For some the best thrill is executing that difficult shot that offfers little chance for recovery. For them that is fun. For me fun is more in my head ; if I execute the shot I chose I have the most fun. To each his own.

John,
   It doesn't have anything to do with losing the actual ball in the water (although that is annoying The fact is I think  most golfers just want to try and play a golf shot. Now if I hit a really bad shot that could have ended up in water, if it existed, then my next shot should be exceedingly difficult, to the point where most likely it will take me two shots to achieve my objective anyway, but maybe, just maybe, with one superlative shot maybe I can redeem myself. That to me is strategic golf.

Ed,

Once last year I hit a ball into a water hazard and holed my next shot for birdie, several times I have made par and hopefully I will make bogey....I find the ability to not screw up a round or match after a penalty stroke to be as strategic and character testing as anything in golf.  99% of the golf I play is played to beat the people I am spending the day with...I want them penalized when they hit a horrible shot...nothing hurts me more than when I have already counted the chickens and the rooster screws me from behind.

Mayday,

Victoria National is penal, penal as hell or all get out if you prefer.  Do you believe me now.  I think competition breeds strategy..I don't think alot of people on this board compete enough.  Recently I wolfed on a very penal hole and all three of my opponents hit their second shots into a hazard...I needed a double bogey to win the hole and enough money for a fantastic meal on my drive home.  Sitting 150 yds out with water to the right of the green I strategized a wedge, putter, putter, putter, putter for the win...Took the water out of play and enjoyed bacon wrapped livers, cauliflower salad, prime rib and two mugs of beer a glass of wine and a bit of apple pie for my efforts.  Stategy created out of competion with a pinch of gluttony..

 John,

   That is a wonderful definition of wagering strategy.


  This weekend I "Tiger bogeyed (Doral #18)" two holes to win. That was wagering strategy. The purpose of my putt was to get as close to the hole as possible.  If the purpose of golf is to get it in the hole with the least number of strokes then we weren't playing golf.


      Victoria National "looks" penal in the photos but I would hesitate to make a judgement from pictures.

   Since golf is meant to be played I try to make judgements after playing a course. (I must confess to the occasional TV opinion though.)


  John ,

    Could it be that penal courses lead to more wagering strategy and "multiple choice" courses lead to more fun just playing the game?

    Could it be that penal courses lead to more wagering strategy and "multiple choice" courses lead to more fun just playing the game?

Where is the fun in hitting shots that offer no more reward for a good shot than a bad one...or on your fun courses is all the fun found in recovering from a bad shot..thus making the game more fun for the poor  player than the expert.  Dumbing down design for the hack...that is a formula for disaster..How can you expect people to play a lifetime if there is no reward for improvement....Here comes Alistair Marx..

Would you have fun hitting from the drop area at the 17th on the TPC Sawgrass....I think it would be great fun to try to make a 4 after dumping one in the lake.  My point is is that some of the best fun comes out of the shot after having to take a drop....I almost said re-loading but even I wouldn't buy that load of crap.

Barney;  Who suggested that a strategic course equalized good and bad shots by making the next shot equivalent?  The essence of a good strategic hole is to reward a well planned and well executed shot by making the next shot easier while allowing a player who took a less favorable route an opportunity to make up his disadvantage by making an outstanding shot.  This may not even require a recovery shot; it may only require a longer second or one from a difficult angle.  Even relatively penal courses can allow this possibility (absent water or OB), its just that the degree of difficulty can be so great that the liklihood of recovery becomes too small.  Defining the strategic as failing to differentiate between good and bad shots basically defines away the discussion.  With tactics like that, maybe you should have practised law.  I'm impressed.

Seriously, this is one of the problems associated with the new equipment at the professional and outstanding amateur level.  The increase in driving distance coupled with square grooves and high loft wedges has effectively reduced the advantage of driving the ball  in the "right place" and removed the inherent strategy from many holes.  Thus to reward placement, tournament directors and architects have been compelled to create more penal set ups with higher rough, more trees and water etc.  For many of us, this makes for a much less interesting game.

Finally, your comments seem to indicate that strategy largely consists of a series of decisions regarding the wisdom of laying up.  While this is certainly one form of strategy, if it were the only one golf would not have created the fascination that has allowed it to be interesting for centuries.  The more choices that one has, the greater the interest and the greater liklihood that indecision will impact on the player's game.  If all the choices are clearcut, then the player with the best swing under pressure will always win.  The ability to assess choices and make intelligent decisions under pressure will become a nonfactor and the game will be lesser for that development.

It seems strange to me that most of the replies under this topic are a sort of "either or" type of response. Either the promise of relief or a reward for risk taken.

when I think of a good strategic hole I think of one that offers both of these options or more. To me a strategic hole offers a high handicapper a way home with lower risk, while a more skilled player can challenge a hazard of some sort to gain a real advantage.

In this case the penalty for an errant shot should be greater for the better player who takes a greater risk.

A good example of this would be a typical cape hole where one player might play straight out from the tee and avoid hazard altogether, and yet have a long way in to the green, while another may bite off more than he should to gain position.

It doesn't necessarily have to be this extreme because even placement on the fairway can offer a strategic challenge. A fairway may be broad and easy to hit but the premium position on one side may be gaurded by a ravine etc.

This is what I believe makes a fun hole. Choices.

Paul,

My contention is that the only way to play position is to club down...I hit three wood to four iron all the time for position but I always aim down the middle (let me qualify that with the fact that I aim for the widest spot possible away from the most penal hazard) with my driver.

Barney;  your not the only one who plays and played in the real world for a long time.  Two of the best players I ever played with including my first pro and my deceased Uncle who played to scratch for about 40 years always emphasized choosing small targets for each shot and basing the target on the desired position for the next shot.  Sounds kind of like Hogan after he transformed himself from a long wild hitter to a great ball striker.  Planning a hole backwards from the green has been recommended for a long time.  But your way works for you as I know you are a good player.  Although I question your statement because I am certain that there are times when you ignore the middle to cut a dogleg or otherwise shorten a hole.

My question to you is why bother with this thread?  If you truly believe that the only thought other than swing thoughts is to aim down the middle and hit it as hard as you can, then aside from avoiding penal areas, there is no strategy, as strategy implies thought.  Maybe you're right, but if you are architecture is largely irrelevant other than for its aesthetic impact.  If that's what you believe, then any discussion of architectural nuance aside from technical aspects like depth of bunkers, grasses etc, is a waste of time.

There are times when I want to yet again wade into the GCA "Strategery" debate, but this ain't one of them.

Barney is right.  For 99% of the golfers in the world, "strategy" involves picking a point, aiming at it, trying to hit the bejeesus out of the ball, and then finding it and hitting it again.  The 1% of the golfers who do not do this are NOT the pros or the elite amateurs (they bash it and find it too--just more accurately and elegantly), but the "strategy whores" on this site who somehow think they are Patton in North Africa when they stand on the 17th tee at Cypress Point, or just the kinder and gentler 17th on their home course....

I've played a relatively high percentage of my golf at courses that afficionados on this site would call "strategic"--or even "Highly Strategic!"  My "working" life has largely been devoted to studying and teaching "strategy."  In my experience, golf is only "strategic" on the 19th hole.  Out on the course, the Clauswitzean "fog of war" prevails.  "Thought" is an irrelevance......

Sean

The 6th a Deal is actually the poster child for a hole that does not really offer options.  Downwind, you can only bomb it and hope you hit it solid and then can get up and down from the back of the green.  Short is dead.  Into the wind, the green cant be reached, so you lay up and then hit your wedge du jour......

I think it is more of a fun hole than a good one.