News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #25 on: December 29, 2011, 11:40:19 AM »

Can someone provide a definition of the word "strategy" and "strategic" ...

Perhaps everyone should agree on those definitions first before pontificating an answer to the question ...
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #26 on: December 29, 2011, 11:46:00 AM »
I think there has been too much emphasis on overt hazards - bunkers, water, ob, waste areas (please don't get bogged down in rules definitions, I am speaking generally) - and not enough emphasis on angled greens, steeply pitched greens, bumpy fairways, short grass (!), etc. I think the former tend to create black and white situations, while the latter tend to lead to grayscale and color situations.


Agreed. This is what I meant to say in the "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" thread.

BTW: Congrats on "bogged down"!

« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 12:18:16 PM by Dan Kelly »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #27 on: December 29, 2011, 11:50:00 AM »
To the original question,I say no--strategy isn't overrated.

I think strategy and course management are synonymous.Getting your ball around the golf course according to your own strengths and weaknesses might the most important part of the game.

IMO,strategy is probably overlooked by many,but never underrated by those who use it wisely.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #28 on: December 29, 2011, 11:51:19 AM »
...
Thanks, and it occurs to me in reading Ross's post that if you believe in the "line of charm" (direct route to hole) to the old dead guys, strategy was really the option to play away from that to avoid disaster, i.e., take a bogey to eliminate double bogey (presuming you don't screw up)
...

Jeff,

Please take a moment to correct yourself.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #29 on: December 29, 2011, 12:10:25 PM »
In fairness Jeff does allow that strategy does play a part, and his point about execution is well made. I would also suggest that for most golfers more strokes are added by taking the riskier strategy than are ever subtracted by successfully executing the riskier strategem.

Niall

Niall,  "In fairness" did you read Jeff's post above?  He confirms that we could get to golf's "essence" if we could only just get rid of those pesky courses and move the game indoors.    Apparently "Top Golf" (whatever that is) is the future.   He even takes it a step further to get rid of this pesky strategy concept, with his quick rewrite of the early history of the game so as to minimize and write off the accomplishments of the true greats.  Guys like CBM (who never took a dime for design) were just "selling themselves" and using the concept of strategic design to justify making courses easier?  Who knew?

And then there is the old, tired, and nearly nonsensical a chess analogy.  We are in good hands when even our designers possess such an in depth understanding of "the essence" of the game.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #30 on: December 29, 2011, 12:13:23 PM »
Damn, Bob, there you go again, forcing me to the dictionary (I am assuming that your "Q.E.D." is in the traditional, not sarcastic use).

To be fair to Rich, we were talking about another subject much more interesting to me than strategy when he bid his B.S./Good Night.  I do recall that he thinks similarly of "our" understanding of strategy on this site.  I like JME's comment about game management.  We all hit stupid shots, and your example of making poor decisions- a bad cost/benefit analysis- is part and parcel of not just the game, but life in general.  My  impression is that the gca is but one element and perhaps not the major one at that (our personal demons, weather, conditions, the specific situation, the nature of the competition, etc. being the bigger part).

I see what Mark describes quite often- the costs of the so called low-risk option not being high enough to entice the riskier approach, or vice versa.  Distance should be its own reward, but often times the angle is awkward or the penalties for a less than perfect apprach too severe.
 

« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 12:42:28 PM by Lou_Duran »

Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #31 on: December 29, 2011, 12:37:34 PM »
I am with Jeff Brauer here. The essence of golf is getting the ball in the hole. That doesn't mean we must eliminate everything else that makes golf great--that just means that getting the ball in the hole is more essential to anything you want to call golf than strategy is.

The same could be said of basketball. The essence of the game is to get the ball in the basket. You could then say that we need not bother with making basketball games be anything but shooting contests, but that's a ridiculous over-dramatization of the point. There's a lot of strategy in basketball as well. But it doesn't matter how well you run your offense or how efficient you are at creating open shots if you cannot then make the shots.

The same is true of golf. Strategy and course design are important, without doubt, but they are surely less important than being able to execute accurately.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #32 on: December 29, 2011, 12:55:46 PM »
What I don't get about these conversations is the dichotomy people seem to draw between subtlety and strategy.   Strategic design may be easier to diagram if it is blatant, but strategic design can and does exist in subtler forms as well.

