[Mark Saltzman]

I played Seneca Hickory Stick Golf Club today in Lewiston, NY.  Every par 4 and 5 tee shot had distinct features that made it clear what  strategic choices a player had off the tee.  I am talking about the usual features - water, bunkers, ridges - that dictate how a tee shot should be played.  In many cases, the green was visible from the tee and it was clear from which side of the fairway was the preferred approach.

There was only one hole, the 8th (mid-length par 4) that I felt had no strategy.  The hole was dead straight.  There is no clearly preferred angle into the green.  What I noticed was that even though I was playing well, I started looking at the trees way right and the hazard way left (these should never be in play).  I ended up hitting my poorest tee shot of the day.

This made me wonder, is a lack of strategic options sometimes an architectural decision?  That is, on a golf course where the preferred line is generally clearly defined, does the architect ever make the conscious decision to have a straight-away hole with no real strategic decisions just to mess with the head of the player? 

It is possible I am just overthinking this and this hole was just a boring hole where I hit a poor tee shot.

Comments?

Note, the hole looks semi-narrow off the tee.  It's not.  It is plenty wide.



Notice the green is setup to accept a shot from all angles equally

[Tim Gavrich]

I like holes where the player merely is called upon to hit one straight, then hit another straight, and that's about it for the "strategy" of the hole.  I wouldn't want to play 18 such holes in a row but one such hole should serve as change of pace--perhaps, if done right, almost an amuse-bouche between two more interesting stretches of golf.

[Frank M]

I don't mind having a hole or two where the hole is just straight in front of you. Maybe it's just the angle of the pics, but it looks as though there is some strategy.

[Michael Goldstein]

Interesting question.  I find that more straightforward holes can improve the overall flow of a course. 

Reading the posts I immediately thought of Pasatiempo #7 - no real strategy other than to get it through the goal posts - but it fits.

[Kyle Harris]

Mark:

You're touching upon the point that I try to make in that every hole has strategy. Strategy is merely the series of shots the golfer plans on using to complete the hole. Every hole requires this level of thought to complete. When many people here discuss strategy, they are actually discussing the complexity of those decisions.

You mention an aspect of the golf course that is traditionally to this word strategy; "I am talking about the usual features - water, bunkers, ridges - that dictate how a tee shot should be played.  In many cases, the green was visible from the tee and it was clear from which side of the fairway was the preferred approach." This means that the series of shots you chose to employ took some advantage of apparent features in order to increase your chances of holing the next shot.

However, there is no real strategic meaning here as a golfer of a different skill set may chose to employ a different set of shots to the same end. Furthermore, since the preferred side of the hole is apparent from the tee there is no real decision to make in terms of strategy.

With the photos you've shown, golfers of all skillsets can employ their specific talents (fades, draws, deep tee shots, et al.) to attack the hole. Does a skilled golfer attempt to a hit a draw down the right side and get some roll or guarantee a shot from the fairway with a fade down the left? Do you take on the greenside bunkers head on from down the left side, making them a mere issue of distance control or do you try to employ the narrow approach and put all the trouble slightly right by taking the left hand route? Do you see my point? The hole has plenty of strategy, and most likely a set of much more complex decisions than the holes where the routes are more apparent.

[Jim Eder]

Kyle,

I think you have it spot on. There is strategy on every hole and there can be different strategies for different players and of course there are different winds that can change the strategy for each golfer. I may utilize a different strategy than someone else because of the way I play the game.  It doesn't mean my way is right or wrong in absolute terms but I hope that it is the right strategy for me to score my best. Great answer Kyle!!

[Jim Eder]

But to the thread's question, if there are 17 holes with a very defined strategy and there is one without a defined strategy it does have to make one wonder (it is a very interesting idea to consciously do this to play with the mind of a player - "How do I play this one?" and give multiple options or create confusion). My sense is that it wasn't a strategy and there was something else going on (money issues, the lack of the attention of the architect, changes in routing after the initial design, etc). This "hole out of place" seems to pop up once in a while and it tends to seem like it is not conscious at least to me.  It will be interesting to see if any of the architects on here have consciously done this.  Very interesting question.

