Apologies for offending you, Dave.  I meant what I said in good humo(u)r.  I promise not to directly or indirectly disrespect your driving abilities on GCA again.

Jim:

In your post #52 you're being way too logical and you're questions are way too commonsensical for the general tenor of this site's discussion group. You might have asked some questions and raised some points that DavidM cannot take umbrage over or disagree with on the face of them and then I just can't imagine what might happen to this discussion other than something truly revolting like something actually intelligent may come of it.

Most of the time, Jim, this site's discussion group doesn't seem to concern itself with intelligent discussion and logical assumptions and perhaps logical conclusions. It seem we're far more interested in argument for argument's sake!

Tom, I am not quite sure why you spend so much time questioning the motives for my posts, but since it only detracts from the conversation I will try to set it out for you so you can get some sleep and stop worrying about why I might write what I write.

This site is devoted to discussing golf design and I try to keep my topics on that topic.  While you may disagree, in my opinion designers ought to provide the golfer with a mental challenge as well as a physical challenge, and one way to do this is to provide the golfer with a number of different choices of routes to the hole.   While it seems that at least some of the past great designers agreed, in my experience many contemporary designers do not.   This is one of the crucial issues for the future of golf course design, in my opinion.  I am trying to figure out why so many contemporary designers don't bother with strategically sophisticated designs.  

The current conventional wisdom seems to be that strategy is dead in golf.   Good golfers with new equipment, big drives and high spinning wedges don't need it, and bad golfers arent good enough to make use of it.   We've spent quite a bit of time here discussing strategy and the big hitter, so I thought I'd start a thread about the other end of the spectrum.  

As for my game, I generally try to avoid talking about it on this site.   I just dont think it adds anything . . . I've little to brag about, and dont really think that my game is all that important in the greater scheme of golf course architecture.   But since you are so curious,  I am by no means a scratch but not quite a bogey golfer either.    My index was at 10.0 before I some lessens and ballooned to a 13,  then decided to let Lynn's instructor rebuild my swing and ballooned to a 17.   In the last few months have finally began to see a payoff and have it down to a 13 but feel like I will at least be able to get back where I was.
   
When I play golf I am always very interested in how my playing partners play holes, when I play with someone new I pay attention and also ask them questions about how they play certain holes and why.   I play some of my golf with players much better than me, but I also play with random golfers of all abilities.  I have a match every couple of weeks (high stakes for me) with an older gentleman who barely hits it 200 yds, but is about my equal.

I dont play especially smart golf . . . I think those who play with me would agree that I err on the side of being too aggressive.  But I occassionally stumble into learning something about strategy.  I would never look to this forum to try and figure out what is best for my game, because as I have said I very seldom agree with the conventional wisdom here.  As for Rustic Canyon I think it makes a terrific course to discuss because many of us have seen it and it highlights many issues facing design.   But my discussion is intellectual, I dont expect to learn anything about the course, but rather hope to learn something more general.  

I cant imagine why this matters so much to you . . . but there it is.
___________________________

James,

Rustic Canyon No. 2 is just an example.  In the beginning of this thread people were talking about going for the thrill ect. and getting into issues of course management vs. strategy and I thought using a real example of a hole with multiple options might help.  As Pete notes, the hole presents a classic example challenging a boundary to get a better angle to the green.  

With all due respect, I do not think I am being too general.   When a designer lays out a course he does not do it for a particular golfer, does not know if he is long or short, whether he can control his driver, or what his strong and weak suits are.   In context, I am basically asking whether a hole such as No. 2 at Rustic presents similar options to a high and low handicapper.   It is a general question with a specific example to help focus the question.  

But since you asked, most high handicappers do not play the hole from 457 but probably from around 420.  Still long but the hole plays downhill and the green is open from the left side, so most golfers have a chance of getting home in two from the left especially if they are willing to bounce the ball in.  

You might have asked some questions and raised some points that DavidM cannot take umbrage over or disagree with on the face of them and then I just can't imagine what might happen to this discussion other than something truly revolting like something actually intelligent may come of it.

So Tom, what intelligent have you contributed to this thread?  