For example, while I agree with Bob Crosby above about Rich's parlor tricks, I disagree with his assessment about the necessity of  serious and immediate consequences ("terrible risks and possible catastrophe.")  Subtlety has a place in the game and a place in sustainable strategic design.   Heavy-handed strategic design with an emphasis on extremely penal consequences beats the snot out of most golfers, and I believe may be at the root of George's original lament.
____________________________________

Matthew, in the case of both basketball and golf I think you are confusing the "essence of the game" with the mechanism by which we keep score.  Nothing I liked more than playing basketball, but my love for that game had almost everything to do with the playing and competing and much less to do with the ultimate outcome in the game.  Bragging rights are nice, but not enough to sustain the game.  Same goes for golf only moreso.  The journey is the essence of the game, not the ultimate destination.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 03:39:38 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #33 on: December 29, 2011, 01:02:11 PM »
What I don't get about these conversations is the dichotomy people seem to draw between subtly and strategy.   Strategic design may be easier to diagram if it is blatant, but strategic design can and does exist in subtler forms as well.

For example, while I agree with Bob Crosby above about Rich's parlor tricks, I disagree with his assessment about the necessity of  serious and immediate consequences ("terrible risks and possible catastrophe.")  Subtlety has a place in the game and a place in sustainable strategic design.   Heavy-handed strategic design with an emphasis on extremely penal consequences beats the snot out of most golfers, and I believe may be at the root of George's original lament.
____________________________________

Matthew, in the case of both basketball and golf I think you are confusing the "essence of the game" with the mechanism by which we keep score.  Nothing I liked more than playing basketball, but my love for that game had almost everything to do with the playing and competing and much less to do with the ultimate outcome in the game.  Bragging rights are nice, but not enough to sustain the game.  Same goes for golf only moreso.  The journey is the essence of the game, not the ultimate destination.

All due respect because that's your opinion of the game, but James Naismith didn't just encourage people to bounce a ball around indoors and have fun, and golf isn't golf unless you're trying to get the ball in the hole.

These are games and games have goals. The successful fulfillment of the goal may not be everyone's greatest priority, but the very definition of the sports is to do with the method of keeping score.

Perhaps you are defining essence in terms of the emotional essence for you, and again that's fine. I, and I believe Mr. Brauer though I don't presume to speak for him, are using the term to mean something different.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #34 on: December 29, 2011, 01:23:06 PM »
What I don't get about these conversations is the dichotomy people seem to draw between subtly and strategy.   Strategic design may be easier to diagram if it is blatant, but strategic design can and does exist in subtler forms as well.

That's partly my fault, for titling the thread what I did. I had originally intended to ask if options are overrated, but I knew I'd draw out more thoughts if I were a little more provocative with the title. So, apologies there.

Along the lines of Mike B's question above, he and others have suggested that my thinking is more along the lines of tactics versus strategy. I think that is a fair distinction. I just think there is too much planning in both play and design, which leads to black and white choices, imho. I greatly prefer the questions whose answers are not so obvious, and holes that require repeat plays to reveal secrets.

The recent armchair architecture thread is obviously what prompted this thread. I think people too frequently look at overhead diagrams and start moving things around, when the hole itself can often provide enough interest that it isn't necessary to do so. It's dangerous thinking, imho. I'm thankful that TOC is apparently above the notion of "let's move this bunker or that into the landing area for player A".

Finally, to DM, I wasn't so much crediting George Thomas with the diagrams as blaming him - does that merit the same demand in accuracy? :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #35 on: December 29, 2011, 01:30:04 PM »
Well, dribbling wasn't allowed initially, but otherwise, I think Naismith invented the game as a fun and safe way to stay in shape indoors.  Scoring baskets was the immediate "goal" but the real goal had more to do with the creation of  a safe and enjoyable indoor exercise.  

Same goes for golf.  The score may the immediate and ostensible goal, but it surely isn't why we play.  Otherwise all of us who don't score well wouldn't.  

Have you ever hunted?   To me it is a much more apt analogy to golf, because the playing field is not set and the random and arbitrary nature of nature plays (or ought to play) a major part in both.  The immediate and obvious goal of hunting is the kill.  Many people "hunt" because they enjoy the kill, and for these folks hunting can be (and has been) reduced to driving down a road and killing something using the hood of their overpriced pickup as a gun rest, or having a "guide" drive them out to a stocked range and doing everything for them but pulling the trigger.   Others hunt because they enjoy the hunt, the interaction with nature, the intense familiarity between the hunter and the land, and the always present element of luck and chance.  These hunters hunt even when they know that more times than not they will not succeed.   The two groups share the same immediate goal - the kill - but to my mind the latter group has a much better understanding of the essence of hunting as sport.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #36 on: December 29, 2011, 01:44:43 PM »
David -

Strategy exists in any number of forms. Subtle, obvious and all points in between.

