"width" "strategy" "options" "angles": all just double-secret code for easy

« **on:** June 15, 2007, 10:34:26 AM »

Shivas made this contention on another thread.

True or waist high B.S.?

« **Reply #1 on:** June 15, 2007, 10:35:21 AM »

With the exception of angles, I agree completely

« **Reply #2 on:** June 15, 2007, 10:36:56 AM »

width, strategy, options, angles, all codes words for fun.

« **Reply #3 on:** June 15, 2007, 10:37:58 AM »

Quote from: Dan Moore on June 15, 2007, 10:34:26 AM

Shivas made this contention on another thread.

True or waist high B.S.?

Thank you Dan, I'll be smiling for the next 50 Shivas posts...

« **Reply #4 on:** June 15, 2007, 10:41:45 AM »

Yes, if the course is maintained soft....

no, if the course is F&F....

and yes, maintained properly it is more fun.

« **Reply #5 on:** June 15, 2007, 10:45:32 AM »

To a large degree - yes. Even angles of play - at least into greens aren't as important to scoring with new equipment.

If the target width far exceeds any possibility of getting into trouble, I suspect even fun reduces. IF clubs make decent players more accurate, then width must reduce.

I suspect that "fun" is had by taking the "options" - for example, on a cape hole, taking and making the carry is fun. So the fun is in the "Hang Time" and/or feeling of accomplishment and skill rather than some reward of seeing the pin. Hitting to a wide fw for a delayed reward in "angle" is not as much fun, and as noted, not as critical to scoring as it was.

I think the same would hold true for the occaisonal forced carry, shot to narrow fw or well bunkered green, tucked pin, etc.

« **Reply #6 on:** June 15, 2007, 10:46:28 AM »

Angles of flight into greens and onto fairways can make golf very difficult.

« **Reply #7 on:** June 15, 2007, 12:06:21 PM »

I think width in particular can lull golfers into a false sense of security -- wasn't that something that Jones and MacKenzie were trying to get at with Augusta, because it's largely true at the Old Course. At the Old Course, width is evident everywhere, but the conventional wisdom in playing it is that the tougher, more exacting drive is the right side of the fairway, but that opens up easier approaches to the green; conversely, the left side of the fairway is open and less penal, but provides for tougher approach shots. Jones tried to incorporate something along these lines at Augusta -- such as the 13th, where the risky play is a drive nearer the creek, but that provides a flatter stance and opens up the green, and makes Rae's Creek less of a threat. The bailout right tee shot at the 13th creates an uneven lie, brings Rae's Creek more into play, and makes the green not nearly as accomodating to a long iron.

I think any course that makes you think about where to put the ball, either from the tee, or from the fairway, is inherently more interesting to play. A narrow, one-way-to-play, corridor-like golf course is in some ways less demanding -- it basically takes thinking out of the equation and merely requires proper execution.

« **Reply #8 on:** June 15, 2007, 12:28:54 PM »

Answer me this, O great Shivas....

Is "difficult" synonymous with "quality", as far as golf design and setup are concerned?

Joe

« **Reply #9 on:** June 15, 2007, 12:29:11 PM »

I can certainly understand why Dave doesn't like to make decisions on the golf course.

« **Reply #10 on:** June 15, 2007, 12:32:40 PM »

It depends on what you mean by width. Let's have two definitions - apparent width is how wide a fairway is from side to side and effective width is the area were a shot needs to be positioned to gain an ideal approach to the hole location.

With soft conditions and/or flat uniteresting green complexes apparent and effective width are similar, which leads to little use of options, strategy and angles, which could be easy given an ability to take advantage of theses situations.

However given firm conditions undulating and imaginative greens complexes, effective width can be quite narrow, even with an apparently wide fairway. This is when angles are important and strategy and options come into play.

This situation can be far from easy, irrespective of type of equipment in hand.

One other thing, with little or no talent every situation can be difficult.

« **Reply #11 on:** June 15, 2007, 12:40:23 PM »

Quote from: Shivas Schmidt on June 15, 2007, 12:23:11 PM

Quote from: Phil McDade on June 15, 2007, 12:06:21 PM

I think any course that makes you think about where to put the ball, either from the tee, or from the fairway, is inherently more interesting to play. A narrow, one-way-to-play, corridor-like golf course is in some ways less demanding -- it basically takes thinking out of the equation and merely requires proper execution.

That's a hell of an official party line.

So let me get this straight...you think brilliantly, and then butcher the tee shot...and it doesn't matter because the fairway is a gazillion yards wide...so you get the opportunity to think brilliantly again, and you do, but this time it's from the worse angle, and you butcher the approach too, and you're still fine, albeit shortsided or whatever...so you get up to the green and you think brilliantly again, and butcher that shot, and you're still fine, but facing a slider from the wrong side of the hole... and then you brilliantly read the putt and ginch your stroke so you make bogey......where does that put you vis-a-vis the total dumbass who hits all the stupidest shots imaginable on the same hole but executes them flawlessly?

Let's add "interesting" and "requires thinking" to the list of code words...

To be more correct I believe Shivas should qualify his statement with the definition of easy.

I would suggest he is saying these are code words for a lower slope rating. However, the words are independent of course rating.

« **Reply #12 on:** June 15, 2007, 01:02:56 PM »

Beyond waist high BS, he's six feet under.

