When do strategies become unfair?

[Mike_Young]

If one was to view golf strategy as a Task and was to list the Resources available to accomplish the task there would be several that have been used over the years.  I think they they consist of:
1. horizontal Angles and width
2. Verticality around greens
3. slopes of fairways and greens
4. height of cut whether it be greens or rough or fairways
After reading the post on Drivers/3woods I was thinking:
The older "ground game " courses had a much broader line between a good shot and bad shot in their strategies due to the resources mentioned above.  For example a drive was shorter requiring a lower flying approach, rollng further on a sloped surface  to a firmer surface cut a a higher height thus allowing less roll on the green.  
Yet we mention courses such as EL being brought to modern standards via green slope accomodation for higer stimps etc.
It seems to me that the biggest change in golf design came about when JN brought in the theory  of hitting the approach a specific distance to the pin and before most architects had used the theory of keeping the ball between you and the hole, which often meant not hitting to the pin in order to keep the shot below the hole.
So, would it not be fair, in today's game, to make the line between good shot and bad much finer using the same old updated strategies?  Example: if one flies a green sloped back to front with new equipment should we keep the old slopes and have him accept an "unfair" recovery due to new green speeds.  Should closer mowed chipping areas retain the old verticality and allow the ball to run further from the "short side".  Personally, I think these things can make the game where it can be played with modern equipment and still maintain the difficulty of a "ground game" course but many would call this unfair.  Am I off base?
Mike

[Sean_A]

Mike

On the pro level, which is what I think you are refering to, I don't think any strategy is unfair.  For some reason some tour players have it in their heads that it is their right to have a course set up to their liking.  Often times set ups are heavily criticised.  Carnasty, The Master's greens and the short par 3 (7th?) at Shinny come immediately to mind.  I don't think any of these situations were unfair.  In fact, these set ups have produced some of the most compelling tv golf I have ever seen.  

Every major has its own way of dealing with the pros.  Sometimes the scores are absurdly low, sometimes they seem terribly high.  What matters is if golf fans can be entertained.  Everything else is secondary.  In truth, I think the majors as a set, generally do a great job of entertaining.  Sure, there is the odd dud and this is usually The PGA.  This is because The PGA is too similar to the US Open.  I would like it to be match play and on courses that are strictly public-preferrably shortish courses that offer risk taking.  

Ciao

Sean

[ForkaB]

Sorry to be pedantic, Mike, but what actually do you mean when you say:

"If one was to view golf strategy as a Task....."

Whose task?  Whose strategy?  Etc.

[BCrosby]

Mike -

I agree. I think.

The game Nicklaus played was revolutionary in the sense that he hit it so high, so far and so accurately that he played everything point to point as the crow flies. That is what Jones was saying with his "He [Nicklaus] plays a game with which I am unfamiliar." It's no accident that JN was one of the first to use yardage books.

Now all the pros play that way.

So yes, set up courses that make that aerial game more challenging. Keep the old contouring but use modern green speeds. If every flag is approached with a high soft shot, make wrong side misses extremely difficult to recover from.

The problem is that those greens speeds on classically contoured greens are virtually unplayable for the average golfer.

Bob  

 

[Brent Hutto]

Interesting. This weekend I was talking to a local club pro who's a good player. He said that with modern green speeds and the borderline hole locations that are used in big tournaments, the challenge for top-level players is having to know when to aim away from the flag and when to aim right at it.

I believe his idea was that the way to confound a elite modern player is by combining firm greens, fast greens and hole locations on edges or near internal fall lines to make him get away from the high aerial shot that lands pin high a couple yards to either side (nowadays all good players have had that shot all their lives) and return to a strategy of keeping the ball on the safe side of the hole. That may not be "below the hole" on modern greens but it is possible to make the smart play be 20 feet in some direction from the hole.