The question raised, I thought, was when is concern with strategy overrated?

Sometimes you can get away with ignoring strategic features. That's most often the case when there are minimal downsides in doing so. We've all done that and we often get away with it.

There are other situations, however, where strategy matters a lot. You ignore it at your peril. That is usually when there are big downsides to making strategic blunders or costs with playing non-strategically. In those situations, you risk taking a big hit to your score (the aggressive player) or giving up on par (the conservative player). Me, I think such holes tend to be most dramatic and fun holes to play. They also tend to be the most famous holes.

The situations where strategy matters most are the situations where hazards have real teeth. The less sharp their dentition, the more likely it is you can get away with ignoring them. On such holes it's possible that figuring out the line of charm matters less.  

Golf courses should have a variety of holes, obviously. Some harder than others. Some should ask for more strategic thinking than others. But I have zero sympathy with the view that we should tone down strategic holes when their hazards might be "catastrophic". As noted above, that risks removing the best holes on a course.

Bob

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #37 on: December 29, 2011, 02:03:09 PM »
Bob, 

I take the opposite approach.  No doubt there are some terrific holes with definitely defined, obvious choices and severe penalties.  But to my mind, the flip side of this coin is that strategy is most often overrated when the lines are clear and the penalties severe.  Such design often ends up being more penal in nature than strategic, in that it is more about meting out the appropriate punishment for the degree of failure of execution. That isn't all that interesting.  Take an optional forced carry.  For those that can make the carry, it is simply a matter of execution or facing the consequences.   For those who cannot make the carry, it is no real choice at all.  Throw some subtlety and unpredictability and things get more interesting.    For example, throw in the possibility of a sidehill lie (ANGC 13) or an unpredictable wind (CPC 16 or ANGC 12) and you have the makings of a great hole.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #38 on: December 29, 2011, 02:17:12 PM »
Golf courses should have a variety of holes, obviously. Some harder than others. Some should ask for more strategic thinking than others. But I have zero sympathy with the view that we should tone down strategic holes when their hazards might be "catastrophic". As noted above, that risks removing the best holes on a course.

I guess my question would be, what do you consider catastrophic? To me, determining your drop area is far more catastrophic than taking a few swings to get out of a really tough bunker, or chipping and 3 putting from the wrong side of a green.

I consider the former to be an obvious penalty and the latter a more subtle one - it depends on the golfer's ability to notice he was on the wrong side of the green. I think lots of people don't, they simply dismiss the green as "tricked up".

When I was at the US Open at Oakmont in 2007, on Saturday I was standing alongside the main drive landing area when Furyk hit his approach to the (wonderful) 10th green. It landed a few feet in front of the hole, then trickled slowly down past the hole, ending up maybe 10 feet past (hard to tell from where we were). I loved it and I'd guess Furyk did, too; the guy standing next to me said, that's just not fair, as he watched the ball trickle down. He wanted drop and stop. That would kill Oakmont (or any other great course), imho.

I would never advocate toning down an Oakmont or Augusta green, the Road Hole bunker, etc. But I don't particularly care for the difficulty associated with the tee shot on the 18th at Sawgrass.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #39 on: December 29, 2011, 02:27:28 PM »
Maybe I can better explain myself though an example.  Here is an aerial of Rustic Canyon's 2nd hole which is about 454 direct line from the back tee to the middle of the green.  For those who haven't had the pleasure, it is a solid hole probably well down the list when it comes to interesting, memorable and obviously strategic holes at RC.  The hole plays at a subtle downslope and the green generally runs away from the line of play, with a convex hump/ridge in the center. Much of the green tilts to the left, except for a small part of the the right side of the green, which falls off to the right. OB all along the left side of the hole.  The highpoint around the green is near the front of large bunker short and right/fronting, and the green runs away from there.  There is also a subtle swale (an old road) which bisects the fairway at an angle from short left.  The back tee to the small pot bunker on the left is about 300 yards.



The hole does feature OB all along one side, but the fairway is so wide that the golfer is free to "ignore it" at very little immediate and severe peril.  But to my mind, the hole presents interesting choices throughout the hole for a wide range of golfers, and not just on the tee shot. Yet few of the choices are in the golfer's face.  The golf need not even notice them.   It is a subtle hole where the golfer is better off understanding the ramifications the nature of the hole poses on his options, but it is left to the golfer to recognize them and sort them out.

