[Dunlop_White]

Bruceski.

I disagree!!!! Undulating greens are an important component of strategic design. Most classic architects believed such! It was evident in their literature. For example, Ross explains his strategic use of angles on Hole 8 green at Pinehurst Number 2 as follows:

"Here there is a ridge in the green. If the pin is on the right of this green, a player who wishes to avoid the effects of this slope must place his tee shot on the right side of the fairway, and conversely, on the left side of the fairway when the pin is on the left. A majority of two shot holes on Number 2 are of this general type."

Thus, undulating greens are in fact an integral part of strategic design; however, they are only one ingredient to the equation! Broad fairways, which present tempting alternative angles of approach, do compliment the strategic nature of undulating greens. Strategically, golfers may opt to play from different lateral positions depending upon the pin position/slope location relationship. Firm and fast conditions through the green compliment the strategic nature as well.

Certainly, the lack of fairway width (17 to 28 yards) and the soft conditions would render the greens at Bethpage (and even the boldest in the country) less strategic!

I can't wait until these professionals arrive at Muirfield! This course will have the ingredients for strategic play: undulating greens, wider fairways, and firm/fast conditions!

[Bruceski]

Points taken. But remember, I'm speaking only to the professonal game. When the pros are 200 yds in, they seem to be able to stick their approaches at will. With that ability, the target options are limited (i.e., shoot for the pin, dummy!), as roll after the approach shot is not a great issue. The only issue becomes execution.

The pro game is an all-out aerial assault on any hole location. From 200 yds in, the pro can ignore the terrain around the pin, and simply aim for the area that leaves the best putt (usually the area below the pin). If a pro is holding a 7-iron or shorter iron he likely sees very little risk in flying the ball to correct area, regardless of the side of the fairway his ball lay. [The correct area is easily ascertainable via 3 practice rounds on the course]. Undulating greens are only an issue if the pro is left with a mid or long iron to a green. In this situation, the ball cannot easily be stopped where it lands. Thus my argument for lengthening courses and penalizing errant drives.

Evidence: Augusta National has the most undulating greens of any major tournament site, and it was nevertheless becoming defenseless to the aerial assault game. With the current technology, Augusta at less than 7000 yds and with no rough becomes a birdie bonanza. The current pros playing on the 1995 layout would easily average a 68 each round at the Masters. In the end, a course historically known for its emphasis on strategy becomes strategically obsolete.

[DMoriarty]

Bruceski,

I am not sure your description of the pro game  will hold at Muirfield, especially if there is a little wind and the course is set up as they say it will be. (See "Muirfield's philosophy for the Open" thread.)  

Also, I disagree with your comments about Augusta.  Even if your premise about the rounds of 68 is correct,  I don't think think that this speaks to the strategic choices which must be made to get to that 68.  If Augusta is becoming less strategic, it is because the lengteining of course and the growth of rough is taking away options.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fellas,

How do you invoke strategic design on existing golf courses built 70-80-90 years ago when touring pros are hitting their drives 340 yards (under wet conditions and mostly on the fly) and their 8 irons 170-180 yards, and their 2 irons, 265 yards uphill ??

If you think you're going to create options on 360, 400, 440 yard holes you're mistaken, unless you want to put in a moat,
some land mines and machine gun nests.

This fantasy that classic golf courses, designed 80 years ago, with options for the game at that time, holding up to the onslaught of the greatest players in the world today, is just that, a fantasy.

Do you think that wide fairways are going to offer today's touring pros options ?  That they'll run the ball along the ground for 40 yards.  Do you think that they are afraid of driving their tee shot into a greenside bunker ?

499 yard par 4, wet conditions, Driver- 7-8 irons.

They were hitting their 3-woods almost 300 yards.

Is punishing a bad tee shot the best way to reward a good one ?

So what do you do ?

This notion of strategic design applying to these players is....
ANTIQUATED !  

[Dunlop_White]

I disagree again!

You ask, How do you invoke strategy on classic courses? The equation has never changed. Groom them and treat them like classic courses.

1. FIRM conditions through the green!!!
2. Fairways with width.
3. Greens with motion.

Bethpage lacked these essential ingredients. Strategy, however, is written all over Muirfield with capital letters. Just watch the pros deliberate, hesitate, and ponder at Muirfield regardless of their length. Strategic design absolutely applies to professionals as well. It is not a fantasy, especially if the above ingredients are met!

