Steve: My understanding of the "anti-strategy" which is so disliked by many is that it forces the golfer to play the hole a particular way or pay a very heavy price versus challenging the golfer to play the hole a certain way and be rewarded for a well executed shot but be penalized if not successfully done. Someone please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
Jerry,
Not quite, although that is sometimes implicit as a result.
The term "anti-strategy" was used to describe holes where it is best from a positional standpoint to give wide berth to any hazards. Doing so, "chickening-out" if you will, led to a more advantageous angle for the next shot.
Conversely, challenging a hazard, let's say from the tee to challenge a fairway bunker, led to a much tougher angle of approach, often oblique.
This is the exact opposite of what we often think about in terms of strategy, where one who successfully challenges a hazard, or bunker, or takes a tight line against a creek, or OB, or whatever, is rewarded with an easier next shot.
Instead, with the guy who goes around everything is the guy who comes out smelling like a rose. Thus, the term anti-strategy.