Is Strategy Obsolete?

[Tom Doak]

Mike Hendren asked this on the Oakland Hills thread, but it was lost in the discussion of consulting architects.

For the Tour pros today, I believe strategy is indeed very close to obsolete.  For a par-4 or par-5 hole to be really strategic, there has to be a REWARD for proper positioning, and not just a penalty for errant driving.

But it's very difficult to make one angle of attack easier than another, if the greens are soft and flattish (so they can be 12 on the Stimpmeter), and the boys are hitting nothing but nine-irons into them.  A Tour pro can stick a nine-iron inside a 15-foot circle most of the time, and you do have to cut the hole on the green.

The only time there's any strategy left is when the conditions get so firm and fast that the players can't stick it where they want, or when there is so much wind that the players can't hit their short irons with precision.  

I used to think there was also strategy on any course with severe greens where you can't afford to be above the hole, but if Augusta National and Oakland Hills are "too easy" now, I guess that's out the window.

I'm not really designing courses for that 1% of players, so I'll keep doing what I'm doing and pray for wind, I guess.  But is this what it's come to?

[Bruceski]

Agreed. For the Tour pros, there's very little strategy. It's all club selection, reading putts, and execution.

[Dan Grossman]

I was thinking about this the other day after I played Talking Stick (North).  I think there are very few people that would argue that the course isn't strategic (preferred approach angles, etc.).  However, the day we played it, the course was not firm and fast and much of the strategy was lost.  You could hit it to the wrong side of the fairway and still hold the green.  Had the course been playing hard and fast, it would have been a different story.  

Since the US Pros usually only play in England/Scotland once a year (where it is usually hard and fast), strategy is probably obsolete for them.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I really think we're talking about more like .01% percent, but there is no question that technology is the main culprit, and sooner or later left unchecked, that number will rise precipitously and calamitously over time.

However, course conditioning is almost as big a factor, as you alluded to with your mention of soft, flattish greens.  I'd also throw in the fact that bunkers are rarely maintained as hazards at that level of play, and are most often much more of a preferable location than surrounding rough!  

When you consider that bunkers have historically been the primary features that architects have used to outline and dictate strategy, the overall negative impact of this change is HUGE.

Somewhat sadly, Pete Dye has it mostly right for golfer's at that level, when he uses water as a hazard so frequently in response.  Because of the certainty of that penalty, it's mostly the risk/reward "water holes" that have tour players "thinking" these days.  Just examine the play at the last hole in the PGA at Atlanta last year, or what we still see on the back nine at the Masters most years.  

If bunkers were maintained in a rugged, natural fashion, where there was just as much chance of taking a double bogey as saving par for the best players, we'd quickly see the pendulum swinging towards more strategic thinking.  Ain't gonna happen, but it's part of the answer.

I'm sure others will weigh in with "firm and fast" answers relating to maintenance, as well, so I'll leave that argument to them.

[Markep]

Tom, I agree that given the current status of golf course design, maintenance practices and golf equipment, it is very difficult to see professional golf as anything more than a skills competition; the role of strategy has been greatly reduced at the tour-pro level.

I certainly don't see any easy answers to the issue of re-vitalizing the element of strategy. If it is deemed to be of crucial importance to the game's interest, perhaps some "out of the box" thinking needs to be done, either in the design area, or even perhaps in the rules of the pro game.

For example (this is way off the top of my head, so please forgive the whackiness) , what if pros could only use 6 clubs instead of 14 ? Their daily club selection would be a key decision, and depending on what clubs were in their bag, they would definitely have to vary their strategies. Then, if you design a course to be strategic for the 99% with 14 clubs, when the other 1% played with 6 clubs, they too would be faced with some interesting strategic decisions.