[NicP]

Well said Dunlop. Royal Melbourne has some of the widest fairways you are likely to see outside the UK and I defy any player, pro or amatuer alike to blindly hit the ball of the tee and score well. The drive must be placed strategically so that an approach shot, with any club, has any chance to finish near the hole.

Give me RM, wide, fast and brown over Bethpage (I must admit to only seeing it on TV very early in the morning over here!) anyday.

[TEPaul]

I think the discussion and dialogue in the last page and a half of this thread is excellent stuff--by all--although the opinions may differ markedly.

And it's so interesting to see how various people in the dialogue value various factors involved in strategy and strategic consequence--narrow fairways to demand accuracy vs wider fairways with firm and running conditions, the reality of the function and consequence of undulating greens vs flatter greens to truly effect the shot making abilities of tour pro caliber players! The function of length requirements etc!

But in this dialogue when it pertains to greens (whether undulating or flat) and certainly when factoring in what the tee shot consequences are (narrow or wide--firm or soft) in relation to the greens, the real deal that turns the consequence of greens as far as approach shots are concerned that has not been mentioned is the FIRMNESS of the greens themselves whether flat or undulating!

The firmness of the greens is sort of the ultimate strategic pay off factor to me! Bruceski is no doubt right that these tour players today are unbelievably good at exact distance control and at distances that are very impressive--now well over 200yds!

But how can their exact distance control which today is almost exclusively aerial be counteracted? The most effective way I can think of is to firm up their ultimate target--the green surfaces (certainly in combination with firmness around the greens too) to the proper degree. When you add this one factor of green firmness you start to take away the exactness of their aerial shots and their awesome abilities to "stick it" or even spin it!

At that point, if you start messing seriously with their reliance on easily controlled aerial shots they will start to look to other options like the ground for pitch and run, caroming, filtering etc for accuracy which might not be so determined by the flagstick as the ORIGINAL target of their approach shot, for instance. That's when other options begin to occur to them and when they seriously consider using them other than their old standby, the basically flag targeted aerial approach.

Certainly weather affected ground condtions is a big factor in all this which no PGA, USGA or R&A can totally control. If conditions are soft on fairways and greens there's not much that can be done to disabuse them of their aerial option and the effectiveness of it but when conditons are firm not just "through the green" but most particularly on the greens themselves that's when things get interesting!

Add to that green firmness (slight "denting" negating all but the most clever ball control) some speed on the green surfaces and some interesting undulations for putting and you put a real premium on accuracy AND distance factors arrived at in other potential ways than their standby aerial shot and then you have the ideal situation for strategic golf even at their level!

If the weather cooperates that should be Muirfield! But of course if the architectural designs are conducive it can be presented to them anywhere!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dunlap White,

You can't dictate terms to mother nature.
Days of rain will undo firm conditions anywhere, like Bethpage

As for strategic design, didn't John Daly, then Tiger obliterate that concept at ST Andrews.  How many bunkers was Tiger in over four days.......zero.

With respect to contouring of the greens, what membership is going to tolerate having their greens ripped up, and rebuilt for the Open for a week ?

These guys will eat up wide fairways.
If fairways were wide, how would you achieve a premium on driving accuracy ??

In addition, I believe St Andrews and other British Open courses have been lengthened substantially over the years.
They are not the same courses that existed in 1950.

[Tim Weiman]

Dunlap White,

While I'm open to persuasion, I tend to agree with Pat Mucci that the the world's elite players have become so good that "strategy" may be less of a reality than we imagine.

I've never played with a world class player, but I have a very distinct memory of standing with Bob Lewis in the middle of the 16th fairway at Pine Valley as he prepared to play the shot that won the 1985 Walker Cup.

Bob asked his caddy for the yardage and was told 185 yards.  Bob, then, insisted on knowing whether it was "185 or 185 1/2".  I was absolutely stunned and could then appreciate how players of this quality truly are playing a different game.

I love the whole notion of "strategy" and "options".  But, I also wonder if they apply far more to the handicap player than the world class player.  Indeed, I'm beginning to think the game of golf itself is better for the handicap man because as he thinks through "strategy", he can't be sure how well he will execute the shot he intends to plays.  Doesn't that factor make things far more interesting?

Can you articulate why you think fairway width gives the modern profession a challenge?  Why shouldn't we believe guys like Steve Williams have the whole thing so well mapped out that his boss (Tiger) just has to execute?

