[George Pazin]

Or perhaps incorrectly defined?

This is an area I've been thinking about quite a bit lately, and one where my ideas are admittedly not fully formulated, so keep that in mind when you lay into me...

George Thomas is credited with stating "strategy is the soul of the game", and judging his hole diagrams in Golf Architecture In America and in Geoff Shack's terrific book The Captain, a good of his definition of strategy included discrete options. [Poster's insight: this view is overwhelming favored by those who judge armchair architect discussions, btw, so if winning those are your goal, study his books and learn to draw... you won't get my vote (see the rest of my post), but you might win a contest or three.]

Now, when I first came across these diagrams and ideas (thanks, Geoff!), I was fascinated by them; somehow, discrete options and avenues appealed to the inner geek in me (and he's a big geek, sadly). I thought such an approach was the be all and end all of golf course design.

Then a poster on here said something on here that I found simple yet profound (paraphrasing here): the problem with options in golf is they are almost always too obvious, particularly to the better player. Any player will almost always gravitate toward one option; even with options that are less discrete, such as a diagonal carry, the clever player will always build in safe margins for error. [Another note: Pete Dye screws this poster by making both the carry and the fairway diagonal. Brutal for the golfer who struggles to control his distances, absolutely brutal. Keeps the pros on their toes, but kills guys like me. And please don't give me the "play the right tees" line, there are no right tees for his courses for someone like me... and I say that having enjoyed the two PD courses I've played.]

In one simply observation, this poster blew apart all of my thinking about golf course architecture. But in its place, I believe I have developed a different appreciation for golf course design. This led to much of my thinking about what I refer to as subtle versus non-subtle golf design (or black and white versus grayscale versus full color golf; the latter appeals to my inner artist, who is admittedly not as strong as my inner geek).

So I developed a much greater appreciation for the non-obvious, the subtle, the shades of gray.

And if you think about it, the best golfers in the world hit 60-70% of fairways and greens. If you extrapolate that to a par 4, with two full shots, you're looking at a less than 50% chance of being able to utilize your plan for a hole, even if you're one of the best golfers in the world.

That's where shot accommodation comes into play (non beard-pullers call this width). A golf course not strewn with death penalty hazards (water, ob, heavy forests, brutally thick rough, etc) will allow the golfer to find his ball that likely didn't end up where he intended and develop a new strategy for completing the hole in the fewest strokes possible.

Here's a big key: these follow up shots - regardless of whether one is in the preferred landing area or some other part only visited by the likes of me - must hold the golfer's interest. Maybe not every single time, but the vast majority of the time.

I think the best courses in the world hold one's interest, regardless of whether one follows his plan or not. That doesn't mean one shouldn't plan, just that the best courses don't force one particular plan at the cost of all others.

Well, if you managed to read all that b.s., I'd love to hear your thoughts. (No prizes for guessing the poster who opened my eyes, btw, I think I've mentioned it on here before.)

Everybody has a plan until he gets hit. - Mike Tyson

Mike understood what I'm sayin'.

[Mac Plumart]

Links golf is the answer.

Obvious and subtle choices...wind changes those choices...and lack of rough makes totally FUBARing a shot a recoverable mistake.

[Andy Troeger]

George,
I absolutely agree with the bottom portion of your post about the best courses remaining interesting for golfers who don't hit their ideal shot. I'm not clear on how you got from the bit about strategy and discrete options to that final point, however. I think you can have discrete options and still have recoverable hazards that create the strategy and options.

I have a little trouble with your statistics. Yes, the professionals might hit 2/3 of the greens in tour events give or take, but those are on 7,500 yard courses with generally narrow fairways and lots of trouble. If you put them on a 6,500 yard course with wide fairways, I bet that number would be much higher. It doesn't help the rest of us in the slightest, but shows the gap between the best and the rest of us.

