[John Kavanaugh]

I recently noticed that the only time that I aim for one side of a fairway or the other instead of just blasting down the middle is because of tree restrictions.  I don't care about green contours, bunkers or anything else when standing on a tee.  I'm just not accurate enough to concern myself with anything but finding the fairway.  Except when faced with a tree the fairway is just too sweet to pass up for a better angle.

[mike_malone]

 John,

   If you aren't deciding between one side of the fairway or the other it isn't strategy. Strategy is about choices. If you aren't concerned with what comes after that shot and only trying to avoid the trees it isn't strategy.

 Strategy is not dictated.

[John Kavanaugh]

You have the choice of aiming for one side of the fairway know that increases your odds of making the rough.  The player decides if he would rather hit out of the rough or over a tree.  I will choose the rough because I am a low ball hitter.

[George Freeman]

John,

I understand your point here.  I am a high single digit handicapper, however most of the time just finding the fairway with a solid drive is good enough for me. 

Unless the fairway is very wide, there is a potential dogleg to carry, a tree as you mentioned, or some other very advantageous outcome by risking going after a small area of a fairway, I usually aim center left and let the ole power fade bring her back.

I appreciate very much the idea of playing angles and advantages being gained from placing ones ball in certain sides/areas of fairways, whether it be a drive or a lay-up.   However, I would have to imagine that 80% or more of the people who play golf have such large variances in accruacy that picking certain sides of the fairway is out of the question; especially on many of the more "boom" era courses with narrower fairways. 

For the average golfer I believe that the finding "wrong" side of the fairway will result in less of a stroke penalty on average than attempting to hit a certain side of a fairway and missing the shot, leaving a pitch-out or worse, a ball in the hazard...
 

[Jim Briggs]

I'm a brand new addition to the forum, so first post...would probably be considered an average golfer as well as an 18 handicap.  For me I wouldn't say tht trees are the only dictator of strategy.  Driver off the tee is probably the weakest part of my game (though improving) and for the most part if I'm in the fairway off the tee, I'm pretty happy.  If there is a diagonal hazzard, I'll think about how much I want to try and bite off or play away from, but fairway I'm happy.

My iron game is a bit stronger, and I will definately be thinking about what I want to do with my shot in relation to what the green complex is presenting me;  do I want to play a bit of a knockdown and run it up and play some slope around the green?  where do I want my miss to be?, etc.  So even though I consider myself average, I am thinking more and more about what I am trying to do, more so with the irons because I control them a bit more.  Its certainly not the just the trees.

[George Freeman]

I would be interested to hear some architects take on this subject seeing that (I assume) this is such a large peice in planning the strategy of a course...

How do you take into consideration that the majority of the people who play your courses simply don't have the skill to pick an area and execute a shot to the proper side of a fairway?

[Adam Clayman]

In a recent High School meet, at a course with one tree lined nine and one open field nine, the concern ahead of time was about how difficult the tree lined nine was going to be for the three kids who are lucky to control their ball. After the meet the scores were telling. Every one of our kids shot much better on the supposed harder tree lined nine. For me, this removes any doubt about the affect on trees and their correlation to difficulty. It's a myth disguised as a fact that has no basis in anyway other than stroking ones ego.

[John Burzynski]

Even if your golf game (especially my drives) is like mine, and you don't always hit even the specific side of the fairway where you are aiming, that doesn't mean that I don't try to strategically attack a hole. 

My shot may not land anywhere near where I am planning or aiming, but EVERY golfer, regardless of ability, should have a specific plan on how they are attacking a hole, along with a specific desired location to place the ball.  It doesn't mean that even 50% of the time we will hit close to that desired and planned spot, but a golfer can always try, and when you do hit the esired spot, you will have set yourself up for the desired next shot angle.

Just 'aiming for the fairway' seems boring to me, regardless of ability. 

[George Pazin]

Trees and water are among the only dictators of strategy, which is probably why I don't particularly care for them (I guess you could include OB in this).

Lots of other things influence strategy, however, even for lesser golfers.

[TEPaul]

"I don't care about green contours, bunkers or anything else when standing on a tee."

JohnK:

But of course you don't. That's what happens to most all golfers who are enamored with Fazio architecture.   