« **Reply #13 on:** June 15, 2007, 01:17:16 PM »

I don't know Shivas at all, but I'm guessing that his contention is itself a double-secret code. What he's actually saying is:

"I used to be a very good golfer who relished and could handle penal architecture, and even though I'm now a crappy golfer who needs all the help I can get, I have too much respect for the game of golf, golf course architecture, and my own once-formidable talents to blame my woes and high scores on anything but myself and my own limitations, and I refuse to stoop to using lofty and elevated terms to describe what are basically the easy golf courses that I'm now reduced to playing". *

Peter

*The preceeding means absolutely nothing at all, and refers to nothing but itself, and was just the first thing that occured to me in reading Shivas' last post, and in no way do I think it accurately reflects Shivas' views on this topic or on anything else. It's a completely self-contained post...

« **Reply #14 on:** June 15, 2007, 01:40:03 PM »

Exhibit A for the Prosecution: Augusta National Golf Club in the good old days

« **Reply #15 on:** June 15, 2007, 01:57:26 PM »

Easy means you get to hit shitty shots and get away with it.

Just like on the 10th at Riveria.

« **Reply #16 on:** June 15, 2007, 02:10:05 PM »

Quote from: Shivas Schmidt on June 15, 2007, 01:52:43 PM

Easy means you get to hit shitty shots and get away with it.

If "get away with it" means score the same as someone hitting quality shots, then even George didn't have you buried deep enough in it.

« **Reply #17 on:** June 15, 2007, 02:15:18 PM »

I'm with John Cullum. If there's good, solid design to the angles involved in playing a hole then having enough "width" to give you the "option" of making a "strategic" decision to play certain "angles" to your advantage then it's a good hole. Take the same hole minus the advantage gained from proper use of angles and "strategy", "options" and "width" simply make the hole easier.

« **Reply #18 on:** June 15, 2007, 03:06:45 PM »

I just played the Ocean Course at Kiawah and I would not agree with your statement as to that course. Many of the holes have huge landing areas for tee shots (2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 16 all are quite wide - although some of these narrow a good bit at the green).

There is a ton of strategy involved in the course. Many risk/reward tee shots. (2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 18) There are many shots where if your going to use driver you have to shape the shot or you risk rolling through the fairway -- the other option being to lay back with an iron and leave yourself a very long approach. I would consider these strategic decisions that have too be made several times on the course.

Many of the greens are set at angles to the fairway. So approaching from the wrong side of the fairway often means having to carry a very deep green side bunker or the marsh that would not have had to do if properly positioned.

I don't think anyone would describe The Ocean Course as easy (Slope 139, Rating 73.4, 6779 yards from where I played it). If your statement is true (and I'm not sure it is), then the Ocean Course is the exception.

Perhaps the mark of a truly good course is having width, strategy, options and angles, while still providing a challenge to most golfers.

« **Reply #19 on:** June 15, 2007, 03:19:16 PM »

Quote from: Shivas Schmidt on June 15, 2007, 02:18:17 PM

And here I thought you guys had all come so far yesterday when all I heard was agreement with Sam Snead's comment that the golf course is a terrible place to use your brain...

As you well know, that is an entirely different topic.

« **Reply #20 on:** June 15, 2007, 04:09:29 PM »

Don't strategically placed centerline bunkers take width and make it effectively narrow?

« **Reply #21 on:** June 15, 2007, 04:32:05 PM »

So you agree "width" used strategically is not always "easy."

« **Reply #22 on:** June 15, 2007, 04:34:20 PM »

Quote from: Shivas Schmidt on June 15, 2007, 04:14:18 PM

Yes, but if you stick a giant, deep nasty bunker in the middle of a fairway and put two narrow fairways on either side so a strategic decision needs to be made on the tee, the guys who claim to love strategy so much will scream holy hell about how narrow the two options are -- i.e., "it's too hard".

I disagree with this assertion entirely, and I think our friend Dave M would as well.

« **Reply #23 on:** June 15, 2007, 04:37:35 PM »

Quote from: George Pazin on June 15, 2007, 04:34:20 PM

Quote from: Shivas Schmidt on June 15, 2007, 04:14:18 PM
Yes, but if you stick a giant, deep nasty bunker in the middle of a fairway and put two narrow fairways on either side so a strategic decision needs to be made on the tee, the guys who claim to love strategy so much will scream holy hell about how narrow the two options are -- i.e., "it's too hard".

I disagree with this assertion entirely, and I think our friend Dave M would as well.

Six feet under and sinking fast!

« **Reply #24 on:** June 15, 2007, 04:51:06 PM »

Quote from: Dan Moore on June 15, 2007, 04:09:29 PM

Don't strategically placed centerline bunkers take width and make it effectively narrow?

Not necessarily. You would still have width if you lay up short, or if you take the risk of hitting over the bunker. A well placed centerline bunker creates "options" (lay up, go left, go right, blast over) and "strategy", both of which make for "interesting" golf in my opinion - easy golf in Shivas's opinion.

News:

Dan Moore

John_Cullum

Lynn_Shackelford

JESII

corey miller

Jeff_Brauer

tlavin

Phil McDade

Joe Hancock

Pete Lavallee

Padraig Dooley

Garland Bayley

George Pazin

Peter Pallotta

Dan Moore

Dan Moore

Garland Bayley

Brent Hutto

Russ Miller

Garland Bayley

Dan Moore

Dan Moore

George Pazin

Garland Bayley

Russ Miller