For me, the challenge is to create hazards that are imposing enough to be of interest while still allowing for recovery options. I find the best courses balance those two objectives. If the hazards allow anyone to recover from them, they really don't provide much challenge to better players. Too severe and of course playability is sacrificed. Ideally, unrecoverable hazards are used only on occasion to provide interest, and when used the designer affords a reasonable chance for the prudent player to avoid them.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Then a poster on here said something on here that I found simple yet profound (paraphrasing here): the problem with options in golf is they are almost always too obvious, particularly to the better player. Any player will almost always gravitate toward one option;...

Who cares if a player will "gravitate toward one option" if his opponents can each gravitate towards their own options that can be quite different from the first players?

[Dan Kelly]

Then a poster on here said something on here that I found simple yet profound (paraphrasing here): the problem with options in golf is they are almost always too obvious, particularly to the better player.

Here's my take on that: Design holes where options AREN'T too obvious -- particularly to the better player ... but are not thereby made impossibly punitive to the lesser player.

[Mark Pearce]

George,

I don't believe that, to most golfers, strategy is that obvious.  I played my home course in a competition this morning with a good single figure golfer, who has been a very low handicapper.  We have 22 holes at Northumberland, with the 12-15 holes of the regular course being taken oit of play during the winter.  This winter, changes have been made to the bunkering around the 12 green.  I hate the changes, as I explained to my partner, because they are completely contrary to the strategy of the original hole (the courtse is a Colt/Braid design). 

My partner described the hole, as it was, as one of the hardest holes on the course.  To me it was one of the best.  As it was it was a left to right dog leg with one large bunker on the inside of the dog leg (which could be carried with a good blow) and a small, nasty pot bunker 60 yards further on.  The green was surrounded by a necklace of 7 bunkers.  Of these one was several yards short of the green, so that the bunkers described a U shape, with the bottom of the U pointing at the RHS bunkering.  A player who challenged those bunkers off the tee was rewarded with a far easier second shot.  The easy tee shot (and it was an easy bale out) was to play left.  From the left, however, the approach was far, far harder.  The existing greenside bunkers have all been filled in, with four bunkers replacing them, allowing the ball to be run in from the left.  Indeed, the preferred line is now from the left.

So, a hole where challenging the fairway bunkering left  a far easier approach, whilst the safe drive left a more challenging approach has been changed to one where the easier, safer drive leaves the easier approach.  When I explained why I did not like the changes my partner said that he had always thought the hole to be a difficult one because he the approach was so difficult.  It had never occurred to him that going right off the tee left an easier approach.  He had always stood on the tee, hit the safe drive and played it from there as a difficult hole.

This is an intelligent man he's a partner in the same law firm as I am), a good golfer (from a family of very good golfers) and a member of the club for years.  He also shows far more interest in architecture than most of the blokes I play with.  If he doesn't get strategy then nor do the vast majority of golfers.

[DMoriarty]

A couple of initial comments and observations.  

First, if those are diagrams from the George Thomas book, they are very likely by the unsung William P. Bell and not by George Thomas himself.  (No big deal, just credit where credit may be due.)

Second, I don't think we can define strategy as dependent upon "discrete" options.   Some strategic holes may feature "discrete" options but these are not the only kind of options.  Many are much less black and white and more of a spectrum variety.

Third, with good strategic design the options don't necessarily end after the drive or even when the plan goes awry.  

Fourth, while his courses feature strategic elements, I don't necessarily think Pete Dye ought to be a poster child for strategic design.   If anything the kind of design on which you seem to be focusing is a subset of risk-reward design with a heavy penal element.  It is popular among the no guts no glory, victory or (instant) death crowd (think Matt Ward) but this is only a subset of strategic design.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I tend to think that strategy is overthought.
The good player can kinda hit a good shot from anywhere.
The really good player does not worry about bunkers or tight pin placements.
The novice is happy just to hit.
The poor player hits in the wrong place.
Mr Average can hit it the right place sometimes but equally he can muck it up from the best position.....
So I guess you can count me as a Yes for over rated, that aside option golf is interesting or perhaps without strategy golf courses would be much duller.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,

There's a great quote about strategic design in TD's "Anatomy of a GC", one that was used to describe Woking GC, and it goes like this:

"No money or labour is wasted in needless endeavour to emphasise the infirmity of the congenitally feeble and innacurate".

