[ed_getka]

I was reading Bob Harrison's interview and he refers to the Medalist GC as being a course for stronger players (handicap <10). He also mentions that on 400 acres of property there are 40 acres of tees, greens and fairways. I don't know anything about this course. So my question is whether the course is target golf or did they manage to squeeze some strategy in?

[Patrick_Mucci]

ed,

I understand that many changes have been made to the course over this summer.

But, from my personal experience, while there is some strategy involved, I would have to categorize the course as a target golf course.

[John_Conley]

Ed:

The influence from the great courses in Australia's sand belt is clear.  The course played very firm when I was there.  However, the site is a swampy, low-lying, and flat tract typical of Florida.  You'd never know Jupiter Hills was nearby.

Because of the necessity to serve two masters, the course can be very hard for an average golfer.  The back tee is very long, something like 7400 yards.  Perfect for Greg Norman or Nick Price when in town.  When played from a moderate "member-type" tee, drives of decent length can run through the landing areas and into marshy/swampy stuff.  (For me, some intermediate tee may have made it all workable.  It is definitely one to play several times before it all sinks in.)

My caddy wasn't very good in my eyes, and he'd probably say his golfer wasn't very good.  Characterizing it as a course for better players is accurate, but the snob appeal of such a course inevitably draws some players who may be overwhelmed by the severity.  I didn't like hitting a decent drive on the wrong half of the fairway and seeing it roll into stuff.

I don't think anyone could argue with me when I say it was not a good site to work with.  If they could have found something a little firmer I'm sure they would have used it.

[Ran Morrissett]

Ed,

The fairways are wide enough (40 yards plus)to where the better golfers place it on one side or the other based on certain hole locations. Plus, there are frequently places where you can/should miss the green to be left with an easy up and down. In those two senses, the course is strategic and a delight to play if you are a decent golfer.

However, when the wind howls, the course becomes a matter of survival and just hoping to hit the fairways and being near the greens. Scores for even the David Egers ratchet up quickly and on those days, the course comes across as far more penal than strategic.

I don't know what % of the days the afternoon winds blow to the point where it becomes un-fun (un-fun because there is no recovering from marshes) but my understanding is the vast majority of the mornings are a delight.

Unfortunately, Norman hasn't left well enough alone and a lot of Dye's interesting green contours have been snuffed out with time. Plus, as Pat notes, more changes have occured this past summer, so who knows what course we are talking about?

[John Morrissett]

Ed--

Excellent post.

After my first round there, I was convinced Medalist was target golf -- just keep it on the grass and you are OK.

Subsequent rounds have proven me wrong, as there is indeed much strategy to the course.  There are a number of holes that offer a preferred side of the fairway to play into the often angled greens.

The 5th is one of favorites: A dog-leg left around the marsh, with tons of room to the right (where it shares a stretch with the 6th fairway).  However, the green is angle from left to right in such a way that the player who hugs the marsh down the left side has a clear advantage, as he is now looking down the length of the somehwhat shallow green.  The 10th hole offers a mirror image arrangement.

Medalist is a bit like Pine Valley in that the penalty for missing the short grass is so extreme (although it looks worse than it is -- I've never lost a ball there except in the water, of which there is not as much as you might think)that you tend to overlook the strategy involved within the short grass.  Medalist is largely about angles, and angles lead to strategy.

[ed_getka]

Thanks for the input guys.

[ForkaB]

John

So you are saying that in "strategic" golf you have to hit some sort of "target," whereas in "target" golf you can hit it anywhere on the "fairway."

Am I the only one confused by this "logic"?

Please enlighten me.

Rich

[Mark_Fine]

I was about to say the same thing Rich.  Is "target" golf not "strategic"??  I consider The TPC @ Sawgrass very much target golf but also very strategic.  What am I missing?

By the way, I think Medalist is a very strategic course and you need to not only play well but think well to score well!  It has been softened much over the years.  Last I played it was spring 2000.

[John Morrissett]

Rich--

That's essentially it.

I consider a "target" course one where you simply try to hit the fairway and green, without necessarily trying to position your ball on a certain spot on either.  Often, this is due to the severe penalty on most sides for missing either the fairway or green.

To me, a "strategic" course is one where you think about where you want to play your shot to leave the best shot for the next one (and where playing from one side of the fairway makes a difference than playing from the other side).  For example, the 17th at TPC-Sawgrass is not a "strategic" hole -- you are just trying to hit the green.  The 12th at Augusta National is a penal one-shotter but also a strategic one as you have to think about what you want to do (and where you want to miss the green).