[Mike_Cirba]

For those who believe that strategy is non-existent at the professional level, what was it about shortish Royal Lytham (less than 6,800 yards) last year that made it such a challenge, as well as an interesting, exciting competition?

[TEPaul]

"These guys will eat up wide fairways."
"If fairways were wide how would you acheive a premium of driving accuracy??"

My God, I can't believe you're asking a quesiton like that! It's so completely fundamental how you acheive a premium for accuracy on wide fairways. You speed them up--make them really firm and fast!!

What do you think is easier for a tour caliber player? A fairway completely defined that's 27-30yds wide with very little roll or a fairway that's 45-50yds wide with contour, slope with a ball that can bounce and run 50+ yards in various directions?? It's just as hard or harder for a tour player to have to hit a ball to a specific spot on a firm wide fairway to keep the ball somewhere on it as it is for them to do the same thing on a narrow soft fairway! Not only is that as hard or harder in actual fact but he also has the added problem of analyzing what there is about that frim fairway that tells him what that specific spot may be.

With the softer narrower fairways that spot is more easily indentifiable and the ball won't move so much on the ground once he's identified that easily identiable spot.

Obviouslly the rest of the hole has to tie into the meaning of a wide fairway in some way too but that's another archtiectural subject.

I'm also of the opinion that fairway width shouldn't be used for width's sake alone. The rest of the hole has to have meaning for the utilitization of width and it's just as valid, effective and functional to use a narrow fairway in various circumstances, for instance basically flat, topographically featureless ground or even more so a fairway form that might be bowl or valley-shaped! Narrowness combined with the rest of a hole that played to that meaning could be excellent too and additionally interesting in variety to offset the width or extreme width on other holes!

But width or narrowness, topography and firmness of ground all go hand in hand to produce the best and most interesting condtions most courses can get!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom

I fully agree and it's about one other thing, as well, that you touched on but is at the heart of the matter.

This kind of setup is not only about execution, but also about options, choice, and decision-making.  More bad execution at that level is due to indecision than perhaps any other factor.  

Strategic golf is a mental examination (and not just "patience", waiting for birdie opportunities as you keep hearing over and over at the US Open) as much as a physical one.  

[Dunlop_White]

You are right....you cannot dictate terms to mother nature! It is unfortunate that Bethpage played so soft. But there is/was never a real attempt to make the surfaces consistently firm thru the green at Bethpage or any other American venue today. Emerald green courses, stretched to the boundary, and squeezed to death represent the one-dimensional, non-strategic nature of the current game. We should see courses which are browning off nicely come tournament time. There should be extremely firm conditions with the balls bouncing and running with and against the contours of the terrain. A day of mother nature could not substantially alter the conditions of a course prepared to be played in this fashion.

Pat, you must read about Tiger's extensive preparation for the 2000 British Open at St. Andrews. The course was certainly firm, but it was the way he used the width around centrally located bynkers to gain preferable angles of approach to their undulating greens, which was so remarkable. The course maintained the essential characteristics of strategic design. Tiger out "thought" the field at St. Andrews, which was much more interesting than the monotonous methodology he went about to win at Bethpage.

As for undulating greens, I certainly did not ever advocate that the Rees Jones, NY Park Comm., or the USGA should have ripped up their greens and reconstructed them with more contours for the Open! You are right, this would be absurd! But you either have green motion or you don't! And those that don't will inevitably be less strategic than those which do.

Evidently, you follow the common perception that width makes the golf hole play easier. Everyone is, in fact, so mistaken to believe that narrower fairways will make the golf hole play more difficult. There is statistical evidence at venues throughout the tour that reveal the following: when you squeeze landing areas, scoring averages will go down, because they must be negotiated with such a "conservative approach". Narrower holes do in fact produce less birdies, less bogeys, and less double bogeys than that very same hole did with width. However, there are far more pars recorded. The range of scores on narrow holes are typically bunched around par, while the range of scores on wider holes are consistently larger and all over the board. The pros approach wider holes much more aggressively as the risk/reward relationship becomes balaced. At a high percentage, holes that have been narrowed produce lower scoring averages than their wider counterpart of year's past. ..... Plus, it simply makes sense that wide fairways will make you "think, deliberate, and assess" your strategy, and will further make you "commit" to one of a number of tempting alternative routes to the pin. Profesionals find this mental process difficult as they are accustomed to having the course design dictate their next move. Bethpage did exactly that.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

I think I mentioned this to you once before about Bob Lewis and things like that statement you said he made about 185 or 185 1/2!