As I see it the only drawback to this is the fundamental dependency on very, very firm greens. You can set up a course that will force the player to aim away from the pin on the majority of holes and thereby resist low scores but add a little rain or other factor that softens the greens just a little and suddenly the best players are wedging it close hole after hole and it becomes a contest of who can sink the most eight foot birdie putts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

After watching Ran Morrissett play Sand Hills with Hickories, circa 1919 or 1929, it confirmed my belief that the ground game is vastly overestimated and overrated by modern day golfers.

The Hickory irons and woods he played with had but one primary intent, to get the ball airborne.

I don't think that strategies ever become unfair.

I do think that conditions of play can become unfair, such as locating the hole on a steep slope, but, in a match play setting, I don't think there is anything that can be deemed unfair when it comes to strategic presentations.

[John Goodman]

Mike, your thread puts me in mind of the 5th hole at Cuscowilla.  I played the course for the first time over the weekend, as part of a group of 20 guys from my law firm.  (We actually had a little Ryder Cup-type competition, "The Thrilla at Cuscowilla," with the partners against the associates.  "Dentures vs. Diapers," great fun.)

Anyway, the pin on 5 was cut at the "back" of the green (the point nearest your walk to 6 tee).  The effective landing spot to get the ball close to the hole with the pin there can't be much more than about 10'X10'.  I watched eight guys play the hole (my group plus the one ahead), and just about everybody went at that pin anyway, everybody who did  failed to get the ball to the right spot.  Shots got shrugged off in all directions; and in my group only one guy managed to get it up and down.  It was pretty apparent that the play was to hit the approach to the fatter part of the green, maybe 20 feet below the hole; but with a wedge in hand no one could make himself do it.  

Of the guys I've talked to about the hole, most haven't figured out that they were "had" by C&C; they just thought that the pin position was "unfair."  Score one for the archie, is what I say.        

[Mike_Young]

Sorry to be pedantic, Mike, but what actually do you mean when you say:

"If one was to view golf strategy as a Task....."

Whose task?  Whose strategy?  Etc.

Rich,
What I was trying to do was relate Project management terms where one has a task that is accomplished by using resources.  An architect might choose the different resources to accomplish the strategy.  Sorry I am not more of a wordsmith.  Hope that makes sense.
Mike

[Ian Andrew]

Mike,

I don't think any strategy can be truly called unfair, since strategy implies an option (or at least it does to me).

...but if the challenge of the hole is well beyond a players ability, they will likely choose never to return. It's not that the strategy is unfair, or the course is unfair, but rather there is no fun or enjoyment in that experience.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Mike

Now I comprende.  

IMO, unfairness is when there is a shot which demands extreme precision to get to position A (as well as the risk of going to position F if you fail to execute), but there are not alternatives routes to get to positon B (i.e. a place from which you can reasonably expect to get a par).

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
I agree...just saying that there should be more penalty today for "pin hunters" that take the wrong option.  I don't suggest making the overall strategy more difficult for the average player.  Of course that would also depend on the everyday set-up of the course.

[JohnV]

I believe his idea was that the way to confound a elite modern player is by combining firm greens, fast greens and hole locations on edges or near internal fall lines to make him get away from the high aerial shot that lands pin high a couple yards to either side (nowadays all good players have had that shot all their lives) and return to a strategy of keeping the ball on the safe side of the hole.

Isn't being aware of the  internal fall lines and the way the holes are located near them the key to playing Augusta well in the Masters?  It seems that greens with more interesting contours such as Augusta's along with firmness are the best way to challange today's players.  A green that is just steep back-to-front is easy because all the players have to do is keep it below the hole.  But putting a hole location in a place where a miss to one side might cause the ball to roll away 30 or 40 feet and where missing by a little too much to the "safe" side will cause similar problems is better.  That is also what makes Pinehurst so good.

[Brent Hutto]

John,

That's exactly what I took my friend's comments to mean. There are many courses where tournaments are contested that don't have Augusta National or Pinehurst #2 type contours so the hole locations are usually tucked extremely close to edges and bunkers and so forth. But one way or another firmness and green speed lets a course challenge good players away from the aerial bombardment that they have down pat.