[Mike Hendren]

Horizontal strategy is ancient mythology.

[Phil McDade]

In a recent High School meet, at a course with one tree lined nine and one open field nine, the concern ahead of time was about how difficult the tree lined nine was going to be for the three kids who are lucky to control their ball. After the meet the scores were telling. Every one of our kids shot much better on the supposed harder tree lined nine. For me, this removes any doubt about the affect on trees and their correlation to difficulty. It's a myth disguised as a fact that has no basis in anyway other than stroking ones ego.

I don't know about that, Adam -- I'd need to know a bit more about the course, and particularly the conditions, to argree with your conclusion. Maybe the wind was up, making the tree-lined nine more immune to its impact on ball flight. I also think -- calling all Freudians, because I've heard others promelgate this theory -- that the visual factor of a tight, tree-lined corridor could force a golfer to concentrate better/harder on those shots than on the wide-open fairways, which (if well-designed, ala something like a Lawsonia or esp. pre-2000 Augusta National) could lull you into a false sense of security about the ease of hitting a fairway, even though that particular nine might be quite stringent in its demands on where to hit the ball on a wide fairway.

[TEPaul]

"I don't care about green contours, bunkers or anything else when standing on a tee.  I'm just not accurate enough to concern myself with anything but finding the fairway."


JohnK:

Consider this very carefully given various green contours and green bunkers on some holes you know. Would you be concerned with hitting a certain portion of a fairway if it was perhaps twice as wide on one side or the other or perhaps both?

[Jon Wiggett]

John,

are you really saying that if your five shots in front stood in the middle of the fairway of the last hole with 230 to go and water in front of the green you would REALLY ignore the water and go for the green?

Oh you 'tin cup' hero

[Joe Bentham]

ignoring strategy isn't the same as the lack of strategy. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Trees  -   They have no right being on a golf course - so John, answer is No.
 
This is my opinion and that of Old Tom.

Perhaps we both in our time consider that a links course is the first choice for a golfer. Having said that, I played at Beaufort Park Golf course near Hastings, for many years in the 70’s. Just about every fairway was lined with trees, but never used as a hazard, that was left to the nature of the course which was built over the hills like Rome. Not a great course, but a rollercoaster of one with fun to be had, depending on your mood.

Trees, they attract wild life and the likes and should only be placed out of the way. Line the course with them, by all means, help improve the environment by having tree lined fairways, but never, never use them as a hazard. The other issue with trees on a course relates to their thirst and how the ground around them is severely affected, both in drought and wet conditions.

To rely on trees as a form of a hazard, shows the limitation of a designer. IMHO it reflects the inability to use ones imagination and raises questions
along the lines of  ‘is this the correct career choice?’ and ‘would landscape gardening be more appropriate?’

However, I expect some may not agree.

[BCrosby]

People ain't as dumb as the hoi polloi believe...

Shivas -

Not to nit-pick, but I think you mean to say that it is the hoi polloi who are not as dumb as people like us think they are. Or something like that.

Bob

[Art Roselle]

I certainly agree that most golfers do not have the accuracy to really pick a side of the fairway.  I am not sure trees are the main driver however.  Hazards of any kind are the one thing that will make an average (or even good) golfer aim away from the middle.  I am a decent player, but if there is a lake on the right side, I will aim down the left.  I do not care where the pin is or what is the optimal angle for my second.  I wish I were that accurate, but my gut usually tells me that I am more accurate from the left rough ro poor angle than I am from the bottom of the pond (or behind a tree or in a deep fairway bunker).

However, I do not think strategy is lost due to the poor quality of players.  A mix of good and bad and average golfers has always existed.  The bigger culprit is the loss of width on the course and the severity of the rough and bordering hazards.  When a player (of almost any level) gets the rare chance to play courses with very wide fairways and less punitive rough, then suddenly strategy does start to matter.  You would be crazy not to think about which side to hit it toward, if the fairway is 50+ yards wide.  If however, the fairway is 25 yards wide and there is 3 inch rough just off the edge, then almost everyone would be smarter to just aim it down the middle.  I don't think many Tour players even think about different sides of the fairway very often, given how narrow and punitive the setups are.  If you hit it 320 yards, there is no way to be accurate enough to pick the left 10 yard half versus the right.  This is why people love links courses so much.  The width is such a welcome change from the claustrophobic feel of most American courses and you do actually get to (have to) think a little.

