After reading thru the TD/JN thread and seeing the opinions re the benefits of being a good player to design a course....got me to thinking....
I think there are some architects that create strategy from the tee forward and some that create strategy from the green backwards.....I would think the tour pro/designer would in most cases think that due to his superior understanding of golf shots he would design from the tee forward.....whereas those of us that don't have that talent design from the green backward....what say you dudes?

Interesting. So Tom (if I may call you Tom), when you say that you design from the green backward, is this after the routing is complete and you're contemplating bunker placement, etc., or do you actually route the course from the greensites backward, attempting as much as possible to find ideal greensites and then find ways to connect or use them all?

Mike:

That's another good way of looking at things.

I would agree that I design more from the green backward and Jack designs more from the tee forward.

I'm not sure that is a matter of 10 hcp vs. pro, but just the preference of our own golf games.  I believe Crenshaw would also design from the green backward; perhaps Seve and Tom Watson as well because they were all about their short games.

But, to answer the question you posed in the title, I think strategy starts with the routing plan, because it's there that the general tilt of the green and the angle of the hole and the defense of the landing area (slopes which will provide good spots for bunkers) are all decided.  If there is a 10-foot drop to the right of the landing area, it doesn't matter whether you put a bunker there or not, you're taking a risk playing to the right side.

TD,
I would agree that it starts as you describe but don't you think the tour player is going to look at a wide fairway allowing angles into a green as a much easier hole than say a 265 bunker right and and a 300 bunker left with a green looking right at them.....my thought is that these guys design never thinking about the angle and slope of the green as to the direction of play etc.  If that wasn't the case you would not see as many "flat" tiered greens....JMO  (my toughts to words may not make sense)

Mike:

I know what you're saying.  Incidentally, I have it from the ONLY reliable source that those bunkers ought to go at 285 and 320 yards, regardless of what's going on with the topo.  

Well if the source has spoken what can I say.  I am going to see the Dali Lhama in ATL next week and wil see if he can help me with this....

Mike,

For most, it starts at Golfsmith, Nevada Bobs, or Dicks sporting goods, when they buy the latest driver and balls.

Lester, you would whup that land every time!

I have been in golf matches where the biggest strategic discussions centered on getting a better view of the cart girl, or best ways to cheat to win $2.

Back on topic, I tend to be a tee to green guy, the same way the player plays the hole, and obviously am no pro, so I don't think that's the overriding difference.

And, it just goes in circles or hopefully upward spirals once you have made one decision, and then tested the logical options from there.  For example, once you have one hole on a potential routing, and then select the next tee site somewhat near the green, you can start searching all 360 degrees of possible ways to go looking for potential green sites along those angles until you find one that looks promising.

Even if it is, then you start over and might find that you are boxed in a corner and might have to rethink the previous hole, or two holes, etc.  After all, the knee bone connected to the thigh bone....and so on.

I would have thought that strategy starts with the developer, for they must have a certain vision/theme in mind for their course, and then select an architect who can deliver?

JB/LG,
As long as the next tee is within 1/2 mile of the green it will be fine with the new overdrive they have on the golf cars....

I guess all are saying the same thing but in different ways....whether tee toward green or green toward tee.....I had always looked at it as the better players determining their tee strategy from the green elements and the pin placement that day.  
I think it is fair to say that JN changed golf strategy from green to tee into tee to green with his philosophy regarding approach shots.  Or should I say what i think his philosophy tends to be.  That is...he ask the player to hit the shot the correct distance and if he does he could be 20 feet one side or the other of the pin and have a fairly straight putt.....whereas traditional GA had always been based more on accuracy and less on exact distance with the main strategic element being to putt uphill...example...approach shot hit directly on line but say 5 yards short so as to be putting up to the hole.....because a shot of the exact distance to either side would have excessive break etc.....so to me you have two approach strategies..one based on distance control over accuracy and the other based on accuracy with less distance control.....I think this is proven out every year when the pros play on an classic US Open course vs. the weekly venue.  For myself it seems as though the exact distance strategy peaks after the approach shot for the good player and with the accuracy strategy it can be after the putt.....  JMO.....

I approach strategy in various stages, starting with the routing, which dictates the length, flow and sequence of the holes.....all of which can be influenced by the topography and natural features of the site...... if the site is devoid of any important features then I rely more on invention.
Usually most sites have some 'givens' that require attention...its rare to find a site that is truly a blank canvas.