Bob is a helluva a player and many players of that caliber may concern themselves with things that precise but the difference between Bob and other players is Bob pretty much continuously advertizes to anyone in earshot those kinds of things! He even goes farther than that and advertizes to anyone in earshot just what kind of shot he has in mind or anything else he can think of!

Now I've played against Bob a few times and the thing of it is he doesn't pull off those shots that precisely all the time or even most of the time but when he does (with all that continuous advertizing going on with every single shot he hits) one might tend to remember that particular shot that he does pull off very precisely.

Basically I've never seen anyone carry on the running commentary Bob does and I remember him doing it in the Walker Cup not just with his game but he had a running commentary going for all to hear about what Davis Love was doing too!

Have you ever seen Bob on the range? Oh My God, it's just a constant stream of conciousness! He can even take you through what he's thinking about at the exact moment of contact!

[Dunlop_White]

Tom Paul and Mike Cirba:

I just posted a long one for me. In the meantime, I just  noticed your two posts beat mine to the punch!

Well said!!!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Dunlop;

Sometimes, the fastest typist "wins" around here.

Excellent post, yourself, which I heartily agree with!

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

You're sure right about good and great golf at that level being a mental examination as much or more than a physical examination!

I'm not really sure what all you might mean by a mental examination though. If you mean basically decision making I would say that there's another factor that separates the good from the great and the great from the very great that in fact is probably or ultimately the most important of all--at that level anyway!

It's an examination of a golfer's true level of confidence! And that factor I think is the one that is most the misunderstood, not understood at all or underestimated somehow.

Certainly it can't be seen but over time it can be sensed by the keen observer!

What it is in a truly great or champion golfer might sort of astound the likes of us. I once asked Gary Cowan, the great Canadian amateur, what it was exactly to him (how he acheived it or did it) and he told me what it was and how he did it!

I think, with a cut above golfer like a Woods, Nicklaus or a Hogan at the upper level the confidence level is something that we could scarcely imagine as we've probably never remotely had it or felt it, certainly not in golf.

Those guys hit it so good anyway but at that rare level things like fear, doubt, or frankly even an iota of muddled expectation is gone and once they've made the decision and set up, the deed is done to a spooky degree!

Imagine what it must be like to not have a scintilla of doubt and complete confidence to a degree that you truly feel, truly feel (without having anyone even yourself have to convince you) that you can do something and to be truly surprised if for some odd reason it doesn't happen! That you really have nothing at all to PROVE to anyone and that all you're really doing with a sort of warm glow is showing them over and over what you can do and they can't! After a while at that rare level with that confidence and concentration it becomes not much more naturally difficult than walking!

I have a very real feeling that's what it feels like to play with that all important true champion's confidence level of a Nicklaus or a Tiger Woods!

[BCrosby]

Dunlop writes:

"There is statistical evidence at venues throughout the tour that reveal the following: when you squeeze landing areas, scoring averages will go down, because they must be negotiated with such a "conservative approach". Narrower holes do in fact produce less birdies, less bogeys, and less double bogeys than that very same hole did with width. However, there are far more pars recorded. The range of scores on narrow holes are typically bunched around par, while the range of scores on wider holes are consistently larger and all over the board. The pros approach wider holes much more aggressively as the risk/reward relationship becomes balaced."

Good stuff and I agree.  You need to adjust for the length of a hole, but generally I agree.

I am running some TEP numbers (anybody remember those?) for Bethpage Black that will confirm Dunlop's hypthesis.  Or at least they do so far.

I'll get back later.

Bob

[O'Hara]

I agree with team Dunlop White, Mike Cirba, and TE Paul. Their arguments are persuasive, not to mention - Dunlop can write!

I cannot wait to see THE OPEN next month. Likely, Mr. Dunlop White's ingredients for strategic design will be exposed at Muirfield.

[Mike_Cirba]

I still would like to hear what was wrong or "untesting", or "not-strategic" about the course setup at Lytham last year.  