Dave -

A minor stylistic point/suggestion/whatever:

In an albeit somewhat different manner, you seem to be a bit like Patrick in that you start thread with something specific in mind, but only alluding to it, and then get annoyed when the rest of us are too dense to pick up on it. Maybe if you were clearer from the start the rest of us would stand a better chance of getting the answer right. That doesn't explain why Tom P picks on you, but I think he's just joshin'.

Of course, that's just my opinion and I could be wrong. I know you're more light hearted than your posts suggest, as you disdain the use of the (tacky but unfortunately necessary in many instances) smileys.

Have a good one.

DM,
Upon closer inspection, I'd say the much maligned 11th hole at Pebble Beach fits this description of RC's 2nd to a tee.

I'll back that up by asking if your new found play on #2 is to not go for the green in two? rather playing short and/or left for an easy chip and putt?

"I would never look to this forum to try and figure out what is best for my game,"

David:

Why not look to this forum to figure out what's best for your game? There're some pretty good and some pretty smart players on here who just may know quite a bit about the strategies of the game of golf for all kinds of levels! Doesn't it occur to you they can help you?

"...because as I have said I very seldom agree with the conventional wisdom here."

Oh, sorry, belay my last question, obviously you just answered why you never look to this forum to try to figure out what's best for your game.


"But my discussion is intellectual, I dont expect to learn anything about the course, but rather hope to learn something more general."

Yes, I agree, your discussion often is just intellectual. What purpose do you suppose that will serve? Have you ever thought about perhaps discussing this subject of strategies in golf, most certainly including the bogeyman, the 17, 13, 10 handicapper and you a bit more practically--eg in such a way that, perhaps among other things more general, you also might learn something on here that really will help you improve your game?  

I hope you don't also take some umbrage with this post too, these seem to be all legitimate questions in the context of this threads subject.

"I again find find myself agreeing with David's well reasoned points. Tom Paul imeadiately touted ultra conservative play as an ideal strategy. It's little wonder that modern desiegners do not attempt to introduce more perilous routes to the hole because with the current stroke play philosophy that Tom and others espouse who would actally use these routes?"

PeteL;

Actually, that's a most interesting point! However, you should notice that I never really proposed that conservative play for all is the ideal strategy. I only said that it seemed to work the best for me and I think I gave most of the reasons why I think that. Although a player like David Moriarty (who I’ve never met or played with BTW) is a higher handicapper by quite a lot than I was, I recommended that he (or some players in his handicap range) play more conservatively like I did simply because I believe more conservative play is probably the best way to avoid mistakes for some types of players. The reason I say that is clearly some of the greater “risk/reward” strategies in golf architecture and the use of those strategies inherits more risk (lose of shots), and frankly I’ve never thought the “shot losing” risks that come with those greater “risk/reward” strategies for some types of players are commensurately made up for in rewards (less strokes). I’m sort of comparing my game to David Moriarty’s game in the sense that our actual ball striking potential may be very similar except for the fact obviously I was more consistent at it than he is and my short game was obviously better than his is. Probably the primary reason I got into such conservative play is because frankly my long game, particularly my shortness off the tee, simply made me incapable of trying some of the higher risk strategies that other scratchmen I had to play against can use regularly. I’m also not saying, I hope you realize, that some of those better players I say I beat could be beaten by me most of the time. I only said I could do it some of the time and clearly my conservative strategy was designed to just out-wait them until they made mistakes with their higher risk/reward strategies. I just think a player like DavidM seems to be, could have greater success that way, particularly using his strokes, than trying to go head to head against better players using some of the strategies they try. But maybe he isn’t even saying he would try some of the strategies they try. But if he isn’t saying that then what is he saying in a strategic context?

You said:

“….The Old Course, has very few of its' principles and strategies copied in the modern era.”

That seems to be so true. Not just in the modern era, it seems to me that many of the strategies of TOC were never that much emulated, not even in the Golden Age. As long as I’ve been interested in architecture I can’t completely figure out why that was although I do have some good ideas. Even architects like Hunter, and others said as fascinating as TOC is and the fact it’s called “golf architecture’s prototype” it never really was architecturally emulated in many ways. I certainly think it’s fairway widths and fascinating hazard features within that fairway width was never really done again to that extent. The reasons why are many and most interesting, in my opinion. And the basic make-up and structures of probably many to most of TOC’s greens never really were that much emulated in many ways again either. Some of the reasons why it was that way obviously had to do with its antiquity, basically preceding man designed and man-made golf architecture.