Whether poor or average players SHOULD think more about angles and pin positions is a different question.  They should certainly be more conservative and tack their way around the trouble carefully (which most people don't), but pin placements and green contours should probably be ignored by most.  I seem to remember a test that one of the magazines did where they made people play with all the flagsticks removed.  I think you had to be about a 4 handicap or better before knowing the hole positions actually started to help your score.  Everyone else was much better off not knowing where the hole was and just aiming for the middle.  I expect that this is true for aiming at the middle of the fairway too.  Who cares though?  Maybe the cold hard truth is that most players should not carry anything longer than a 5-iron and should lay up at every chance and lag every putt and never aim at the pin.  Even if it saves you a stroke or two (or 10) it is more fun to at least try to be bold and strategic and try to play the hole "properly" even if you are not really capable of pulling it off very often.

I played once in a very dense fog.  We could not see anything, but I knew the course pretty well, so we went ahead and played.  We just had to hit it off into the whiteness and listen to see if we could here in land.  I hit every fairway and every green through the first 6 holes.  Then, the fog lifted and I promptly fell apart.  Very humbling for my supposed course management skills.

 

[Adam Clayman]

Phil, My statement was about me being convinced that there's a lot of mis-information being propagated in the main stream and I'm not going to buy it anymore. Most of it is based on an assumption that equates quality with difficulty.

Michael Hendren, Holes like the tenth at Riviera and the 15th at Wild Horse prove the ignorance of your blanket statement.

[Mike Hendren]

Michael Hendren, Holes like the tenth at Riviera and the 15th at Wild Horse prove the ignorance of your blanket statement.

Adam, the stategy is largely vertical at Riv. The decision is what club to pull, not where to aim.   I'll have to pull my WH yardage book to response otherwise. 

[John Moore II]

I think that many things affect the average golfer's strategy on a given hole. While I would say that most do not think about the best way to get into a green (i must say I do not do that myself, I to simply try to hit the fairway) but a fairway bunker, water hazard, extreme fairway slope can all effect how I will try to play a shot off the tee or a second shot.
TEP-I think what he is meaning by not looking at bunkering or green contours is that he understands that he may not have the overall ability to place a shot exactly where he is aiming even if he trys to. Fazio course design has nothing to do with it in my opinion. The same can be said for most of the members of Pinehurst I would say. Most simply do not have the ability to concern themselves with which side of the fairway offers the best line into the green, hitting the fairway itself is quite good enough.

[George Pazin]

Michael Hendren, Holes like the tenth at Riviera and the 15th at Wild Horse prove the ignorance of your blanket statement.

Adam, the stategy is largely vertical at Riv. The decision is what club to pull, not where to aim.   I'll have to pull my WH yardage book to response otherwise. 

How do you figure? Can you honestly say that the angle of approach into the 10th at the Riv is immaterial?

I recall many many moons ago when a poster named Tim Jackson posited that the 10th at the Riv was a mere driver-2 putt birdie hole.

[Adam Clayman]

Michael, I must be confused by your use of the term horizontal strategy. And now, by your use of vertical. The 15th at WH is inspired by the 10th at Riv. Both holes, in my understanding, use horizontal strategy which is not a myth, have no trees and no water, and are shortish in length.

[Tom Huckaby]

Doesn't horizontal mean how far to hit it, vertical mean side to side?  Which of course is odd terminology -I'd reverse it.

In any case, this whole thread has me confused.

But I will say re Riviera #10, I think I agree with Mike Hendren.  There is no choice on where to hit it side to side - you simply must stay to the left to have any chance at all on getting a second shot close, to any pin except a very front left (and even then it's still better to come in from the left).  The only choice one makes is how far to go off the tee - challenge the green, or lay back to whatever point one chooses.  I sure don't see any viable choice going right of center....

TH

[Garland Bayley]

People ain't as dumb as the hoi polloi believe...

Shivas -

Not to nit-pick, but I think you mean to say that it is the hoi polloi who are not as dumb as people like us think they are. Or something like that.

Bob

I think he got it right in the original.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()