Is Distance Not Its Own Reward?

[Mike Hendren]

Conventional wisdom says the big hitter who successfully challenges/carries a hazard should be left with a more accessible approach, perhaps down the length of the green with no additional hazard to carry.  But isn't the fact that the big tee shot leaves a shorter approach sufficient reward so that the big hitter can be challenged again, perhaps by a poor approach angle.  In other words, at least from the back tees why not risk/risk instead of risk/reward?  An interesting take using Cuscowilla's opener as an example:

http://www.travelgolf.com/departments/editorials/rethinking-strategy-345.htm

I believe the author once posted hereabouts.

Bogey

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Bogie thank you for standing up for the short hitters natural advantage in strategy.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Conventional wisdom is the heart and soul of the game. It’s neither makes sense nor is it practical if the game is meant to be golf. The only reward should be the sound of the ball falling into the cup.

Why do people think that golf should be easy and where on earth does this idea of rewarding a good shot by a free rite of passage come from, sorry but where in Hell’s name is the fun let alone challenge.

Conventional wisdom is what is killing our courses and the great game of golf – seems highly unconventional lacking any form of wisdom whatsoever.

Melvyn

[Michael Blake]

His premise for a change in strategy is based on the pro/elite person who can drive the ball a mile.
What about the 99% of the rest of us who still spray our drivers. 

I appreciate his different look at strategy, rather than the simple alternative of lengthening the courses.

But, let's design courses for the 99% not the 1%.

[JNC Lyon]

Conventional wisdom says the big hitter who successfully challenges/carries a hazard should be left with a more accessible approach, perhaps down the length of the green with no additional hazard to carry.  But isn't the fact that the big tee shot leaves a shorter approach sufficient reward so that the big hitter can be challenged again, perhaps by a poor approach angle.  In other words, at least from the back tees why not risk/risk instead of risk/reward?  An interesting take using Cuscowilla's opener as an example:

http://www.travelgolf.com/departments/editorials/rethinking-strategy-345.htm

I believe the author once posted hereabouts.

Bogey

I would argue the opposite.  Not only is a shorter approach not sufficient reward for challenging a hazard, but it is less of a reward for the longer hitter than it is for the shorter hitter.  The difference between 150 yards and 170 yards is much greater for a shorter hitter than it is for a longer hitter.  Therefore, a longer hitter would have less reason to challenge a hazard solely to gain a shorter approach.  If he could play away from a hazard and obtain a much better angle while sacrificing a little distance, he would do it.

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

When I was working for Pete Dye he was just starting to experiment with that idea ... angling a fairway so that the farther down you went, the worse an angle you had to the green, and making you choose between evils.  I thought it was an interesting idea, and I've used it in various ways over the years.

However, the bottom line is that too much of anything is a bad idea.  The only way to keep players thinking is to change up the ways you test them.