said the course was beautiful, but he found himself hitting driver/8-iron over and over again.  He told me that by pointing out Gil Hanse's subtleties, he discovered just how good Gil's work is, and how boring Player's was.

Made my day!

[Brent Hutto]

Does strategy or architecture matter to only a tiny handful of golfers?

Yes. The vast majority of golfers view a round of golf as a series of shots to be executed, not an intellectual or creative challenge. The architect's job is to enforce the hitting of quality shots.

Deciding whether to drive a Par 4 green or whether you can reach a Par 5 in two when there's a hazard in front of the green is the definition of "strategy" among most weekend golfers. The more thoughtful ones (or the ones who read Bob Rotella books) would add to that the "strategy" of when you aim at the flag versus when to aim at the center of the green.

There are three dimensions on which I hear golf courses discussed at my club. Conditioning (most important), difficulty (more important at the extremes of "very tough" or "pushover") and fairness.

Sub-categories of conditioning are green speeds and trueness, lushness/greenness of fairways, rough length and fairway width and landscaping.

The most important sub-category of difficulty is generally length although rough and water hazards are also talked about a lot.

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder, generally it means a lack of bad bounces (i.e. soft lush fairways) and in particular no features which direct the ball toward bunkers or other hazards when the ball is hit on a direct line at the hole.

The only thing that we GCA types would class as strategy that I ever hear talked about is the occasional alternate fairway setup.

[Craig Sweet]

WHOA!!!!  I read on this very site, daily, a constant RANT that technology has made starategic golf courses absolete! Now you guys are saying...implying...that most golfers don't even consider the strategic implications because they are too stupid to see/understand/appreciate them. Its not the equipment, it's their lack of knowledge.

The original post goes so far as to say "the fairway bunker was right where my drive would land"...a clear implcation that the equipment was not a factor.  

So, if these guys understood, and appreciated, the strategic design of the course, would they still bomb it over everything and take the design strategy out of play? Would you, if you could?

[THuckaby2]

Craig:  yep, that's exactly what many here are saying.. and yes, if they have the ability, due to equipment or whatever, hell yes they bomb it over the bunker.  It seems to me that only those who choose to play hickories or otherwise go back in time would deny themselves the chance to make a shot their abilities allow them to make...

However, for normal golfers (God I hope Ran sees this) I don't think it's this way due to stupidity...  I think it's rather a conscious choice.  SO many golfers take the strategic tack of "I didn't [leave the wife and kids] [pay $100] [take time off work] [drive all the way the hell over here] to [lay up] [hit an iron to some so-called better angle] [shoot away from the pin]" plan of attack.  That is, even if the strategy is understood - and I believe darn near all golfers can understand it, it's not rocket science - it's IGNORED.

Thus these discussions about strategy are less than meaningful out in the real world.

But since when has this discussion group concerned itself much with the real world anway?

 

[RJ_Daley]

No, I don't believe that strategic features are irrelavant to that vast a percentage of golfers.   I would say that a small percentage of "casual" and infrequent golfers fall into that category.  Some of them just grip it and rip it, go find it and do it again.  They have no clue where (beyond forward in the general direction of down fairway) to hit it.

Yet for the regular golfer, I think with a bit more skill, or a person who constantly wants to acquire higher skills (the vast majority of us) strategic features matter a lot and are effective. If you have a conflict of thoughts when you identify a hazard, and you are forced to pick one or another of strategies as to how to most effectively get your ball to the hole, then whatever feature causes that thought process is certainly not irrelavant.

Which features are most effective and create the greatest amount of considerations to be chosen from are the best features.   Some features are glaringly obvious, some are more subtle.  This is why we rank golf courses as to how much we like them.  Those that have the best balance of strategic features, glaring, multiple choice, and subtle are always the most highly regarded.  Never mind whether you or the majority of people can effectively deal with them, and overcome them with superior skills.  It is the never ending quest to do so that matters and renders those features highly relavant to learning, improving and enjoying.

[Craig Sweet]

I think a lot...and I do mean a lot...of golfers ignore strategy because they don't hit the ball far enough to bring certain hazzards/strategic design features/etc. into play. They walk up and hit the ball...walk up and hit the ball...walk up and hit the ball...UNTIL faced with a problem...such as "now what do I do...there's a bunker between me and the green"....and this usually brings a "god damnit" from their lips...they just can't believe anyone would put a bunker "there" of all places...

I have said this in earlier posts about technology and the average golfer...they don't hit the ball far enough...even with new technology...to be an issue...I hear many golfers say "that pond/bunker/ is no problem for me...I don't hit it far enough to go in it".