Much of what you are talking about can be found, along with this quote, in the "Design And The Player" chapter of that book.

[Adam Clayman]

George, Strategy in golf should be multi-faceted. Knowing what to do, on the gc, is only the booby prize. Executing is another matter. It should even include; not ordering a bratwurst at the turn, for fear of slippage on the 10th tee. But I digress, some.

How someone decides to get their ball into the hole, in the fewest strokes possible, is an individual, inalienable right, and should not be dictated by the politician, designer or, the super.

[Bill_McBride]

To me the best strategy involves angled greens and hazards that must be challenged, either over or very close to, to get the best line into that angle.   This kind of strategy works for all levels of player, as it might be your second or third shot on a par 4.

If a shot from anywhere on the fairway to a pin anywhere on the green is equally challenging, to me that's weak design.

[Jeff_Brauer]

IMHO, while "strategy MAY BE the soul of the game", accuracy is still its essence, no?  Just like any game where you put a ball in a hole, basket or whatever, no matter where or how you take the shot, you must be accurate more often than the other guy or team to win.

While impossible to statistically analyze, other than things like "100% of putts left short don't go in" I would wager that most of a golfers score comes from execution and accuracy, while maybe 3-4 shots at most are added or subtracted by strategy.

[DMoriarty]

IMHO, while "strategy MAY BE the soul of the game", accuracy is still its essence, no?  Just like any game where you put a ball in a hole, basket or whatever, no matter where or how you take the shot, you must be accurate more often than the other guy or team to win.

While impossible to statistically analyze, other than things like "100% of putts left short don't go in" I would wager that most of a golfers score comes from execution and accuracy, while maybe 3-4 shots at most are added or subtracted by strategy.

If accuracy and score are so important then we ought to get rid of the course all together.  We can move the game to the range or, better yet, a condition controlled monitor.  There we can best measure the relative accuracy between players.  After all that is the essence of the game. 

[Neil White]

George,

I don't think so - possibly more that it is not understood.

A good strategic design allows golfers of varying standards the opportunity to play to their strengths (or weaknesses) and plot a route from tee to green.  

Whether they are able to 'see / read' the design separates those who understand from those who don't.

Of course after determining how they wish to play the hole they then have to execute the shot - this part relates to each individual's skill at striking the ball - however, a golfer who understands strategic design will allow for a greater level of margin for error than one who does not.

This reminds me of a prose I know about knowledge and a persons understanding of it:-

He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool-avoid him.
He who knows not and knows he knows not: he will learn-teach him.
He who knows and knows not he knows: he will fail-pity him.
He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise-follow him.


The 'fool' would be a golfer who just reaches into his bag for the driver regardless of the hole's design intent - the 'wise (man)' understands strategic design and plays to both the course and his own ability.

The middle two - well, they probably make up the vast majority of golfer out there............  

Neil.

[Sean_A]

George

I am not quite sure what you are driving at, but surely part of options is accurately assessing what one is capable of.  Its this sort of battle between the golfer and his ego that makes up a large part of strategy.  So from this perspective, I can't see how presenting options (either discrete or obvious) can ever be over-rated.   

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

The issue is every hole has strategy, and very few people actually truly understand the implications of that statement.

[Ross Tuddenham]

If strategy is overrated then aiming for the middle of each fairway and green from whatever position you find yourself in should allow you to score as well as trying to find a more ideal route, would it not?  

This is not really the case and, as mentioned by sean, players must asses what the course presents them and decide, given the talent and array of shots unique to them, what the most suitable shot is.  The basic ideal routes may be obvious but how to solve the almost endless problems made up of a combination of player ability, contours, ground conditions, hazards, lie and position of the ball are not.  In fact it is probably the case that the further you leave the basic strategy the harder to work out the new strategy becomes if the hole incorporates enough interesting features.  That some players will be better able to solve these problems cannot be overrated

I was also wondering, does strategy even have to play out in reality as long as you are forced to think about the shots you play.  If we accept that most players cannot regularly play the shots they want then strategy could appear overrated.  But where is the majority of the increased enjoyment of the game attributed to strategy actually derived from?

