[Wade Whitehead]

the stronger the player is, the less "strategic choices" matter.

Oh I know, these pros do have to make some go or no-go choices.  And every once in awhile an angle in does matter.

But if one can hit drives 350+, and high 5 irons 230 which stop on a dime... what the heck do angles or other choices matter?  Strong players just blow by all of this and overpower the course far far more than they defeat it using their heads.

So isn't designing with them in mind a fool's errand?

Put it this way - the greatest strategic player I know is my Dad. He can't hit the ball more than 150 off the tee, nor really more than a few feet in the air with ANY club.  THAT man has to think his way around a course, and does so wonderfully.

How much does Tiger Woods really have to think about how to play any golf hole?

This is fantastic.  I've always thought that top amateurs actually play more strategically than the best pros for this reason.  Perhaps because of the courses they play, but certainly because of their [slightly to significantly lesser, but still commendable] abilities, Tour guys generally wonder "How far do I fly it, and where do I aim it?"  The answer, which comes in the form of "Hit is 162 at that TV tower" is all they need.

Tiger did play a shot at Quail Hollow today (into nine, I believe) that required him to flight the ball down, but it was dictated by a relatively poor lie in the rough and not any architectural feature.

The other factor, to which Mr. Huckaby speaks, is that amateurs are often playing the course, while pros are playing a tournament.  Their job is to be the best relative player on a given day or week.  It has little to nothing to do with playing - or trying to outsmart - a course in any way.

WW

[Peter Pallotta]

Bogey - good thread. And you gents have it covered, it seems to me. But some late night thoughts:

It's probably true that the macro strategy isn't all that hard to decipher, but maybe the focus should be on the micro strategy, i.e. not only on the way that weather, maintenance and pin positions affect/alter strategy, but also on the way those factors are supported/enhanced by the variablity of recovery options/difficulties from hole to hole.

In this regard, maybe golf courses can be discussed in terms of their "strategic elasticity" 

(I know, as if we need another term. Like a hole in the head...)

Peter

[Richard Choi]

Michael, since you started this thread on my comment, let me give you some specific examples.

One of my very favorite holes anywhere is the #17 at Washington National Golf Club (designed by John Fought) located about 40 min from my house.

It is a relatively short par 5 at about 485 yards from the blues. It has a big pond on the left that runs out to about 250 yards away at which point it become a small stream that connects to another pond that guards the green front right.

The options abound on this hole. You can use a driver, but unless you can hit a very specific draw, the water on the left will get you or the bunker on the right will collect an errant drive. But if you can thread it, you only have about 200 yards or less and you can try to go for it. It really is not a recommended play as the landing area is tiny.

The other option is to lay up with a 4 iron or 5 wood to about 200 to 230 yards away where the fairway is the fattest. Once you are there, you are given three choices. First, if you were able to hug the left side and you hit it well you might want to try to reach the green in two (I would advise against it though). Most likely you will either lay up to the left (crossing the creek) where you have a relatively small target (it looks bigger from the fairway though) where you need a very good distance control or your ball will most likely feed down to the pond guarding the green. If you are successful, you have a relatively easy shot to the green with the best angle.

OR you can lay up to the right about 160 yards away where there is a fat fairway and leave yourself about 120 to 150 yards to the green that is above you (can only see the flag) and all you see is water all the way to the green. Depth perception is a problem there and with a usual wind, you are hitting into the wind which you really cannot feel from where you are. So there is a good chance you can leave it short.

There are literally tens of different combinations on how to play this hole. It really depends on the course condition, wind direction, and how well you are hitting certain clubs.

To me, that just makes me smile every time I play it because I have to figure out what the best choice is for me for that day on virtually every shot. That is what I mean by "Rubic's Cube" architecture.

And Tom is right, if you didn't know the whole that well and just played it 4 iron - 8 iron - wedge sticking to the right playing conservatively, it is a very easy par. But if you try to get a birdie or better because it is such a "short" par 5, double or worse is waiting for you. I love that.