Another whacky idea - use 2 pins on some of the greens. One of the pins would be the "normal" pin, and would be worth the normal score, the other would be the "tough" pin and would be subject to no restrictions on placement, as long as it were on the green; it would also carry some scoring advantage. The golfer would need to declare in advance of the hole which pin he were playing to. This would allow architects to design greens with some truly torturous pin placements, but this would offer a strategy option for a golfer trying to make up shots in a hurry.

Crazy, I know, but something along these lines could help to put strategy back in it's rightful place. A computer game designer whose name escapes me once commented that what makes a game interesting is to make sure that the players have interesting choices to make at as many opportunities as possible.

[Mike Benham]

For the pros, on traditional courses (broad term) the fairway bunkers are not obstacles because they do not come into play ... they routinely blow over them.  For someone like myself, even with the modern technology, I still find that those fairway bunkers are perfectly placed to catch one of my slightly offline tee balls (don't ask me why I always find the lone fairway bunker at Olympic Lake ...).

Trees ,whether singular (old Pebble 18th green, old Pebble 15th tee, etc.) , or mass forests (Sahalee, Harbour Town) play more for strategy than fairway bunker placement.

As for the greens, we hear constantly about being on the "right" side of hole, or "below" the hole, and you never want to be on the "wrong" side of the hole, that the strategy is more based on where the ball needs to land so that it can take one bounce and stop.

I always wondered what would happen to the scores if they just put the hole in the dead center for all 18 greens ... maybe it would be so easy that it would be hard ...

[Henry_W]

Who was it that said, 'once you've got pros thinking (ie strategic positioning and thinking), then you've got them'?  Doubt enters into the equation.  Isn't this one of the chief values of strategy?

[Willie_Dow]

Pin placements, and greens:
Unfortunately, TV and players are obsessed with coverage of the above!
Once we get them to include through the green, the true coverage of the game will evolve!
Willie

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Tom this is the challenge of the decade ahead. How does onebuild a stategic course that maintains the same elements for the championship golfer. Most of my shots at Rees Jones involve this exact issue. Oddly enough I do believe it is large landing area with more unpredictable fairways bunkers or similar hazzards combined with smaller undulating greens, miuch like Oakland Hills, with difinite angles of entry. The 5 to 30 handicaper has run ups and ways to play the hole. the green complexes have to have enough character to give one 4 strong pin placements which put a premium on shot placement. Lastly we have to get over this course being a failure if par is broken. The scots only keep score for matches. Just play the hole and do not worry what he scores. Let the course reward the man/woman who has the best control of their game and emotions and the shots to address what defenses the course has to offer. Or should i say let the man/woman who survives in the case of Carnouste. lol

[mike_beene]

as odd as it sounds,Muirfield had more risk-reward than the other major setups because there was the constant trade-off of how far back a conservative tee shot would be vs the need to get a shorter approach,especially when the weather was good and therefor a need to get under par to keep up exsisted.

[TEPaul]

Strategy is definitely not obsolete and it's not lost, not even for that .01% although it certainly may not appear in the same ways as it did fifty plus years ago--and obviously that has much to do with the distances that .01% are hitting the ball today with all their clubs (not just the driver).

But that strategy can be brought back to those courses even if the clubs used may not be the same ones used fifty plus years ago.

The obvious way to do that (even with the older architecture) is to start to dial down on the effectiveness and consequently the reliance on the aerial option that many of that .01% has come to expect and relie on! How to do that has already been mentioned to some extent on this thread alone.

Firm up green surfaces (not necessarily green speeds but green firmness) on these courses and that .01% cannot then control their aerial shots the way they've come to expect!! And if they can't control those aerial shots they way they've  come to expect, what are they going to do about it?

It's completely obvious what they're going to do! They're going to look for other options and other ways to play shots where they want them as effectively or more so than that dialed down effectiveness of their aerial shots! Obviously one of those ways is the ground game or some compromise form of it!

What Mike Cirba said about bunkering is also completely true. The strategic function and strategic effectiveness of bunkering generally, the architecture of much of it in the modern age, and certainly the maintenance of much of it with super sand consistency has basically been gutted!