[THuckaby2]

Craig:  that's a good point as well.  A large percentage of golfers do hit-hit-hit-deal with trouble when they get to it.

Dick:  I think we're just going to disagree on percentages.  I find far more golfers who ignore strategy and/or don't recognize it than I do those who take it seriously... We must just play with different crowds!

In any case I fully concur with your last paragraph.

[RJ_Daley]

Dave, sometimes I think that you and Moriarty should switch positions.  You should be an entertainment biz, attorney with your penchant for movie script re-writes and parodies.  I could see you working for the Zucker Bros or Mel Brooks.

[Craig Sweet]

RJ, at the muni where I work, the vast majority of golfers might be interested in improvement, but they won't take a lesson...I see the same terrible swings everyday, all season long.  Strategy for them is a non issue...they think more about their technique than they do about the course before them...but they won't take a lesson to improve the technique that would allow them to think more about the course....that's a pity.

By the way...here is an idea for a golf book...it would be a greenskeeper eye view of all the terrible swings we see everyday...followed by a lesson from the pro...Titled "Its easier to swing a golf club than it is a rake."

[RJ_Daley]

Craig, since I play a muni most of the time, I too see less than what we call a smooth country club schooled swing.  When a fellow like Bob Huntley shows up with such, we start to roll our eyes and reach for our wallets

But, I also see some odd swings get the job done, because that very fellow that is unorthodox and uninstructed in his swing actually does understand the strategy that works for him/her and plays well as they negotiate the design features.  

I often play with a lady who plays from our men's tees who fits this  idea.  She knows her game, can putt and chip like a champ, hits it 40-50 yards shorter than we fellows, and often beats us.  That is because she knows her game and how that relates to the design features of the course.  

I think in answering this question, it boils down to ones perception of what percentage are regular enough of golfers to recognise strategy and "try" to do something about it - not who actually get it done as attempted.  If the strategy is there, they will come back for another try if at first they fail.

[Scott Witter]

Did we not see much of this same approach and disregard for strategy by the "worlds best course management wizards" at Pinehurst #2 in an all out effort to get as close to the green as possible in hopes of using wedge to  "try" and hold the putting surfaces?

[Craig Sweet]

Rough is what it is...you shouldn't hit the ball into it.  This afternoon I'm playing a local course where a ball in the rough is a lost ball...There will be 4 holes (not counting par 3's) that I won't hit a driver off the tee...

[A_Clay_Man]

The point is, ladies and gentleman, is that rough - for lack of a better word - is good. Rough is right. Rough works. Rough clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary slope rating. Rough, in all of its forms - bluegrass, rye, fescue, bermuda - has marked the upward surge of golfingkind. And rough - you mark my words - will not only save the Teldar Paper Open but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USGA.

This is the most assinine statement you've made since putting pot bunkers on 15 at PB. I'm sure though, that those with the power to influence, will follow your ignorant advice.

I agree with RJ. The strategic features of a golf course do influence the less skilled, who are the majority. These features are imposing to those who know their limitations, and they usually act accordingly. (at least the sensible ones) Which means they are Most likely octagenarians, but that shouldn't preclude them from enjoying their rounds, the way long rough does.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I played two weeks ago at a fine Tom Doak course.  One hole, a par 5 that doglegged left, had a bunker smack in the middle of the fairway, almost exactly where I would like to have it my ball. This made me stop and ponder, decide how far I could carry my ball or if it was even worth it, or whether it was best to steer clear and steer clear which way?
The guys I was paired with had no such thoughts--they just stepped up and hit.
This pattern repeated itself a number of times--I would see a green that opened up far better from the left, they would just hit away off the tee.

Does strategy or architecture matter to only a tiny handful of golfers?

I don't know if others mentioned this already but I would think it matters little at a resort course or other daily fee that you are playing for the first time and not likely to return.

However, should this be your home course that is played on a regular basis I think strategic elements are a factor for everyone. With repeated plays we all learn our limits and what we can get away with.  We get bitten by a bunker and we avoid it next time for fear of losing money or a tournament match.

When the consequences of failure are not great (and I mean matches and tournaments not the bunkers and hazards) and we are playing for fun then the "I didn't come 3000 miles to layup" attitude is teh norm.

[ForkaB]

A significant element of strategy is understanding and allowing for one's own capabilities.  With that in mind, 98%+ of the golfers in the world can confidently aim staight at a center line hazard in the full knowledge that their shot is very unlikely to land there.