[Ken Moum]

It is a relatively short par 5 at about 485 yards from the blues.

And Tom is right, if you didn't know the whole that well and just played it 4 iron - 8 iron - wedge sticking to the right playing conservatively, it is a very easy par.

Sadly, at 485, a 4 iron - 8 iron - wedge combination would leave me with another 80 or 90 yards to negotiate.

Ken

[TEPaul]

"In this regard, maybe golf courses can be discussed in terms of their "strategic elasticity" 

(I know, as if we need another term. Like a hole in the head...)"



No Peter, I think the term "strategic elasticity" might be a pretty fine one; that is so long as someone can get enough meat on its bones that might allow others to recognize some vaguely similar meaning of it.

I just read this thread (as well as the other thread "Accessibility of Architecture") that was hyperlinked into a post on this thread.

Through it all I felt the participants were sort of just engaging in a fairly interesting exercise in mental masturbation about GCA while showing off their supplemental knowledge of literature, painting, music, or even building architecture. And throw into that stew what appeared to be some competitive tendency to write words and phrases that sound deeper than they may be!

But who am I to question other people’s thoughts, sensibilities, emotions about these kinds of things and what their experiences with them mean to them? I’m nobody----that’s who!

It seemed to me that throughout all that there is always this automatic tendency amongst the discussants to "COMPARE" GCA (to find all the similarities) to those other art forms and their various (and interesting) experiences with it----while perhaps the better and more intelligent thing to do would be to "CONTRAST" GCA (to find the important differences) with those other art forms, not the least reason being in those other art forms there is nothing remotely involved in them or about them such as hitting a golf ball on a large physical and natural canvas (an art form?) and ALL THAT ACTUALLY DOES AND CAN MEAN TO ANY GOLFER (compared to reading a book, looking a painting or listening to music).

Thank God, Jim Sullivan whipped this entire subject and discussion back to that particular reality (contrast rather than force comparison or similarity) in posts #14, and #15, immediately followed by a post by Doak that put some real meat on the bones of what Sully had just suggested.

In my opinion, on this basic subject Doak's post #16 just might be the single best and clearest ever seen on this website. For those who really care about stuff like this, I'd suggest they print out Doak's post and keep a copy of it in their golf bag or on one's bedside table or wherever else one tends to actively think about these kinds of things in some effort to understand them better! 

But back to your term “strategic elasticity”, Peter. I think it’s a fine term given the right general meaning. What does it mean to you? Then I’ll tell you what it means to me at the moment, although I can preface right now that to me most of its meaning can be found in Doak's excellent post #16.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE - that's a very good post. I know only too well that my experience with different golf courses is limited (and further limited to courses that few here would be familiar with or care about); that's why I tend to try to connect ideas rather than specifics. The best posters and best posts are the ones that combine detail and specificity with some overarching ideas; that's what makes this site special for me.  Anyway, Tom D's post that you mention is what brought the idea of strategic elasticity to mind -- from pictures and readings, it's hard for me to understand how, at a strategic "macro" level, a course like Crystal Downs is so hard to figure out. The difficulty must come on the "micro" level, the nuances created by conditioning and weather and pin placements. But even then, i figure, that level could be understood fairly soon as well, after enough plays -- unless there was built into the design qualities that actually enhance and make more variable, hole to hole and day to day, the strategic decisions, i.e. specific kinds of green contours, special kinds of green surrounds, certain kinds of hazards/bunkers. I don't know what those might be, but I thought someone might -- and then I can describe that course as having "strategic elasticity".

Peter   

[TEPaul]

"Anyway, Tom D's post that you mention is what brought the idea of strategic elasticity to mind -- from pictures and readings, it's hard for me to understand how, at a strategic "macro" level, a course like Crystal Downs is so hard to figure out. The difficulty must come on the "micro" level, the nuances created by conditioning and weather and pin placements. But even then, i figure, that level could be understood fairly soon as well, after enough plays -- unless there was built into the design qualities that actually enhance and make more variable, hole to hole and day to day, the strategic decisions, i.e. specific kinds of green contours, special kinds of green surrounds, certain kinds of hazards/bunkers. I don't know what those might be, but I thought someone might -- and then I can describe that course as having "strategic elasticity"."