It produced a very worthwhile champion, David Duval, who played superbly and won by 3 shots at -10.  The cream rose to the top, although Tiger Woods finished well back at -1.  Others in contention included Els, Clarke, Langer, Garcia, Parnevik, Love, Singh, Roberts, Goosen, Montgomery, Price, Cink, Mickelson, Rose, and Verplank.

Of those who made the cut, scores ranged from -10 to +17.

This was all over a course that played about 6,800 yards, par 71.  The wind was never too crazy, and the fairways were ample, with decently penalizing rough.  

What was different here that the course didn't need 499 yard par fours with 26 yard wide fairways pinched down by deep rough to greens stimping at 15 to provide a challenge?

Simply, the course played screamingly fast tee to green, and all of the lights were turned up on the various strategies inherent in links golf.  Oh yes...one other thing...bunkers were actually found in fairways, and not 20 yards into the rough.  

[DMoriarty]

Mike is correct, Lytham was a great example of pros being challenged without excessive length or rough.

And, we need not look any further than No 4 at the Black course for another good example of a STRATEGIC test for the pros.  In my mind, the 4th was undoubtedly the most interesting hole at Bethpage -- not because of its length or rough, but because it presented strategic choices both off the tee and on the approach.  In order to get to the green in two, the golfers had to flirt with the bunkers and rough on the left side of the landing area (I think Phil missed on Friday or Sat.)  And, even from Position A, the slope-away green and mowed downslope behind the green presented a terrific risk-reward strategic choice. (Credit Jones for removing the back bunker so the ball could possibly run down the hill.)  Go for a possible Eagle and risk disaster, or lay up to the right and try to get up and down for birdie?

As Sergio, Phil, and Tiger proved on Sunday, even the best pros cannot always plop a 190-215 iron shot exactly where they want it on a strategic hole that utilizes green slope in a strategic manner.  Had either Phil or Sergio showed a little patience and strategy, they could have played right, taken the easy birdie, and really put some early pressure on Tiger.

A great hole, not because it is long (it isn't), but because the green angle and slope require the golfer to 1) Make strategic decisions, and 2) execute.  Golf is just not as interesting or as challenging when the former requirement is elimated.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

My experience watching Bob Lewis on the range at Sand Ridge is that he tends to be pretty quiet and prefers to be left alone.

I can't imagine any human being playing the game as precisely as Bob's Walker Cup question implies.  But, in fact, on that occasion he did hit his approach to about three feet.

So, maybe players of that level can occasionally dial in within a yard or two.  I know I certainly can't!

Anyway, I still believe the whole business of strategy is much more relevant to to fairly good but not great players.  Not knowing whether you are going to execute just adds so much more to the game.  

[TEPaul]

"Not knowing whether you're going to execute just adds so much more to the game".
Tim Weiman

I love that! What an interesting and encouraging thing to say for all us players always striving to get better. Just once though I'd like to endure the boredom of executing perfectly all day long!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dunlap, TEPaul, Mike C, et. al.,

Make the fairways 50-100 yards wide and it still won't matter.

The greatest players the world has ever seen will surgically disect the golf course and each hole, determining the exact spot to play to and to play from, and then execute same.

This notion of going to a golf club and magically widening their fairways is a fantasy.  Where is this new found room going to come from ??  How will it be maintained ??

TEPaul,

You can plan on firm and fast fairways all you want, if Mother Nature dumps four days of rain on the course, your theory is...
ALL WET  

Fellas, be realistic, look at Pebble, WF, Baltusrol, Shinnecock,
Congressional, and all the other Open courses, and ask yourself, would widening the fairways to 50 yards make for a more competitive OPEN ??

And Tom Paul, where is a club going to miraculously get all this fairway undulation you allude to ?   Import millions of cubic yards of dirt to reconfigure them ?   Then have to put in a new sprinkler system since the old one is four feet under ground  

Let's deal with the reality of a member owned club hosting the Open, not some fantasy club that would allow you to make wholesale changes at no cost to the members.

[Bruceski]

Just to clarify: the approach shots that Tiger and Phil had at the 4th hole on Sunday were approximately 190 to 210 yds UPHILL and BLIND 25 feet. Of course, an uphill, blind approach of that distance, combined with some wind (which was more a factor on Sunday) creates significant indecision regarding club selection. I think Tiger made a poor club selection, and Phil just hit a bad pull. Both wound up with 5. Regardless, the hole won against the two best players in the world. Perhaps par 5's are the last bastion of strategy for the modern professional?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()