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!

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?

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:  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, 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."

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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