Testing strategy........

[Bob_Huntley]

Some years ago an ageing Scot invited me to play the Old Course under his rules. Two clubs only but nothing stronger than a five iron.

I chose the five and nine irons. We had a grand match and both of us were within a half a dozen strokes of our rounds with a full bag. Fortunately neither of us were in any really punitive bunkers. My question, does such a course prove the point that strategy can be achieved without humongous forced carries, water everywhere and and trees in the middle of fairways?

[Stan Dodd]

Bob , I think  it proves we carry to many clubs.
Me thinks we all tend to over strtegize when we play and think too much rather than just hitting it where we can hit it again.  I know I have  shot unexpected good scores in limited club tourneys.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

This is a very good thing to know and do, I think! It's far better for the less accomplished player though as it teaches some very important lessens in basic strategy and unnecessary risk taking!

It's a bit like the concept of playing golf without pins in the greens although the latter, I'm convinced, can make most golfers actually score better!!

[Tim Weiman]

Bob Huntley:

I think it proves that modern technology doesn't improve the game.

[Pete Lavallee]

Although no one can deny the pure challange of playing golf with one or two clubs, the DG has not answered Bob's question: "does such a course prove the point that stategy can be achieved without humongous forced carries, water everywhere and trees in the middle of the fairways?"

Almost anyone who has had some exposure to the Old Course for any length of time comes away richer for it. Whether it was MacKenzie during the year he surveyed it for his famous map, Ross during his apprenticeship under old Tom Morris, or Doak during his year as an exchange student. Many who have played it only once may not understand her charm, but with time her secrets are revealed to those patient enough to discover them. Possibly the greatest attribute of TOC is that she can't be outsmarted, because she is not the product of the human intellect. You are not matching wits with an architect, but nature herself. In that respect two of the best modern courses that I have had the pleasure to play embody this philosophy. They have no water in play, there are optional carries that can excite or be carefully avoided, and there is an absence of trees in the field of play: Pacific Dunes and Rustic Canyon. Both would provide the ideal venue for a one or two club challange.

[Eric Pevoto]

Pete L:

Max Behr said exactly what you've said concerning the hand of man vs. nature.  Reading his essays in Shackelford and Miller's book has been very eye opening.  I'd like to know where I could find more.

Bob:

Good question.  I'd agree that since the essence of strategy is options, certainly forced carries and trees in the fairway would limit options and thus limit strategy.  Its funny that carrying fewer clubs (fewer options) makes you look at options you might not otherwise see.  

[TEPaul]

Don't really know how many of those Behr articles are around but the number I've seen are truly fascinating!

Back then and probably today to really apply some of Behr's ideas and principles to golf architecture the one thing that is most necessary is width! The need for width to apply Behr's ideas is obviously one of the reasons he never advocated the use of rough in golf design!

But his thoughts are pretty cerebral although a logical man may very well validly claim that Behr's ideas in some areas of architecture might be nothing more than a "glass half empty or half full" concept!

That might be something one could say about his feeling of the use of "penalty" in golf with something like a bunker feature!

Behr might advocate putting a bunker right in the middle of a wide fairway to create maximum choices for the golfer (basically in front, over, or to either side of it)! He called that creating "lines of charm" by removing from the golfer the very place he might want to hit it (by putting the bunker there) and taking from the golfer as a choice what he called his "line of instinct".

But Behr actually looked at the bunker not as something that would make the golfer even think of "penalty" but as something that Behr thought might "stimulate the golfer's senses" to challenge it and succeed but only in the context of the golfer making his own unique descisions in that way and never actually at the obvious dictate of the architect. That was Behr's feeling about giving the golfer "freedom of expression" in his own particular play!

In that way Behr's ideas may have actually come as close to TOC in principle as anything else done or advocated in architecture!