There's two ways to reenhance the strategic function of bunkering (probably architecture's primary strategic expression over the history of golf). One way is architecturally, the other is through maintenance (or lack of it).

We all know that the sand floors of bunkering will probably never be allowed in this day and age to be the cuppy, iffy, strategically effective situation with the  lack of maintenance it used to have so the other way to make bunkering strategically functional is architecturally.

If you hit the ball in a bunker the way to make that bunker strategically functional "architecturally" is pretty obvious! Just make that bunker "iffy" as to recoverability architecturally! That doesn't mean that you can't get out of it and recover totally, it only means that isn't guaranteed architecturally--maybe, maybe not, in other words. That "iffiness" architecturally, is going to get even that .01%'s attention real quick if their recoverability reliance starts to go down!

The same thing goes for firmness "through the green". If that .01% knows their ball is not going to end up where they land it they are forced to really start to read architecture and things like topography!

Greens are the same, if they're firm enough (very lightly "denting" not "pitch marking") those .01% are going to start to look for other ways to control their ball like contours in those greens to play the ball off of for both rollout and break with their approach shots just like they did at Southern Hills at the Open a few years ago.

Or look at some of those Australian courses in the last few years!! The greens were very firm, dialing down on the effectiveness of the aerial option, making other shots and option more used, useable and useful! Same with the real firmness on those courses "through the green". Firm that area up and the driver certainly could be used but at what risk? And the bunkering of some of those Australian (or European courses)!! The sand may have been consistent but the player ran the risk of getting his ball in one of them where the architecture of that bunker might prevent him from recovering as he'd like to! We saw plenty of the world's tour players hitting tops of bunkers and/or leaving it in them because they couldn't get enough height!

All these things can bring back strategies into real effectiveness, even though, again, the clubs being used may not be the same as they once were!

Much of this stuff, I'm calling the "ideal maintenance meld" which basically means taking all the available potential options and strategies the course can offer and "maintaining" it in such a way as no option has complete reliance over another in the mind of a golfer, even that .01%!

That's maintenace! But architects can do things architecturally as well that simply creates doubt in the minds of players, even that .01%. And in my opinion that's simply creating some "iffness" architecturally!

But do architects really have the guts to do that? I don't know, that would be their individual calls!

But that's the way to either return strategy to golf courses or create it!

I don't really think any of this is close to rocket science--but it is like a big jigsaw puzzle and all the pieces have to fit together properly--both maintenance and architecture!

And then of course, days will come when it will rain like hell and the course will naturally be a whole different equation where those .01% can go back briefly to total reliance on their aerial option and probably crucify the course score-wise!

So what? The course will dry out again, and if properly maintained it will be back to playing at it's optimum with all its architectural options maintained in such a way that no golfer can overly rely on one option or strategy over another.

That delicate balance or almost quandry as to what's most effective (or least risky) will be the inevitable return of strategy in golf and architecture--it's definitely not obsolete--just misunderstood because it really is such a big jigsaw puzzle--how maintenance needs to be to ideally "meld" into all any course's overall architectural possibilities of playability!

[kwl]

tom
after watching the am this weekend i must believe that you are correct. bill haas posting a 28 on the front of the south. mr. barnes hitting it 340 and stating that he has an advantage since he hits pw into most of the 4's.
speechless in detroit.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I agree completely eith the TE Paul book/brief. However i do not think anyone who has watched/played match play has not seen a golfer on any course get hot and run off a bunch of birdies. It is the nature of match play. Please do not run down Oakland Hills anymore I thought the Am was great.

[CHrisB]

Agree with everything so far, but here's the option I most want to see--UNDULATING FAIRWAYS!  

When was the last time you saw a touring pro, in the U.S., have to hit a shot from the fairway from a severe stance? They practice all day from a level lie and they play courses every week with level fairways.

