This bascially sounds very similar to penal strategy in the end. There is no actual element of temptation involved and it only results in making the player staying away from the hazard.

Ryan,

It has its place.  Pete Dye now often uses both fw and green hazards on the same side (usually inside of dl) to make long par 4's play longer.  You play less aggressively but have a longer but more open shot, which is probably an equal option, or is it, on a 490 yard par 4?

Bob,

Many thanks for clarifying.
I love to learn!

I was able to play with some folks a year or so ago that showed me exactly what the merits are to "anti-strategy" as we like to call it.  

What has happened over the last few years with advancements in technology, and that is clearly what we are talking about with these guys, is that they can occasionally pull off shots that their skills don't allow for.  Simply from the technology in their hands.  Such as stopping a ball on a dime with a five-iron, while still being a bogey golfer.  So keep that in mind while I detail out what I saw.

I'll use a dogleg hole with a bunker at the corner of the fairway and one on the same side at the green as an example.  What always happened was that these guys would try to clear the hazards on every shot because it was the shortest way around a hole.  If they cleared the hazard it setup a shorter shot, albeit not the preferred angle into the green.  They felt having a club or two less into the green was worth it if they had to clear the bunker fronting that side.  What the anti-strategy does is it basically creates two holes in one.  One that lacks any true barrier in the pathway of the player and one that provides the opportunity for two heroic shots.  

So after one round it became so clear as to the appeal of many of Fazio's courses.  They lack the standard strategic aspects of the legends of gca, but have a different style of strategy that appeals to two distinct and different crowds.  The average guy that plays a hand full of times a year is more apt to go for the gusto on every shot, because what does he have to lose but balls.  He only plays the game a few times a year and this type of golf increases his enjoyment by challenging him.  So he either can walk off with a great round or an incredibly high score but he has hours of conversation afterwards because of all the excellent or awful shots and chances for recovery.  Then you have the guys that just want to bunt the ball around and have not trouble and they will probably beat the other guy 9 times out of 10 because they keep it out of the trouble and don't have to worry about it nearly as much as their avenue to the green is clear and helps their score and handicap.  So both of these "customers" are happy.  

I know people that fit in both of these categories, so I know this "market" exists and is looking for this type of golf.  So there is a method to the madness of anti-strategy and it does appeal to a lot of people.  But to be honest the people I know like this have never played anything on the level of some of the great courses like Crystal Downs, Merion or the National.  So they don't know how good that type of architecture is.  But they do get Golf Digest and see how pretty the courses are and how maintenance and all of the extras are viewed as positives.

I don't care for that style nearly as much, but every once in a while I could do it.    

I actually like some holes with a downside to an agressive play off the tee.  The choice between a shorter approach and a better angle is one that the best answer varies from day to day.  It also counters, rather than double rewards distance off the tee.

A couple of examples:

At our course, we have one, inside corner, same side greenside bunker, dogleg left hole.  When the pin is tucked left, a safe approach to the right side of the green leaves a very difficult putt over a spine to the left side of the green.  Off the tee, an agressive tee shot leaves 100-130 yards over the greenside bunker.  From the wide side, one is left with a 160 yard shot that does not carry the bunker.  With variations in my game, my attack plan varies quite a bit day to day both off the tee and into the green.    

Playing a few days on a Florida course with many angled water hazards to carry, a friend who hits it 30 yards farther than me had an advantage that sometimes was 100 yards for approach shots on par fours because he both hit it farther and he could take a more agressive angle off the tee.  Making the green open up from the wide side counters that advantage a little and provides some incentive for a less agressive line off the tee in order to get the angle to the green.

Ryan,

Of course it's a legitimate strategy. I think the best example of this that I have seen of late (and will see again this Friday) is the 11th hole at Lederach.

Coincidentally, this hole is getting PANNED by some of the cognescenti on this site but it serves as a great example as to how overthinking and analyzing a hole based on traditional strategic marit will make the golfer think way too much and probably gummy up playing the hole.

Throw a wrench in the works every now and then, I say.

Kyle,

For once, we disagree.  It must be that Florida water.  

The 11th at Lederach isn't "anti-strategy".  

If you play way left completely away from trouble, you are left with a very long 200+, possibly blind approach shot to a green falling away from you.

If you instead challenge the fairway bunker, and successfully place it up there alongside (without going too far up the hill), your approach becomes more reasonable at around 165 and you can see where you're going.  

If you try to blow it to the right of the fairway bunker, and try to carry the water, and try to land on that wee bit stretch of fairway (is there such a thing as a "sucker fairway"?), in trying to give yourself an approach of 100 yards or less, then you will die a horrible death 99 of 100 times, if not more.  

At no point does a successful challenge of a hazard yield a more difficult next shot.

At no point does giving a hazard wide berth result in an advantage.

Those seem to me to be the two tenets of "Anti-Strategy", and the 11th at Lederach fails on both accounts.

Thank God.  

Bob,

I agree an open front gives average players comfort and better players the option to club down between clubs to have a better chance at an uphill putt.

As I explained, if holes are designed together, its possible to have similar numbers of each shots over two holes.  Good players prefer a shot to set up with the wind, rather than to force a shot over a bunker just to have a different shot pattern.

BTW, you can not play anti-strategically, you can only think that way, IMHO.  And, electing to play the long way after thinking of the ramifications is a strategy in itself.  

Having two more or less equal options is as good (in proportion) as having only one option to have a good chance to reach the green, no?  If playing for par, and the long way also yields a long shot with a forced greenside bunker carry, many would argue that its not really strategy - its a forced bogey for the meek.

Unlike you, I think the inside-inside strategy is much stronger than the outside-outside simply because of the "line of charm", where golfers want to go the straightest line.  The O-O bunkers don't get in their way at all, in any fashion.  Like you, I think the inside-inside strategy is not the be all end all and should be used 1-4 times max in a design.  That's why I gave examples of hole types where I would be most likely to use it.