Shivas

I agree with your overall sentiment, but I have a question.

Is there any chance that your "half a nano-second" decision on the tee of a hole might change simply by your state of mind (ie. the actual playing conditions are identicle but you may be playing poorly or hitting or driver off line or maybe it is a tournament). If any of these situations affect your choice, is that considered a strategic decision?

Jim

A couple of points:

1) As this is an architecture discussion group, I can definitely see why Dave M returns to this topic frequently. There is most definitely an overriding sentiment, it seems to me, that bogey golfers or high handicappers needn't think at all, other than maybe a short prayer to keep the ball in play. Actually, on too many of today's courses, that is probably true, but that is an issue for another thread. But, simply because you struggle to execute, doesn't mean you shouldn't actually think and plan on a golf course. I try to do it all the time - and believe me, lately I have been just trying to get the ball in the air and in play, sadly (fortunately it wasn't always this way and it won't be next year, I'm determined) - and it not only helps my score, it makes the game more fun. Thomas said it best - strategy is the soul of the game. When modern courses emphasize lush rough, water hazards, and fast but soft greens, there really isn't much reason left for thought or planning. But maybe that just means there needs to be adjustments on the design or maintenance end, and I think that is an underlying motive for Dave's threads. If anyone really wishes to be bored silly for a few hours, I would be more than happy to tell you I, as a high handicapper, "strategize" my way around my home course - you might call it manage, but I'd disagree - but I will spare you all that torment unless you want to sit down over a few beers. Okay, a lot of beers. (emoticon left out for Dave)

2) Shivas - I think Dave is precisely trying to identify the common elements among the handful of holes that do in fact require more than a nanosecond's reflection. I don't think he's looking for anyone to be paralysed with indecision on every tee, he'd just like more holes that require at least a few seconds thought. Also, just because the decision may appear obvious for any given player under specific conditions, the game is in fact comprised of many different players and ever changing conditions, hence the "need" for courses with multiple options. When too many dismiss strategy as something that only requires a nanosecond of thought, I believe the end result is we get a bunch of mindless courses where hazards are out of play, rough and water is used to make things tougher, not more interesting, and green speeds go through the roof for the same reason. Then the folks in charge have to keep things ultra soft to make courses playable, and we're back to boring, might as well head to the range-type golf.

My own personal preference would be to actually follow the lead of St Andrews - not just to pay lip service to it - and allow width, "random" bunkering, lack of definition, interesting greens and firm and fast conditions provide us with an entertaining experience each time out. But the prevailing wisdom seems to be to let golfers "see" everything, give them a road map, if you will, and rely on the other wonderful elements of golf (the social elements and the occasional purely struck wonder) to carry us along.

That's probably why I found The Rawls Course to be so much more fun than Black Mesa. Both have multiple options, true, but the width, playabilty and lack of definition at TRC made it much more interesting to me than the relatively obvious choices I was presented with at BM.

"I've shared the theory here before that the single most destructive force in history to the golfer's psyche is not the yips or the shanks or a lost ball or coughing in the backswing or any of that shit."

"It's the calligraphy pen.  The second the golfer knows that his name is sitting on a scoreboard in calligraphy, everything changes! Some guys fold. Some bear down and play better.  But everything changes."

shivas,

I know one much more destructive- deluding yourself that you don't give a shit- giving yourself a pass in advance for a negative outcome that will most likely be fulfilled.

Personally, I like to hear my opponents bitch about handicaps, how they got drunk the night before, that they've been snapping it for months, or haven't played for weeks.  It gets even better when they start trying to "feather" shots into the wind and hit Sevies from deep in the woods.

Over-thinking (imagining shots beyond one's ability to perform) could very well be high on the top ten list of why some high handicap golfers don't progress.  Lack of physical ability may also be on the list, but somewhat lower.  

"This goes to TEP's theory (which I wholeheartedly agree with) that there is golf and then there is tournament golf."

Shivas:

Hey, I'll take credit for that theory if you want to give it to me but the truth is that theory was probably developed by this wonker from somewhere down south I heard about one time by the name of Richard (Dick) Jones. Or was his name Robert (Bobby) Jones?  

 

shivas.. i think you've captured something good there.. reality strikes, but few see the best fun in the game..

 

of course everyone has their "majors"