Peter:

First of all, when I see a term like "strategic elasticity" and attempt to put a meaning to it, my very first thought is in a general sense its meaning is that the strategic ramifications of the golf course can be variable or changeable. The actual degrees of that variablility or changeablility we can discuss later.

Would you agree with that? If so, we can then go on to try to figure out both how and why that is the case at Crystal Downs particularly (or probably any other course for that matter).

Perhaps it is too limiting, or even general, on the other side of the coin, but I would also suggest that "strategic ramifications" as a thought and a term basically means the spectrum of potential outcomes in the framework of what is known as "risk vs reward" equations. And that the standard "CURRENCY" in THE GAME OF GOLF within those "risk vs reward" equations is always STROKES!

Would you agree with that?

[JESII]

How about fractions of strokes?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Jim - thanks for taking the time to focus this. I have some errands to do, but wanted for now just to answer you TE - and the answer is yes to both, i.e. yes to elasticity being a function of variability, and yes to ramifications being a function of strokes.

Jim's "half strokes" idea has just short-wired my brain, so I need to stop for now.

Peter

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Please try to carefully consider that last paragraph of mine above and what it means to you. Then we can talk about whether or not what it means to you is much like what it may mean to me or perhaps a golfer as good as Jim Sullivan or even a Tiger Woods.

I say this because I am fully prepared to admit that it both can and perhaps does mean quite different things to different golfers across the spectrum of levels of ability.

Here's what I really mean by that. Sullivan has admitted that to him everything basically gets reduced down to the currency of strokes and how many or how few he records in any single round. That is true for him because that's what he believes, that's the way he looks at and plays golf and noone can disagree with him on that, at least they can't argue with him in that he has every right and reason to look at and play golf that way.

On the other hand, I think even he would agree that other golfers on the spectrum of the levels of ability may look at golf (and architecture) as nothing much more than some maximum enjoyment and thrill they can get from some shot doing something that just really turns them on. And that that might have nothing at all to do with reducing things down to the "CURRENCY" of STROKES!

I have known plenty of golfers, plenty of golfers, who come at the game and go home from their day of golf with only the thought and recollection that they have hit a shot or a series of them that day that were just really exciting and from which they derived real enjoyment and that their overall SCORE for any hole or the ROUND be damned (if they are even aware of what it was).

This is why golf is so damn cool----eg it just has so many ways of allowing the people who do it to get their own kinds of enjoyment and excitement out of it in so many different ways. It's sort of like the ULTIMATE TOILET in the universe of minds----you get out of it whatever you put into it.

And don't get me started on the TOILET throughout Man's evolution. First it was all of Nature itself and then it became limited to those little white things we have inside all over the world.

Talk about perhaps the most significant thing that ultimately DISCONNECTED Man from Nature and all she is about, and massively changed us and to some probably large extent the world we live in too. "What came first, civilization or the wilderness?" 

I will guarantee you Peter, that if Max Behr had his way he would shit in the woods always and probably avoid even the old fashioned outdoor OUT-HOUSES and he would definitely avoid some of these modern white things like the latest line of Kohler toilets that even look to some and are intended by their manufacturer to be some form or ART themselves!  

[JESII]

These "fun" shots people talk about that are not based on, in fact they think are counter to, the idea of shooting a lower score; when they come off properly, where do they end up in relation to the hole?

[TEPaul]

"How about fractions of strokes?"