Is it thinking about it and trying to read the architecture or is it shots actually working out like you wanted.  I see them as two separate areas of the games enjoyment and so if the player is thinking, no matter how simple it can be sometimes; then again strategy is not overrated.  The reality of the perceived benefits may not have to match the idea created in the golfers mind due to the architecture of the hole?

[Lou_Duran]

Or perhaps incorrectly defined?

Well, if you managed to read all that b.s., I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Everybody has a plan until he gets hit. - Mike Tyson

Mike understood what I'm sayin'.

You cite Tyson, I'll go with Goodale, whose last utterances to me were to the effect "... is all bullshit; I am going to bed".

Yes it is.  Overrated AND B.S.  All holes provide the opportunity for the player to move the ball from point A to point B in more ways than the vast majority of us can reasonably employ.  Perhaps the inquiry should go into how strategic we are in playing golf, and to what degree a golf course entices us to venture from our pet shots (or strengths).

Ross- I think that the vast majority of us would score much better if we did hit to the middle of fairways and greens.
 

[Jeff_Brauer]

"If accuracy and score are so important then we ought to get rid of the course all together.  We can move the game to the range or, better yet, a condition controlled monitor.  There we can best measure the relative accuracy between players.  After all that is the essence of the game. "

David,

Actually, ranges like Top Golf sort of prove this is true, keeping the golfer in place, and providing computer chips in the ball. You should see the people this version of the game attracts here in Dallas - people of all races (saw women in Sari's the last time I was there)

It retains the essence of the game - hitting golf shots - while taking away the negatives - 5 hour time committment, $1000 investment in clubs, etc. and people love it and are drawn to it.  Not the exact game we grew up loving, but big picture guys might be thinking in terms of golf splitting into different versions of the game, traditional, range competition, etc.

Saw an interesting stat the other day - average golfers hit 5-15 good shots a round.  Below 5, they quit.  Above 15 they become avid golfers.   I mention it because any talk of strategy has to presume the player hits the damn ball well enough to think about where to place it.  Perhaps strategy is the soul of competitive golf, but that is 0.01% golfers.

And the snide response to your statement is that if strategy is so all important, would golf not just be a version of chess?  We could eliminate the ball striking altogether.  Yes, the magic of golf combines many things.  But I wager the whoops and hollers we hear on the golf course are for shots going in - hole in one, long putts, or close, far more than "I cleared that strategic bunker!"  That sort of suggests the main attractin of the game, even if the rules say getting it the hole in =the lowest number is the sssence of the aame, which automatically sets up strategy as a major part of it.

[Niall C]

IMHO, while "strategy MAY BE the soul of the game", accuracy is still its essence, no?  Just like any game where you put a ball in a hole, basket or whatever, no matter where or how you take the shot, you must be accurate more often than the other guy or team to win.

While impossible to statistically analyze, other than things like "100% of putts left short don't go in" I would wager that most of a golfers score comes from execution and accuracy, while maybe 3-4 shots at most are added or subtracted by strategy.

If accuracy and score are so important then we ought to get rid of the course all together.  We can move the game to the range or, better yet, a condition controlled monitor.  There we can best measure the relative accuracy between players.  After all that is the essence of the game. 

David

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

[BCrosby]

Strategy doesn't matter until it matters.

The Goodale approach (is/was?) to define strategy down so that everything is strategic. Which means nothing is strategic. Q.E.D. That's always seemed to me more of a parlor trick than an attempt to get at the issue. But to each his own.

Strategy matters if there are serious consequences for not playing strategically. That can mean a lot of things, but the one that comes first to mind is the approach shot to a green where being out of position with your drive means your chances of reaching the putting surface are rife with terrible risks and possible catastrophe.

