This is great!  Strategic design (I espouse Jones' definition) AND Stupid Trees - all in a single thread.

No thank you. I don't have the time or desire to get sucked into this vortex.

This is my position: you are free to speek for yourself, you shouldn't try to speek for MacKenzie. Carry on.

Thank you, Jeff, for the clarification.

Regarding trees, a thought: Trees, in nature, are planted by birds and wind and through direct growth from one tree to a new one. Like native grasses, they appear where nature directs. On links courses there are trees occasionally. On inland courses there are trees more than occasionally — depending on the location. The reverse of these conditions is also tru in places, but now usually.

Golf course architects clear trees and plant trees. The reasons are varied. Occasionally to copy nature, erase unhealthy views, and to offer another texture to courses.

And a final thought: Trees are not as permanent as most components of a golf landscape. They come and go, fall and die, and are subject to the same sort of discussions as that herein.

Par is meaningless to how a hole plays...the choices remain the same...the risk reward remains the same (relative to the field, to a match, or to whatever number par is for the course)...by the way the 13th was originally designed as a par-4. The hole (and the course) was planned with idea that the membership would be made up of various skills and abilities. The model was St.Andrews and that courses ability to accomodate all levels of golfers. It is narrow minded to judge the choices presented on a given hole based completely on the elite golfer.

Shivas:

The reason you are digging a hole is that you can’t get the Masters and professional golf out of your head. Our friend the 10 handicap and his buddy the 18 handicap don’t always play a golf hole the way professionals do. There is no “obvious” best way to play a golf hole.

This point was brought home to me this summer while playing down at my local muni where my experience goes back more than twenty years and countless rounds of golf. The hole includes a 500 yard par 5 with a severe dogleg. Naively, I always thought there were only three ways to play the tee shot:

Most aggressive: Using a driver to cut about fifty yards off the dogleg. The reward is being left with a mid iron, a likely birdie and possible eagle. The downside is to find hazards and/or losing your ball.

Aggressive: Play right along the tree line of the dog leg trying to draw a three wood. The benefit is a chance to play for the green in two. The penalty is usually just finding your ball but needing to punch out. (This was my favorite.)

Conservative: Playing for the middle of the fairway with a 4-5 wood or maybe a long iron. The benefit is getting off to a safe start and setting up a second shot that can in turn set up an easy wedge to the green. The penalty is counting on a good wedge and one putt where you really would like to make birdie.

Now, after playing the hole many years, I finally came across a gentleman who taught me a fourth way. He tees off with a five iron trying to hit shot of about 170 yards. From there he plays through a line in the trees that I never really noticed but upon inspection does seem rather generous. All this to set up a safe third shot from about 120-130 yards.

Personally, I couldn’t imagine playing the hole this way, but my playing partner was quite surprised I wasn’t even aware of this strategy. He explained that once he got out to the 200 yard range his accuracy suffered so much that what I had previously considered the “conservative” tee shot just didn’t make sense for him.

Dave, I think the same logic applies to mid handicap players on the tee shot at Augusta’s #13. No way would every average player take the same route (line and/or club) off the tee. I just don’t believe that. You have to get the professional level player out of your mind.

Shivas,

My point was to reply to your statement that strategic design is "just a watered down version of penal architecture."  I don't think so.  

Tom,

Some take it as a contradiction that the hazards in strategic architecture MUST be penal, but that's because otherwise, there's no point in not taking the risk.  If its just a flat fairway bunker that even I can hit a 7-wood out of, it's no big deal, but if you have to deal with a ravine or something really bad, you think twice or thrree times.  I was at Lawsonia on saturday, and got a few object lessons in this.

Jeff Goldman

Shivas:

I don't think that it is the least bit unusual for a 10 handicap who hits 260 yard drives 2-3 times a round to play a tee shot like #13 at Augusta conservatively. That kind of thing happens all the time.

Part of the reason our friend is a 10 handicap - and not a 5 - is that he has difficultly repeating shots he is capable of playing. But, another reason he is a 10 - and not a 15 - is that he has learned to manage has way around the golf course and do things like avoiding shots that he is capable of playing but not likely to pull off.

Far more than the expert player, the 10 handicap's comfort level changes from day to day. Thus, when he is feeling good, i.e., he is nicely drawing his tee shots rather than fighting a duck hook, he may play the bold line hoping to set up his long approach to the green. Conversely, when his game isn't in top form, he turns relies on course management skills to get out of Dodge without disaster.

For this man, a hole like #13 at Augusta presents multiple options.

You must be playing with a different crowd to not see this guy.

Shivas, we cant leave you out of it because your game and approach are indicative of a pretty large group of golfers.

You misremember my game, I think.  Score is pretty irrelevant for me.  If it wasnt for trying to keep an accurate handicap, I am not sure I would ever pick up a card.  Also, if anything I tend to err on the too agressive for my abilities side of things.  That is why laying up on CPC 16 was so exciting for me.  I overcame my machismo and hit the right shot.  

Anyway, I decided to go for a ground breaking, noble prize winning theory, per your comments at the end of the last post.  I started a new thread though so others can pile on once a few of you knock me down.  

See you there!