Is strategy overrated on this hole? Are the choices well defined? Is the strategic nature of the hole irrelevant to the duffer?  What about to the scratch?
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 02:33:54 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #40 on: December 29, 2011, 02:39:32 PM »
David -

I have to run, but I wanted to comment on one of your sentences, because I think it is wrong - but in an interesting way.

"Such design often ends up being more penal in nature than strategic, in that it is more about meting out the appropriate punishment for the degree of failure of execution."

Nothing could be more obvious than the strategic choices on the Road Hole. But the punishments there often do not match "the degree of failure of execution". Quite the opposite. Imagine I have hit a well positioned drive. I decide to play for the green. My iron shot comes up only a yard or two short and rolls back into the RH bunker. I am cooked.

Note that I am being severely punished for an almost - but not quite - perfect approach. The penalty I have incurred does not match the quality of the shot that was played. Indeed, a worse approach might have left me in a much better position to recover. There is no equity involved. There is nothing 'fair' or proportional about my outcome. That is a key aspect, I think, of what makes great strategic holes great.  

Bob  

 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #41 on: December 29, 2011, 02:52:44 PM »
Bob,  I think your post contradicts itself.  You say that "nothing could be more obvious than the strategic choices on the Road Hole" and then you go on to describe a choice where the array of potential results are anything but obvious and well-defined.  I'd suggest that it is the uncertainty of potential outcomes which helps make it a great strategic hole.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 02:55:27 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #42 on: December 29, 2011, 02:53:53 PM »
.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #43 on: December 29, 2011, 02:56:49 PM »
Man, quoting yourself to boost your post count? :)

Dave, I think you and Bob aren't that far apart in what you appreciate, just in how you define it.

Bob, would you call ending up in the Road Hole bunker catastrophic?
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #44 on: December 29, 2011, 03:03:52 PM »
No doubt there is uncertainlty about possible outcomes on the RH. I can always mess up along the way.

But that is a different matter from what strategic pathways I elect to take to the green. The range of those choices are familiar to almost everyone.

Bob  

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #45 on: December 29, 2011, 03:06:58 PM »

Bob, would you call ending up in the Road Hole bunker catastrophic?

Yes. Setting aside the everyday golfer, there are file cabinets full of videos of the best players in the world ruining their rounds there.

Bob

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #46 on: December 29, 2011, 03:09:23 PM »
No doubt there is uncertainlty about possible outcomes on the RH. I can always mess up along the way.

But that is a different matter from what strategic pathways I elect to take to the green. The range of those choices are familiar to almost everyone.

Bob  

Doesn't the uncertainty of the possible outcomes directly feed into the strategic choices? Otherwise, why do many of the world's best players purposely play away from the the RH bunker?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #47 on: December 29, 2011, 03:18:08 PM »
Garland - Of course outcomes figure into the actual choices you make. The likelihood of one or another outcome has an important bearing on the club you pull. Dealing with those ambugities is part of what it means to finally make a choice. Whether it's about playing the RH or going on a date.  

But the range of choices you have to pick from (at least on the RH) is not terribly mysterious. That does not mean that picking one of the several playing options is easy. Yet another reason why the RH is a great hole.

Bob
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 03:21:34 PM by BCrosby »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #48 on: December 29, 2011, 03:31:05 PM »
George, You know me.  I live for the post count.

I don't think we are too far apart either.  As I think I said a few times, some great strategic holes have "catastrophic" hazards and obstacles.  But I do think we differ in our opinions of how blatant and well-defined the dangers need be, and how catastrophic. IMO many architects overdue the penal, do-or-die aspect of strategic concepts, to the point that potentially interesting concepts become overwhelming for a large portion of golfers and from any tee.  As you point out Pete Dye is good at this.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2011, 03:32:46 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is strategy overrated?
« Reply #49 on: December 29, 2011, 03:37:41 PM »
I don't think we are too far apart either.  As I think I said a few times, some great strategic holes have "catastrophic" hazards and obstacles.  But I do think we differ in our opinions of how blatant and well-defined the dangers need be, and how catastrophic.

Reminds me of Tom D's comment in his bit on Oakmont in The Confidential Guide... (paraphrasing): somehow most consider a brutal greenside bunker is unfair, while water is not.

Bob, thanks for the clarification. I'd worry that some would view "catastrophic" as a negative; in the manner you are using it, I'd view it as an important element of design.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back