But it's very difficult to make one angle of attack easier than another, if the greens are soft and flattish (so they can be 12 on the Stimpmeter), and the boys are hitting nothing but nine-irons into them.  A Tour pro can stick a nine-iron inside a 15-foot circle most of the time, and you do have to cut the hole on the green.

Yes, a Tour pro can dial it in all day long from a flat lie, but can he do it from a downhill-sidehill lie? Can he attack that front-right pin with the ball above his feet? Just watch how much trouble players get into after laying up at #15 at ANGC and having to control that shot from a downhill lie. Any strategy dictated by the greens (size, shape, firmness, speed, angles, etc.) is amplified if the fairways are sloped or undulating.

Consider the 14th at Pasatiempo--do you aim to the right, going for a flat lie but a more difficult angle, or do you play left for the better angle but take your chances with the stance you'll get?

Consider the 18th at Merion--do you lay back to the top of the hill for a flattish lie, or hit it farther and take your chances with the stance?

But I'm not talking just about gradual slopes like at #15 ANGC or #18 Merion; what I'd really like to see are truly rumpled fairways like you might find at Highlands Links, a few of the holes at Prairie Dunes, and many British courses. You could easily design holes where there is a flatter side or a rumpled side to play to (like Pasatiempo #14), or you could design holes where the fairway gets increasingly rumpled or sloped the closer you get to the green.

You can firm up and shrink the target all you want, but from a flat lie they'll still dial it in. Make them adjust their stance, ball position, and trajectory and they are forced to think about what they can and can't do.

[Matt Kardash]

it's sad...for a tour pro in ideal conditions there is no such thing as a difficult golf course...In the late 80's before the technology boom the pros banned PGA West from ever hosting a tournament(essentially becuase the course was too tough). If that course was played today by the pros under ideal conditions, they would shoot lights out(okay maybe not lights out, but you get the point)...It just shows just how far we have come in the past 15 years

just to prove how strategy is obsolete...would a tour pro ever use the contours of a redan to get the ball to the back left hole position? the answer is no..it's all about darts!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I don't know about Oakland Hills but Augusta still has never had a winner with four rounds in the 60's. I don't know if this fact is meaningful but it is some defense for fast and undulating.  

You stated....  "For a par-4 or par-5 hole to be really strategic, there has to be a REWARD for proper positioning, and not just a penalty for errant driving." ...and continued with..."But it's very difficult to make one angle of attack easier than another".

I'd like to see a hole where the penalty for the player would come from not taking the aggressive line.
Play safe off the tee and your next shot is so hard you might wish you were wearing Depends and your chances for par were no better than 50/50.
Take the aggressive line but miss... no better than a 50/50 chance for par/recovery.
Take the aggressive line but make... no more than a 50/50 chance for birdie.

This probably doesn't fit with strategy as known but neither do the players on Tour. I have a notion, quite possibly wrong, that Tiger Woods and the like were never expected by anyone, and not just from an outlook of length.

[Mark_Fine]

For the best players the answer is for the most part Yes!  I think it was about a year ago that Pat Mucci said it best.  He stated something along the lines of, "For the best players there is no such thing as a strategic golf hole with a variety of options.  They quickly figure out the best way to play it and the options and strategy disappear".  

I think the one variable that changes the validity of that statement is the weather!  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Matt Kardash:

You wonder if even a touring pro might have to think seriously about using the old traditional run-in shot on a redan instead of throwing a "dart" at a back left pin?

If you give Karl Olsen the proper weather and tell him Tiger & Co. is coming to town you can bet your ass he could make the course and that hole play so Woods and friends would think very seriously about playing that traditional run-in redan shot! And he could do it without in any way sending the course over the top for those guys!

How? Woods could try his moon shot fade over the redan bunker or a piece of it but would he really want to try that option? Maybe, but probably not! That's the point! If those tour pros just send some high missles over that redan bunker, they could do it but given the ideal maintenance meld for them the chances are they would be chipping back from off the low side of that green--or worse! I've seen that course setup in such a way that even a tour pro's "dart" will not work half as effectively as some form of redan shot!