If that's truly the way to challenge the modern player then it seems to me one measure of the superiority of those courses is the ability to provide the challenge without having to put the pins in silly places. I can't think of one right off but there's probably a hole or two at Augusta National where the middle of the green is a tough spot (assuming firm conditions).

[TEPaul]

MikeY:

I agree completely with what you're suggesting (if I'm understanding it correctly). Sounds to me like you're simply suggesting some maintenance practices and set-ups that are far tougher, and for everyone, and you're just asking if we think that's unfair.

Like Pat said, I don't have a problem with that, particularly in match play (which the vast majority of golf is) and by that I include everyone---eg every level of golfer.

When you start to do things like that I believe you simply up the "thinking" factor dramatically. In other words, what should basically be rewarded more in golf and architecture, a really well struck shot that was not thought out well or a shot that was well thought out and perhaps not so well executed? I believe the latter should be more rewarded simply because it was more intelligently thought out (in a sense this is the tortoise and hare analogy).

The only few things I call "unfair" in golf is 1/ If a putt goes up the hill to a hole, gets there and inevitably comes right back to you, or 2/ If the perfectly thought out and executed approach shot doesn't have a chance of holding a green, like about 3/4 of the L-wedges at Shinnecock's #10 in the Open.  

There will be some who say this kind of thing will make rounds 15 minutes or a half hour longer. I say f...that thought because the fun, interest and challenge of having to so much more "THINK" your way around a course with that type of set-up is definitely worth the additional time it takes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

The short version of your post is "Should we contour greens like the old days to defend par at the green."

The short answer is probably no.  I agree with Pat Mucci - I don't think JN introduced the aerial game, I think with his skill, he just refined it and executed it better than anyone else.  Good players were trying to do what he did long before, but his strength allowed him to do it better.

I also wonder about the premise of longer green turf helping stop roll.  Frankly, I think new balls and equipment more than make up for that in extra spin and its probably easier to stop shots now than before, which would suggest limiting front to back slope.  For that matter, downhill putts on fast greens at about 2% are probably scarier now than downhill putts at 6% in the old days.  So, it all evens out.

My experience is that greens sloping upwards at 1.33% or more will stop a long iron for most players.  Putting in too much slope merely creates a situation where the Pros try to hit a lower spin shot.  In that sense, there may be more chance to go past the pin, but they would probably adjust somehow, perhaps putting tee shot strategy of playing to the side that opens the front of the green back in play more.

Distance control is so good at the Tour level now, and so poor at other levels, that "punishing" a long hit by a good player would probably create 4X problems, as well as be experienced 4X as many times by the rest of us.  I usually try to accomplish what you are talking about on one (maybe two) pin positions per green using ridges or contour spikes encroaching from the edge of the green.  Should a player come up short, that ridge will kick his ball back or shoot it forward.  That may encourage some to play pin high, but towards the middle of the green, which would usually leave a mid length putt, so that their birdie chances go down dramatically.

I still think the total slope at a cup location can be near 3%, and not the sub 2% some guys use nowadays, so I guess I do like your theory somewhat.  (BTW, the Masters and US Opens use a max cup location of about 4% on very fast greens.  And, while they are faster than normal greens, they are also aimed at better than normal putters for one week only, so I think the 3% max is a good compromise)

But, as Colt said, "No putt should run from the putter blade like a swine posessed by the devil."  While I have been contouring my greens greatly as a few can attest, I have not found that golfers like them, and have reverted to flatter greens in current designs.

[TEPaul]

"Mike,
The short version of your post is "Should we contour greens like the old days to defend par at the green."