Coastlines and other water features influence the routing, as well as any site features I might want incorporate in the body of a hole....good tee sites, fairways or green sites.

I then try to focus attention on the individual hole strategies....I try to create a storyline  for each hole that provides a strategic connection from tee to green.

Whether these strategies start at the tee, or work back from the green depends largely on whether I have any features I am trying to work into the hole....ie, if I was I am working with an existing natural green site then the strategy works in reverse...if its a good tee site, then it starts there.
If its a good fairway feature, then the process works in both directions.

If I am lucky enough to have a great existing tee, fairway and green site...then I try to stay out of the way and not mess things up.

If the opposite is true, and the hole has nothing to offer in existing features worth considering....then I put on my thinking cap and get to work....and I tend to drink more on site, especially in the after hours when everyone has left.

Hope this helps!  

When doing some hobbist routing, on real land, with 2" ele topos, and spending several days walking the land, on very different terrain sites, I found it worked best to find as many potential good green sites as possible, then work back to the best looking LZs, then to a possible approach to the LZ from a potential tee, from on high, occasionally from below (but not too much) or roughly level.  I tried to look for LZs on first LZ par 5s and TPs of par 4s that had a good 75-100 yards of usable width, ~100 yards of depth and natural roll or slope.  

My two most disparate pieces of land were what I still believe is as good of a piece of land as you could dream of in the sand hills, and the other was 280 acres of Wisconsin dairy farm land with a meandering 'navigable' stream through a 20-30ft deep basin that ranged from 50 to 200 yards wide, and unremarkable gently rolling cornfield land taking up about 2/3rds of the property.

On the sand hill land, there were greensites galore...probably similar to the constellation map legend of SHGC.  You had so many choices, and with 800 acres to play with, you could not help but find the choice LZs, blowouts to incorporate in LZs or near greensites and exciting rolls in the land.  That was just so much fun, that I can't really describe the kick I got out of the process... maybe some of the best fun I have ever had related to golf.  

On the WI farm land, I found 8 nice green sites down in the creekway basin or on the ledges above, and worked back from there to logical approach directions to a TP and then look for a tee to set up to the LZ in an interesting way.

It seems to me, that with a more compressed unremarkable acreage, you have to go more from tee to green, than where you have oodles of choices.  Where there are at least 7-12 good-great greensites, you are more in the green backwards sort of mode.

But, the feature placements on most projects, beyond the use of natural slopes and rolls, is a matter of construction and placement for strategy.  Your shaper, and your feel for the game drives those placements, shapes and utimately strategy.  Since those situations are where you create the strategy via shaping and contouring, you are only as good as your construction crew, and your common golf sense and imagination.  

I'm really liking Paul Cowley's post on this matter because he seems to be the most flexible as to the approach.  

And, to paraphrase my old bootlegging grandpa, 'never trust an archie that doesn't have a drink while out there for long hours doing the routing and strategy'.  

And, so far, no one has tried to answer my questions about GCA strategy planning for shorter tees.

*twiddle*

Doug

Not trying to sidetrack this excellent thread but here's something I was thinking about at my club this weekend. Recently I've had some success with swing changes and I'm hitting the ball about 6, 7, 8 yards longer with my irons and about 15 yards longer on average with the driver. That is not a huge increase but from the usual men's tees (6,250 yards) my home course plays a lot easier than it did hitting it just slightly shorter.

Is it possible to evaluate the design of a course in terms of whether it has a decided breakpoint in difficulty at some certain length (from any given set of tees). I've seen some older Ross courses where there were ridge lines in the landing area for tee shots that probably have this characteristic. Our course (Ellis Maples c. 1961) probably has a bit of Ross DNA for that matter but boy, if you can land up on those ridges you're hitting two or more clubs shorter into the green than if you're just 10-15 yards further back.

If there is a definable, evaluable dimension of a course's "strategy" along these lines, is it a good thing a bad thing or neutral? Personally, I think it's kind of cool. After all you can always move up a set of tees if you like. But it can be somewhat limiting to players right on the cusp, don't you think?

Strategy has to start at the goal and last I knew no one ever tried to figure out how many strokes it takes to get to the tee.  Hole lengths and design options maybe narrowed by a given routing, but the contouring and featuring of the green site and the attributes of its subsequent pinable areas will dictate the approach needed to maximize reaching the hole in good form.