Sully, if I were playing you and you tried to put a fraction of a stroke on the scorecard for yourself or for me as my marker I believe I'd have to slap you upside the head with Rule 2-5 or some other Rule with the same potential or hoped for effect. Or else I might have to just just take you on right there on the course (maybe with my 2 iron but maybe not) but, on second thought and further consideration and in the larger context of "risk vs reward" in life, I might reconsider that as it would generally probably end up being a losing result for me.

Can't you just see us drawn against each other some years ago in the Philly Amateur if something like that happened? I march into the scoring tent and Sykes or Peterson asks me: "How did the match go?" and I say; "Well, it depends how anyone looks at it Mark; Sullivan thought he was 2 3/8 up on me on the 14th hole but he's out on the ground on the 15th tee holding a profusely bleeding ear after I whacked him with my 2-iron because he tried to record the score on #14 in fractions of a stroke!"

[JESII]

Tommy,

I would never be 2 3/8 holes up, but my 3 1/2 would beat your 4 every time...

[Sean_A]

My west coast pal Richard Choi suggested on the Fazio thread that there is a higher plane of golf course architecture that requires the player to solve a complex challenge.  That sentiment was echoed on the Rustic Canyon thread where it was suggested that the two David's local knowledge gave them a keen competitive advantage. 

I'm not so sure.  I am not a very good golfer (now a weak 12, once a solid 4), but hold myself out as being a pretty decent navigator of golf courses.  In my opinion, they are just not that hard to figure out, but I could be wrong.

Am I?

Bogey

Bogey

We all make mistakes in our execution, but we also make mistakes in our strategy - though I like to think my strategic mistakes are far less than my execution mistakes.  Tom P is correct in that its impossible for any of us to know if someone else made a strategic mistake, but it does crop up now and again where we would certainly question a golfer's choice of play.  This of course means that most of the strategic decisions are down to the player understanding the situation (not only in terms of score and how the match stands, but also in terms of the elements) correctly and his limitations.  The only role the course plays is in providing a few choices at least one of which really tempts the player and to be fair, a great many courses offer these choices at least to some degree.  In my experience, one of the very best choices any course can provide is the aerial VS ground option, most especially when the course is keen.  This automatically takes into account all the variables of design such as rough, hazards, green complex, the terrain and any angles that can be played for.  

One can look at golf like snooker so far as execution and strategy goes.  I am constantly amazed at how some of the absolute best potters in the world don't take on shots and instead go for the safety.  Or, if they do go fore the pot that is risky they constantly look to the miss which limits damage.  How many times do we see golfers after getting themselves out of position off the tee stick to the original plan of going for the next shot as if they were in the fairway?  You gotta know when to holdem and when to foldem.

Ciao

[JESII]

How do you measure the impact/cost of a less than perfect shot?

[Sean_A]

How do you measure the impact/cost of a less than perfect shot?

Jim

Its immeasurable. 

Ciao

[JESII]

Technically, yes...but then what's the point of all this strategic talk around here?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I've made a whole host of different scores on holes over the years but I've never had a 3 1/2 on a hole. I do recognize though that I wasn't at your level with your record. Or maybe you're thinking of the old last hole "Blue Plate Special" bet of starting somebody a half shot up on the final hole so if he ties you on that hole he wins that bet

[Anthony Gray]

Michael:

In general you are very correct.  Figuring out a golf course is far from being Steve Pieracci's job.*

In the Rustic Canyon instance, it wasn't their STRATEGIC knowledge, however, which gave them the advantage... it was their MUCH MUCH MUCH greater familiarity with the very firm and fast conditions, which their opponents had not played on in years (or ever perhaps).

Tom "one of the opponents" Huckaby

*Rocket Scientist

  On the Rustic Canyon website under Course it aludes that local knowledge is needed.

  Anthony

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I could be wrong about this but I have done a ton of research over the years into things to do with golf other than architecture, and beginning long before I got interested in architecure. One of those things is the whole history of the Rules of Golf, the principles behind them at any time and the entire evolution of same.