JeffB:

Is that what this is about in an architectural context? If so, and it has anything to do with JN, I'd point you to the new Sebonack. One may never know which of those greens are from Nicklaus and his company or Doak and his company as to how contoured most of them are but the point is for a new golf course some of them are every bit as contoured as any old golf course I ever saw! So I guess neither JackN nor TomD think this kind of thing is unfair. Personally, I'd like to see that course set up really firm and fast "through the green', with firm greens and speeds between 10-11 to see exactly how that plays out on that golf course. My bet is it may stretch even excellent strategic thinking to near the breaking point, but I only looked at it, and it can be hard to tell from just that. Experience tells me, though, that that one would really test this theory of MikeY's.  

[Brent Hutto]

The short answer is probably no.  I agree with Pat Mucci - I don't think JN introduced the aerial game, I think with his skill, he just refined it and executed it better than anyone else.  Good players were trying to do what he did long before, but his strength allowed him to do it better.

I agree completely with this statement. The ability to hit the ball long, high, straight and soft-landing with nigh-perfect distance control is a useful, desirable and commendable ability for any golfer in any era. That's not saying other talents should not also be rewarded (surely noone says that this year's Open Championship was less than thrilling because the players had to knock the ball down and occasionally bounce it in to the target?) but "Far and Sure" combined with "High and Spinning" is a shot that everyone wants in their bag if their goal is to win tournaments.

[JohnV]

I agree with Pat Mucci - I don't think JN introduced the aerial game, I think with his skill, he just refined it and executed it better than anyone else.  Good players were trying to do what he did long before, but his strength allowed him to do it better.

I just read H.N. Wethered's book The Perfect Golfer and in it he talks about players like his son Roger and Clive Tolley trying to hit the ball as far as they could (he called it "slogging" rather than "flogging" as some do today) and then trying to hit high soft shots over bunkers rather than worrying about using strategy to hit the right part of the fairway.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I hope I got Mikes point right!  And I hope I got my answer right.  I should have put a "qualified" no on my post. Certainly, there is no one way to design anything, and a select few upper end courses can always be designed to be very exacting tests of golf.

[BCrosby]

Nicklaus didn't introduce the aerial game. The aerial game has been around since time immemorial.

What is different now is that the ground game has disappeared. There was at one time a non-trivial number of golfers that hit a low ball. Playing golf that way was once quite common.

Travis was famous for hitting nothing higher than 6 feet off the ground. Vardon was unlike the other members of the triumverate because he hit a high ball. Runyan, Light Horse, Dickinson all hit nothing but punch shots. Hogan played it on the ground when he wanted. He talked about hitting low running shots to back pins, high soft shots to front pins. Watch the Jones instruction shorts. No world class player today hits a driver as low as he did. But he was known as a high ball hitter in his era.

What Nicklaus did was drive (literally and figuratively) the ground game out of existence. He proved that if you can generate enough swing speed with a modicum of control, your high ball will beat a lower speed low ball player all day long. That's the core lesson JN taught the Tour. And he shoved it right down their throats.

The low ball tool kit is never used now. If there was a time when fronting bunkers actually had a bearing on the route a player (even a very good player) took to the pin, its over now. The way golf is played today is different from the way it was played, say, pre-1960. There is less variety.

One of Mike Young's points is that even now - 50 years on - golf architecture still hasn't come to terms with what Nicklaus did to the game. I think Mike is right.  

Bob

[Brent Hutto]

So in a sense, Nicklaus's showed that the game as played at its highest levels was less varied and interesting than people had previously believed it to be. It's a variation on the old guy with a sword versus guy with a gun gag. All the fancy swordplay and impressive technique and musculature in the world is trumped by a scrawny guy standing out of arm's reach of the swordsman and pointing a revolver.

It's a funny bit the first time you see it but eventually Errol Flynn and Zorro get replaced by Lethal Weapon and there's not much show business there any more, just blood and loud bangs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Nicklaus didn't introduce the aerial game. The aerial game has been around since time immemorial.