That is when golf is at its most interesting. It is also, if true, an argument for why courses ought to be built to be much harder than they are, not easier. If you want to attract new golfers, you will attract them by experiencing those sort of thrills. That makes the game both more fun and creates all the right incentives to becoming a better player.

Mark's story is interesting in that regard. My guess is that his scratch law partner doesn't view a hole strategically because the downside to not playing it strategically is not severe enough to trouble him. So, at the end of the day, he has chosen the correct strategy. The problem isn't with him; it's in the design of the hole.

Bob  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

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)

It also occurs to me that "strategic design" was a reaction to the early penal designs.  In reality, the golden age guys were selling themselves as something better than calling a pro or American Park Builders, and also needed a justification for avoiding the too difficult cross bunkers, etc. that were clearly making golf miserable for most.  In that way, strategic design is as much about making the course easier for most as it is making the better player think.  They simply kept the bunkers that affected the better player most, and in those days, pre-sand wedge, it made a difference to miss those bunkers.

Sure, strategy is still part of getting close, angles etc., but it has always been over rated, IMHO.

[George Pazin]

Mac, no fair rebutting my long boring post with 2 sentences.

...
I was also wondering, does strategy even have to play out in reality as long as you are forced to think about the shots you play.  If we accept that most players cannot regularly play the shots they want then strategy could appear overrated.  But where is the majority of the increased enjoyment of the game attributed to strategy actually derived from?

Is it thinking about it and trying to read the architecture or is it shots actually working out like you wanted.  I see them as two separate areas of the games enjoyment and so if the player is thinking, no matter how simple it can be sometimes; then again strategy is not overrated.  The reality of the perceived benefits may not have to match the idea created in the golfers mind due to the architecture of the hole?

I like this a lot.

Gotta think about the other responses, didn't expect so many... or at least so many thoughtful ones.

[Peter Pallotta]

George - good thread, good posts.  To take a dfferent aproach: I'd suggest that what is under-rated, and rare, are courses that don't call attention to themselves as strategic, courses where highly valued elements such as choice and recovery options and lines of charm and challenging greens don't have big signs and signifiers pointing them out for all to see and praise and admire, courses that blur and blend (and in fact make inapplicable) man-made notions and distinctions such as easy-hard and penal-strategic, courses that don't trumpet themselves (but actually are) playable for golfers of all levels from the same set of tees, and that offer a much-vaunted freedom only in the most surprising/unexpected of ways -- and courses that offer the golfer all of this while looking as if they've been there on that bit of land, as part of the land, for over a hundred years and that seem to need very little human intervention in terms of maintenance or inputs.  That kind of course is under-rated;  I think every other kind of course might indeed be slightly over-rated.

Bob - I really like your post.

Peter

[George Pazin]

For me, the challenge is to create hazards that are imposing enough to be of interest while still allowing for recovery options. I find the best courses balance those two objectives. If the hazards allow anyone to recover from them, they really don't provide much challenge to better players. Too severe and of course playability is sacrificed. Ideally, unrecoverable hazards are used only on occasion to provide interest, and when used the designer affords a reasonable chance for the prudent player to avoid them.

I both agree and disagree with this. To me, it boils down to how one defines hazard.

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.

The downside of these latter elements is that one's penalty is not always obvious, particularly if one executes a difficult recovery, even while not realizing it - actually, especially while not realizing it. I think that's why some find courses with subtle defenses often lacking - the golfer walks away feeling he should have shot 5 shots better, not realizing he actually received his just reward!

I remember a long long time ago, a poster on here (haven't seen him post in many years, but I won't out him) cited the 10th at Riviera as a birdie hole for him - driver, 2 putts, birdie. That's someone who completely missed out on the hole. By this standard, every hole is at times a joke for someone.

Did Schwartzel's chip-in, hole out start invalidate those two holes at ANGC? Not hardly. But I fear that somewhere, someone is sitting with a clipboard, thinking about adding a tree or thick rough or water to screw the next guy...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()