[Ronald Montesano]

This hole kicks arse, to begin with, as it heads back toward the Niagara escarpment in the distance. Parallel to this hole, albeit a mile to the right, is the Niagara gorge as it descends from the Falls, through the whirlpool, on to Lake Ontario. The meeting of the waters was a hugely strategic space during the first years of this country, as it connected the region with the St. Lawrence seaway. In the fall, when the leaves are ablaze, the view up the escarpment is haunting.

And the golf hole...Mark hit it on the head. This is the kinder, gentler RTJ2, the one who had an epiphany around the time of Chambers Bay and now seems to "get it" as we on this forum like to say. I feel like he is Luke, redeeming his father's villainy. But I digress...

The hole lulls you toward a bogey or worse. There is a fall off to the back and the false-front sand has a way of attracting you. Notice the space between the front pit and the green; just clearing it won't guarantee a putt. This is one of those holes where hitting the green is key. As a wise man once said, every hole location is accessible from the center of the green. The 9th is a tremendous par five that serpentines this way and that to a deep double green, shared with the 18th.

[Mark Saltzman]

Frank,

OK, there is probably some strategy. An approach from the left is preferred over an approach from the right, but given the length of the hole, the shape of the green and the location of the bunkers (at least 10 yards short of the green), I don't think it really matters what the angle of approach as long as you are in the fairway.  The fact that you can run the ball onto the green from the left is largely irrelevant as most players will becoming in from <150 and the ability to run a shot in will not matter to most.

Jim,

When you say, " It will be interesting to see if any of the architects on here have consciously done this," that is exactly what I was wondering. 

For example, on a classic RTJ golf course with bunkers or water or trees around the DZ on every hole, what if he gave a single hole that was dead straight, no fairway bunkers and only, say, a hazard way left and trees way right (far more offline that his normal hazards would be).  Even though this is a boring hole, could it be a good hole because he knows that many golfers will not focus properly and end up hitting a poor tee shot? 

[Scott Warren]

Do holes have strategies?

I thought players had strategies and holes offered features/hazards between the tee and the hole to be overcome by the player in employing his choice of strategy.

When people say "that hole has no strategy" I think they actually mean "there is only one strategy a player can employ".

Even then I'm not really sure I agree. Even on a straight hole with no hazards, I am inclined to want to be in the left of the fairway because I hit a draw. Someone who hits a fade may well take the same straight, hazardless hole and want to be on the right.

Why do we want so often to over-simplify golf holes to strategic, heroic and penal? The truth is that all are a mixture of at least two and probably all three of those factors.

[Mark Saltzman]

Do holes have strategies?

I thought players had strategies and holes offered features/hazards between the tee and the hole to be overcome by the player in employing his choice of strategy.

When people say "that hole has no strategy" I think they actually mean "there is only one strategy a player can employ".

Even then I'm not really sure I agree. Even on a straight hole with no hazards, I am inclined to want to be in the left of the fairway because I hit a draw. Someone who hits a fade may well take the same straight, hazardless hole and want to be on the right.

Why do we want so often to over-simplify golf holes to strategic, heroic and penal? The truth is that all are a mixture of at least two and probably all three of those factors.

Scott,

I would make a distinction between a player's strategy and the use of architectural features to promote strategy.

My question was not whether player's can employ different strategies on this hole.  Of course they can.  Just as you say I can try to hit it down the left because that is the best angle for my draw into the green.  I could hit 3 wood because I want 150 into the green.

The title to thread is a bit misleading and perhaps my description is not clear enough.  My real question is, does an architect ever choose not to use traditional architectural features in an attempt to make a simple hole play with a golfer's head.  It would not have been difficult (I don't think) for RTJ2 to have built the fairway  closer to the hazard on the left, or to have put in a series of bunkers on the right side of the fairway, but he chose not to.  Could that have been a conscious decision because he knows that because of the lack of visual clues (also note there is basically nothing in the distance for the player to focus on), a golfer will have trouble focusing and finding the fairway? 