What is different now is that the ground game has disappeared. There was at one time a non-trivial number of golfers that hit a low ball. Playing golf that way was once quite common.

You can't discount the impact of irrigation systems when discussing the diminishment of the aerial game.

Prior to automated irrigation systems playing a draw or low draw produced additional distance.

Wet or damp fairways changed that method of play more than Nicklaus's high fades.[/color]

Travis was famous for hitting nothing higher than 6 feet off the ground.

That's more myth than reality.
With gravity exerting a pull on objects equal to 32 feet per second, per second, a ball hit 6 feet off the ground, no matter what its velocity would hit the ground in 1/5 th of a second, and at the velocities the ball was hit circa 1900-1920 it wouldn't have gone very far.[/color]

Vardon was unlike the other members of the triumverate because he hit a high ball. Runyan, Light Horse, Dickinson all hit nothing but punch shots. Hogan played it on the ground when he wanted. He talked about hitting low running shots to back pins, high soft shots to front pins. Watch the Jones instruction shorts. No world class player today hits a driver as low as he did.

Hard, or very hard putting surfaces required golfers to hit short of the hole, allowing for run up.  All of the golfers you mentioned carried the ball great distances, relative to their time.  Hogan's fade was not a running shot.[/color]

But he was known as a high ball hitter in his era.
He was also considered a long ball hitter.[/color]

What Nicklaus did was drive (literally and figuratively) the ground game out of existence. He proved that if you can generate enough swing speed with a modicum of control, your high ball will beat a lower speed low ball player all day long. That's the core lesson JN taught the Tour. And he shoved it right down their throats.

I don't think that was the lesson Nicklaus taught the tour.

What Hogan may have started, Nicklaus reaffirmed and perfected.

His chief rivals, Palmer and Player hit a draw or hook, as did most of the tour players of their day.

Nicklaus and automated irrigation systems came into their own at about the same time.

Nicklaus hit a high, controlled fade.   A ball that stopped well, whether it was a wedge or a 2-iron, thus he could attack pins more aggressively, irrespective of their firmness.

As fairways became more watered it doomed the low draw.
Long ball hitters had to maximize carry in order to gain distance and again, Nicklaus and automated irrigation systems arrived at about the same time, as did TV.

And, what did people want to see on color TV ?  nice green grass.
Not brownish, yellowish grass, but deep green grass.
And, how do you get grass that color ?  You water it.
Water then makes the fairways soft which eats up the low, running ball.  Hence, it's AIRBORNE all the way. [/color]

The low ball tool kit is never used now. If there was a time when fronting bunkers actually had a bearing on the route a player (even a very good player) took to the pin, its over now. The way golf is played today is different from the way it was played, say, pre-1960. There is less variety.
I'd agree, and I might even extend the date to 1970.

I think automated irrigation systems, Color TV and Nicklaus combined to form the perfect storm that resulted in the erosion and annihilation of the ground game[/color]

One of Mike Young's points is that even now - 50 years on - golf architecture still hasn't come to terms with what Nicklaus did to the game. I think Mike is right.  

Automated irrigation systems, TV and Nicklaus are the influences.   Nicklaus, without the other two would just be an aberation.[/color]

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,Brent,Bob,
Sorry if I was misunderstood(I've always been misunderstood) but I did not say JN introduced the aerial game or at least I did not mean to sound that way.  I was speaking of his architectural style.  B4 JN many of the courses around were basically greens falling from back to front with internal features determining pins etc.  Because of this feature it was important to keep the ball below the hole and thus the approach did not need to be the exact distance to the pin.  When JN cam along he used more diagonals and in order to accomodate the modern green speeds kept flatter pin locations which in many cases used ridges to change from one elevation to another where before it was just a gradual descent.  IMHO JN felt that if a good player could strike the ball the correct distance then the putt should be relatively flat.  Where on an "ols style" green one might have a better putt 20 feet below the hole than 4 feet to one side or the other when pin high.
JMO.
Mike