On a recent topic discussing if Fazio disparaged the "Golden Age" architecture in his recent book, Mark Fine mentioned that even Tillinghast implied that golf architectural strategies may not apply to golfers who don't have the golf skills to use or apply them.
Furthermore, Mark Fine may have stated or implied in the past that a vast majority of golfers (maybe in the 90th percentile) either don't have the skills, don't really care or maybe aren't really even aware of the subject of strategy at all. He may have even implied that Fazio is aware of that and designs courses primarily for other reasons that might even minimize strategy. I must say I haven't noticed that!
Mark Fine may have an excellent point there! A large amount of people at my own club seemed unaware, uncaring or dismissive of the need or use of strategy on our golf course when I tried to mention the ramifications of it to them.
So are the strategies we talk about all the time on here for only a very small percentage of golfers?
I do recall a few of the great writers and designers of the past mentioning that there is no reason to put bunkers and such in odd places because golfers who constantly hit their ball in odd places have brought enough of their own problems to the course and the designer really doesn't need to add to their problems. Is this an implication of an architect only designing for the good player?
So are there any or other strategies or other kinds of them for the vast 90% or so who don't seem to notice, care or play classic golf architectural strategies? Or does it really matter?
The architectural placement of various tees would seem to be about the only major strategic consideration given to that 90% or so. What other strategic considerations are there for them?
How about the greens? It would seem that many more at least have the interest and ability to notice, play and enjoy the clever strategies of a really good green? That area certainly doesn't require strength and the green is indeed the "pay-off" area.
Everybody can sink a really complicated chip or putt now and then but not everybody can hit the ball 250yds across a good cape carry. Are there any designers who have talked about how to include the less capable golfer into the world of architectural strategy?
Again, Mark Fine might even be implying that Tom Fazio might be implying that strategic considerations are minor today compared to other architectural considerations. I'm not that familiar with many Fazio courses but a few of the ones I've played have some good strategies on a number of holes--certainly a course like Galloway does.
We talk about options, risk/reward, angles to approach from, distance choices etc, etc. But what other kinds of strategies have we seen on good golf courses for those who don't have a good game or a big game? Pitching, chipping, putting? How many architects think these areas through strategically for the golfer who doesn't have much else to work with? Is it worth it to try to convince the hacker that really good strategies are important although they may come into play for him with only one or two shots a year?
Is basic course managment of any kind some form of strategy? Even for a hacker could an architect create strategies just through the creation of extemely random features?
Might real width and randomness be the key? Is this another reason why TOC has been so special for so many over the years?