[Jim Eder]

Mark,

Exactly, I think it is a great question. Before being on this site I would have never even thought of it being conscious and would have thought it was just an error or a lack of diligence (if the strategic nature of a hole was very different from all the others). But learning from the architects on this site it is amazing how diligent they are. My best guess is on this specific hole the effort was conscious by RTJ Jr but it is a very uneducated guess (I guess the fact that you discovered this leads me to believe that RTJI Jr intent was for the wise to discover it).

When I look at the pictures I do believe there is strategy on this hole (but I do believe all holes do have strategy though some may be self created at times).

In a way I believe "strategy is in the eye of the beholder".

Thanks for waking me up to an interesting twist in design thoughts.

[Frank M]

Frank,

OK, there is probably some strategy. An approach from the left is preferred over an approach from the right, but given the length of the hole, the shape of the green and the location of the bunkers (at least 10 yards short of the green), I don't think it really matters what the angle of approach as long as you are in the fairway.  The fact that you can run the ball onto the green from the left is largely irrelevant as most players will becoming in from <150 and the ability to run a shot in will not matter to most.

Jim,

When you say, " It will be interesting to see if any of the architects on here have consciously done this," that is exactly what I was wondering. 

For example, on a classic RTJ golf course with bunkers or water or trees around the DZ on every hole, what if he gave a single hole that was dead straight, no fairway bunkers and only, say, a hazard way left and trees way right (far more offline that his normal hazards would be).  Even though this is a boring hole, could it be a good hole because he knows that many golfers will not focus properly and end up hitting a poor tee shot? 

Mark, as I said, I may be wrong as I have not played the hole. When I referred to the left side as the best option I meant it in terms of angle of attack and not a run up shot. Being left would allow you to hit a shot that carries the length of the green rather than over the bunkers, and this would seem the optimal angle of attack to any pin on this green.

[Ronald Montesano]

Perhaps it's unclear from the photos, but there is no "length of the green" approach on this hole. The cross bunker fronting the green covers nearly the entire width of it. The green is deep enough, surrounded by fall-offs and is somewhat challenging.

[jeffwarne]

Do holes have strategies?

I thought players had strategies and holes offered features/hazards between the tee and the hole to be overcome by the player in employing his choice of strategy.

When people say "that hole has no strategy" I think they actually mean "there is only one strategy a player can employ".

Even then I'm not really sure I agree. Even on a straight hole with no hazards, I am inclined to want to be in the left of the fairway because I hit a draw. Someone who hits a fade may well take the same straight, hazardless hole and want to be on the right.

Why do we want so often to over-simplify golf holes to strategic, heroic and penal? The truth is that all are a mixture of at least two and probably all three of those factors.

agreed,

players have strategies.

holes have features that may dictate or suggest a strategy

[Frank M]

Perhaps it's unclear from the photos, but there is no "length of the green" approach on this hole. The cross bunker fronting the green covers nearly the entire width of it. The green is deep enough, surrounded by fall-offs and is somewhat challenging.

In the pictures the green looks to be wider than it is deep, and a far left fairway position seems to give access to some of this width, especially with the fronting bunkers angled away from the green. Again, without playing, I can't say. So I will take your word for it.

[BCrosby]

Do holes have strategies?

I thought players had strategies and holes offered features/hazards between the tee and the hole to be overcome by the player in employing his choice of strategy.

When people say "that hole has no strategy" I think they actually mean "there is only one strategy a player can employ".

Even then I'm not really sure I agree. Even on a straight hole with no hazards, I am inclined to want to be in the left of the fairway because I hit a draw. Someone who hits a fade may well take the same straight, hazardless hole and want to be on the right.

Why do we want so often to over-simplify golf holes to strategic, heroic and penal? The truth is that all are a mixture of at least two and probably all three of those factors.

agreed,

players have strategies.

holes have features that may dictate or suggest a strategy

Exactly. We should always battle against the anthropomorphic fallacy. Somewhere in Fife, Rich Goodale is beaming.

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()