In this vein of people thinking in things like half strokes or the value differences between one shot or two may have its emanation in Rules thinking over the years as the Rulesmakers attempt to assign value to Strokes (shots) in a Rules context and particularly in a Rules RELIEF context. The basic Rules principle behind that has long been: "The penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player could derive from the particular Rule violation." Of course the other and somewhat ancillary principle is "Like situations shall be treated alike." Of course for the Rulesmakers they had to decide over time what kind of situations should be treated alike.

[JESII]

Maybe an appropriate analogy on this first Saturday of May will help clrify my train of thought...

A single player is going to play two balls on the hole, before he hits a shot there is no way to bet anything other than even money, agreed?

After his tee shots there is one in optimal position and the other is just off the fairway with a poor angle on a two shot hole, wouldn't the betting odds at this point shift to the optimal drive? They would, but not by as much as 2:1...something just barely in favor of the good drive because there is so much left to be played.

The second shots are of similar quality with the good drive followed by an iron to the middle of the green 20 feet below the hole and the poor angled approach missing the green just off the edge with plenty of green to use...what are the betting odds now? Surely the ball that has been hit well both times is not in a position to give a full stroke to the ball that has been hit not so well twice?

This is how I see and think about fractional strokes.

If the ball just off the green pitches to a foot he has just made up the fractional differences given away on the first two shots...

[Wade Whitehead]

Maybe an appropriate analogy on this first Saturday of May will help clrify my train of thought...

A single player is going to play two balls on the hole, before he hits a shot there is no way to bet anything other than even money, agreed?

After his tee shots there is one in optimal position and the other is just off the fairway with a poor angle on a two shot hole, wouldn't the betting odds at this point shift to the optimal drive? They would, but not by as much as 2:1...something just barely in favor of the good drive because there is so much left to be played.

The second shots are of similar quality with the good drive followed by an iron to the middle of the green 20 feet below the hole and the poor angled approach missing the green just off the edge with plenty of green to use...what are the betting odds now? Surely the ball that has been hit well both times is not in a position to give a full stroke to the ball that has been hit not so well twice?

This is how I see and think about fractional strokes.

If the ball just off the green pitches to a foot he has just made up the fractional differences given away on the first two shots...

When I used to coach golf, I tried to tell my players that shots increase in value as a hole is played.  A well-struck chip is exponentially more important than a well-hit drive.  A perfect putt trumps all other

See David Toms, #18, Friday, Quail Hollow for an example.

The question earlier, by Jim Sullivan, begs the answer: It depends.  The later in the hole, the higher the reward and/or the greater the cost.

Incidentally, the players on my team generally never understood what I was talking about.  They were, as many are, all about the tee ball.

WW

[Anthony Gray]

 Shots increase in value....Well stated.  Which teacher said he would prefer to teach golf from the green back to the tee. Start the young playing with the putter first.

  Anthony

[George Pazin]

But if one can hit drives 350+, and high 5 irons 230 which stop on a dime... what the heck do angles or other choices matter?  Strong players just blow by all of this and overpower the course far far more than they defeat it using their heads.

And yet, those same fellas almost all fall by the wayside at The Masters and the Opens. The Masters in particular sees many past champions rewarded while "strong" players miss cuts.

Curious, no?

[Mark Bourgeois]

How do you measure the impact/cost of a less than perfect shot?

Simple.  Take all the possible choices, then for each choice identify the possible outcomes.  Estimate the probabilities for each outcome, then calculate the expected value of each choice and decide accordingly.

The only complication is this assumes risk neutrality.  Constant risk aversion or risk loving are relatively simple adjustments; however, per Kahnemann and Tversky's pioneering research into heuristics shows, most human behaviors and choices reflect probablistic / dynamic risk tolerances which translate into nonlinear risk profiles.

Unfortunately, simple nonlinear transforms don't work in many of these cases owing to payout-dependent risk tolerances.

We could build an app though that covers all this and sell it for iPhone.  If we could get it PGAT approved we could get rounds down to 3 hours.

Are you interested?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()