But you never want to give any golfer, certainly not a tour pro, a clear indication of what will work best and what won't. That's what that ideal balance (or maintenance meld) is all about! Ultimately that ideal balance becomes a bit of a quandry. Anything might work but how well?

The only way to do that is to dial up the effectiveness of some options and dial down the effectiveness of others so everything becomes something less than completely reliable!

If you have complete reliabliltiy of any option (certainly like an aerial one today), like currency that's intrinsically more valuable than other currency (Gresham's Law) the intrinsically more valuable currency will never be used!

Same with strategic shot options, but in the converse! If you make one completely reliable, the others will never be used!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
What happens when it rains for two days before the tourney?
Mark

[angie]

i'm thinking that, for the pros, men - and women too more & more for that matter - golf is beginning to resemble tennis or 9-ball: few variables.  tees may be pushed back, but you're still hitting to astro-turf fairways (no side hill down hill lies as someone commented) and from there hitting darts to damp and flattish - fattish - greens: hole after hole after hole.  like tennis, few variables. there, the racquet is always the same, the court is always the same (well, on hardcourt surfaces anyhow, on which the vast majority of tournaments are played) and your opponent always plays the same - or 9 ball, again, same cue, same balls, same surface. football on the other hand, if played outdoors on grass has a chewed up field, not to mention that the very shape/design of the ball itself introduces a huge variable.  maybe the pros should have to play with elliptical golf balls?  or maybe more serious consideration should be given to maintenance meld (this is the best golf concept i've ever heard of, by the way - an idea whose time has come!) and shaggy bunkers and much "uglier" fairways. personally, i love to play tennis, and even to take a look at the us open for a few hours during its 2 week stint. but basically, it's not one of the "great" sports because by its very nature it's got too few variables. even old baseball, queen of the damned, has lots of variables: steroids, change ups, splitters, spitters.  maybe maintenance meld is the only way back to the garden for golf.  

[CHrisB]

Tom,
What happens when it rains for two days before the tourney?
Mark

Undulating fairways help overcome that problem as well (except on par 3's!).

We've all heard of courses tearing up and recontouring their greens. Has anyone ever heard of tearing up the fairways and recontouring them?

[Matt Kardash]

i know what you mean TEPaul, but i dunno..the pro's hit it to high and too far...i know, i hit the ball essentially as long as any of the longest tour pro..i played a game today..the hole was 373, and my drive plugged twenty yards in front of the green..there is no strategy to defend that!..today i hit a 7 iron 190 to a par 3...i play golf and i agree that it's ridiculous that i as well as lot of people can do that!..i don't know if i made any sense here, but i'm just saying if someone(like a pro) can hit it high and soft they don;t even have to consider strategy....tiger woods hits a 3 iron higher than most people on this board hit a wedge!..and it's the truth

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Doak- I haven't digested the entire post but I was wondering what would you do IF you were designing for that 1%?  How Would,Could,Should you incorporate strategy into a design for the best of the best? Wasn't that the intent of the stadium course, or was it just difficulty?

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I already mentioned in a post in this thread alone that when it rains like that before a tourney the whole strategic equation will change with shot choices and options, period, end of story!

That's completely obvious, particularly to the likes of tour pro golfers! There's no reason to get upset about it, depressed or in a give up mode either if you're a tournament committee!

When that weather change happens the aerial option and the complete reliability of it is back in spades to the tour pro and there's no reason why a tournament committee should fight that!

If a tourney committee really wanted to be headsup to that type of weather change and shot reliabiblity change (aerial option) that would be the ideal time to go to a pin set up that's really tucked, made intense and toughens things up to the aerial option.

That's the time to put a real premium on trajectory, distance control and accuracy for the super ball control aerial option! Sure a course might need the architecture to do that but that's what we talk about on here--some do, some don't!

[CHrisB]

Tom, Congrats on your 3000th post!