[Mike_Cirba]

The point is, ladies and gentleman, is that rough - for lack of a better word - is good. Rough is right. Rough works. Rough clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary slope rating. Rough, in all of its forms - bluegrass, rye, fescue, bermuda - has marked the upward surge of golfingkind. And rough - you mark my words - will not only save the Teldar Paper Open but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USGA.

Relax, alright? Don't try to strike everybody out by growing parallel lines of deep rough to each side of the fairway. Shots from Deep rough are boring, and besides that they're fascist. Widen the fairways and let them hit some running ground balls. They're more democratic.*

* Paraphrased from "Bull Durham"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

I believe it matters if your object is to produce the lowest score through the use of course management skills.

Course management skills vary from zero to astute.

However, sometimes ignorance is bliss.

Some of the best rounds I've played I attribute to not knowing where the trouble is.

[THuckaby2]

Andy,

I believe it matters if your object is to produce the lowest score through the use of course management skills.

Agreed.  But... aye, now there's the rub.
For how many golfers is that really the object of playing?

Damn few, I'd say.  That's called grinding.  There is a time and a place for it - in competitive play.  Outside of that, really how many golfers play that way?  And if one is doing it outside of competitive play, I have to ask:  why?

[Andy Hughes]

Shivas, mucho thanks, always a pleasure having to clean up the sprayed coffee off my monitor.

WHOA!!!!  I read on this very site, daily, a constant RANT that technology has made starategic golf courses absolete! Now you guys are saying...implying...that most golfers don't even consider the strategic implications because they are too stupid to see/understand/appreciate them. Its not the equipment, it's their lack of knowledge.
The original post goes so far as to say "the fairway bunker was right where my drive would land"...a clear implcation that the equipment was not a factor.

Craig, in my case, the equipment was indeed a factor on that shot, as the bunker was about 270 away--right where a well-hit drive for me will now end up if I hit it well. Ironically, for me anyway, the better technology has made that bunker far more important strategically than when Doak first dug it out.

[Jim Nugent]

Most players arenīt good enough for strategy to come into play.  Donīt know the number, but 98% or more would not surprise me.

[Andy Hughes]

I believe it matters if your object is to produce the lowest score through the use of course management skills.

Pat, I think that is exactly right. But do you think most golfers, while trying to produce the lowest score they can, consciously take the strategic elements on the course and use them to achieve the lowest score they can?  It seems rather to be 'there's water over there, I better hit it over here'.

redanman, that bunker in the fairway did indeed elicit exactly that response. I thought the bunker, and their response, were both perfect actually.

Outside of that, really how many golfers play that way?  And if one is doing it outside of competitive play, I have to ask:  why?

Tom, when you are playing, do you not try and play the hole in the fewest strokes? I am not sure I follow your point.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

I believe that 98 % of golfers do try to acheive the lowest score.

However, many golfers, including single handicap players have very poor course management skills.

Some of that relates to understanding the impact of the architecture on their play of the hole.

Those that "see" the architecture, and understand its potential impact on their play of the hole tend to maximize their ability to score.

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

Again, well said.  I fully agree that 98% of all golfers do try to achieve the lowest score.  The other 2% tend to be participants here.    But more importantly, it's HOW THEY GO ABOUT it where the connection to strategy fails.

Darn right most golfers have poor course management skills.

I'd just go beyond that to say that at least for some, the reason why their course management skills are poor is not due to lack of knowledge, but rather to ignoring options that might achieve a lower score result the greater percentage of the time.

It's no fun to layup on 16 Cypress.  But it also doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that doing so will allow for the better score by far the greater percentage of the time.

So grip it and rip it, baby!

Andy:  I believe Patrick explained it well.  If I'm playing competitively in something that really matters, I layup on 16 Cypress.  Outside of that, what's the point?

That's what I'm getting at... playing the percentages yields the best score result.  It's also very rarely the most fun way to play.  Look at it this way:  as a 7 handicap, would you rather shoot 79 at Cypress (with a layup on 16 as part of it) or make a deuce on 16 knocking it stiff, with a final score of 81?  If you say the former, you are very score oriented and thus not the golfer I am talking about.  I truly believe the vast majority of golfers would choose the latter, keeping in mind this isn't any all-time record-breaking score, but just a solid good one.

TH

[Craig Sweet]

My experience is 95 percent of all golfers carry no handicap. They could care less about having one because they hardly ever play a competitive round other than their friendly morning matches with the ususal 4some.

So why on earth would they even think about strategy?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()