In summary: To me "target" golf requires little thought; "strategic" golf requires thought.

[ForkaB]

OK, John

A "strategic" hole is one where you choose a target to hit to on the green and then choose a target on the fairway which will best allow you to hit that green target, whereas a "target" hole is one where you have no target at all, off the tee or towards the green, except maybe the pin.

I'm still confused......

[John Morrissett]

Rich--

Let' see if I can put it more succinctly: In "target" golf, the architect chooses the target for the player; in "strategic" golf, it is up to the player to choose the target.

Buy that?

[Paul_Daley]

My undersatnding of the difference is:

Target/Penal Golf: regardless of the degree of error, the punishment for missing will be the same (whether it is one inch or twenty yards off line). Target golf reduces options, because the golfing examination is so clearly spelled out.

Strategic Golf: The golfer is allowed to make frequent errors, and will be penalised commensuratly to the degree of the error.
The bold, medium, and conservative line are all present and golfers of varying abilities are free to decide options.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran and John Morrissett,

I have to agree with John Conley,

When you're trying to kill a drive, just to clear the water, hitting it to the right side of the fairway isn't so easy for less than tour quality players, especially when the fairway bends one way or the other.  And,
as Ran says, if the wind blows, which it does in Florida, survival is a good word.

I would submit that some options exist, but primarily on the shorter holes.

I'm anxious to see what changes Greg has made.

P.S.  Ran, forty yards isn't very wide when you understand that at the end of that forty yards is swamp, not rough or playable ground.

[ed_getka]

Paul hit the nail on the head as to what I was referring to. When the possibility of recovery is taken away I find the game less enjoyable. When I take a risk and fail I prefer to have a chance to make a recovery rather than just take penalty strokes. As a 10 handicap I don't hit all the targets I aim at, thus I have a day job.

[Will E]

I too am a little confused as to how to tell the difference between a Strategic and Target golf course.
I guess from what I've read above a strategic course lets us pick our targets where a true target course only gives us one clear choice. Down the road from Medalist at Seminole we have a true straegic course in that we can choose places to hit our tee shots like on 6 and 15, these two holes play very different depending on the side of the fairway you come in from. Right?

What would you consdier the ultimate target and strategic courses?

With that in mind I would still consider Medalist a Strategic course. If the wind is howling I would consider it an Unplayable course. There are some holes that do not belong on such a windy site.
I need to get back here to see the change's that Greg has made. I left the course thinking that it's biggest assets were the green complexs. Some had a great Pinehurst #2 and Augusta feel to them. I hope that hasn't changed.
As far as cramming this course into the property, I did get a feel that they ran out of room when they got to #17. Other than that I thought the routing worked well and that the course was very strong. I wouldn't put in up with Dye and Nicklaus at Harbour Town, but I would say it is worth checking out.
For a Norman course that got squeezed check out the west nine at Tiburon in Naples.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shooter,

I would agree with you on Seminole, which can be punishing but not punitive.

If Norman had elected par 71, do you think
# 17 would have been a better hole ?

[John Morrissett]

Pat--

There is much less water in play at Medalist than I originally thought; it is quite possible to play a round with one ball.

More often than not, a missed fairway results in a chip/pitch back from sandy scrub, a result not too different than with most links courses in the British Isles.

Even from the back tees, it is realy not a matter of having to "bust it" to reach the fairway -- it is comfortable enough to allow you to think about the ideal place to drive the ball.

[Mark_Fine]

I don't buy the target vs. strategic golf arguements.  Pinehurst #2 could be considered a "target" golf course the way some are describing the term and it's clearly strategic.  If you don't hit your tee shot or your approach to the proper spot (proper target), you're dead or left with a very difficult next shot.  

I generally only find myself using the term "target" golf when course conditions are "soft".  If conditions are firm and fast, the term rarely if ever enters my mind.  Strategy or lack there of, doesn't enter into the equation.
Mark

[John Morrissett]

Mark--

I know what you are trying to say (and to some degree I agree with it, as form conditions make you think about where you want the ball to land, how the slopes will affect it, etc.).

However, that might be going a bit far, as you are essentially saying that whether a course is a "strategic" or "target" one is in the hands of the greenkeeper rather than the architect.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
As long as you know what I'm getting at, we probably don't need to beat this one to death.  
Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()