Strategy, Experience, and Astronomy.

[DMoriarty]

According to my daughter's current favorite dvd, Galilro Galilei said:

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. "

Does this apply to the truths of golf architecture, if such truths exist?   Do golfers have to discover certain aspects of golf architecture themselves, or can they learn everything through reading, talking, etc?.  

In particular, I have been trying to understand how some on this board seem to have no real use for strategic notions of golf architecture, except perhaps to occassionally pay them lip-service.  How can this be?   To me the importance of strategy to golf is self evident.  Golf without strategy is like sex without a partner; it can be fun, satisfying, and a good substitute, but it almost always pales in comparison to the real thing.

It seems that some of our biggest proponents of strategic golf course architecture have or have had extensive experience at very strategic golf courses.  Is it possible that one cannot learn about strategic golf but instead must experience it and discover it for oneself?

Is the opposite true as well?  Have those of you who just dont get the importance of strategic architecture spent much time playing strategic golf courses?   Not just vacation playing, but playing repeatedly?  

[TEPaul]

David:

I've never been completely sure when this website talks about "strategic" golf whether they're all actually talking about and imagining the same thing. I doubt it.

But I know I played about 20+ years of fairly decent tournament golf and knew nothing about architecture. All I knew to do was put the ball in the fairway, put it on the green and try and avoid obvious trouble all along. There wasn't much more to it than that. If I didn't do that on a hole all I knew to do was to try to recover from my problem with minimal lose.

Is that strategic? You got me.

But I also played those 20+ years on courses that were maintained in a fairly standardized way. It wasn't until something like the Crump Cup, or Seminole's Coleman in the early 1990s that that changed dramatically. At the Coleman (Seminole) that changed on a course I knew like the back of my hand. And I also saw it once at a Scrambles tournament at Stonewall.

What was the big difference? The way those courses were maintained and set up for those tournaments. It was like night and day and the amazing thing is it really didn't even look that much different.

And then a few years ago in the NGLA Singles tournament NGLA was set up and maintained in a way I just really hadn't seen before, particularly "through the green".

That to me was a real revelation and awakening about golf architecture. It was like all the architecture--the ground, every little contour and nuance had sprung to life and was working on all eight cylinders.

I can't stress enough what a huge difference that was to everything else I'd ever known. All of a sudden the things I was used to doing weren't working the same way. What I thought were acceptable shots weren't and sometimes what I thought weren't acceptable shots were working beautifully.

What was happening? I think all the architecture had come to life and was functioning, again, on all eight cylinders. I had to look at that course and study it super hard to even understand what the possibilities and unapparent dangers were in a new light.

On the NJ Turnpike on the way home a day later it suddenly hit me--a golf course's voluminous and complex problems and solutions had been presented to me under klieg lights. I saw for the first real time all that golf strategy could be. That's the time and place that some of my ideas on the "ideal maintenance meld" began to fall into place.

The difference between NGLA and Seminole back in the early 1990s was NGLA had it's "ideal maintenance meld" ratched up everywhere while at Seminole it was more at the green end only. I guess I didn't really understand the impact of it that well at Seminole back then but the one thing that really amazed me and which I'll never forget is that we all hung around Seminole on Sunday after the tournament and played another round.

In just 24 HOURS they had taken that course back out of the way it had been and it played just like I always knew it where and when you could just hit the fairways and hit it somewhere on the green and everything would be just fine!

So sure there's probably a little more to strategy in golf and architecture than just reading books or even just playing courses!

[RJ_Daley]

In just 24 HOURS they had taken that course back out of the way it had been and it played just like I always knew it where and when you could just hit the fairways and hit it somewhere on the green and everything would be just fine!

Tom, what else did they do in just 24 hours besides turn the water back on and place pins further from edges?

David, I think one has to crash into strategic golf and have an experience something like Tom relates.  I play with many fellows who have a nice game and like to play our county course.  They do well at other courses too, so it isn't just familiarity with the home sod.  But, I am trying my best to get some of them to come out to Wild Horse with me.  Or, I tell guys I know that are going to be in various places like LA, to get out to Rustic Canyon.  All they ever hear about is places like Lost Canyon, etc.  So far, I can't really claim any converts.  They look at you with blank stares and wonder what all the hub bub is about with this strategic golf and fast and firm ground game stuff.  The ironic thing is that I personally don't get to hit enough shots on a fast and firm course throughout the year and so when I get back to Wild Horse or such a place, I have a ball trajectory that is way too high for what I want to do.  I'd need lessons and groove time practicing to actually do what I know needs doing on such courses.  So in a way, backing into your question, playing courses that don't have the ground strategies, that play soft, and are basically aerial assaults can hinder the recognition of the other kind of golf, like Tom said he discovered by stumbling into a revelation after all those years playing and being competitive at nice golf courses.

In otherwords, speaking for my self, the lights are on, but nobody's home...

[ForkaB]

Dave

Even if one could define what you mean by "strategic golf course architecture" I still think that your assumpiton is wrong that many on this site don't "get it" (even if you are fuzzy about what "it" is, or even what the meaning of "is" is.......).

I can't think of any regular contributor to this site who does not have a grasp of how robust various golf courses are in terms of their ability to challenge the player's ability to golf in a strategic manner.  Many if not most have highly refined understandings of this concept.

What exactly are you trying to say?

Tom P

Do you think that NGLA and/or Seminole are intrinsically more capable of being "tuned up" than, say, Atlantic or PGA-East?  Did MacDonald and/or Ross actually design the little anomalies that make either course more interesting when played fast and firm, or do similar anomalies exist on other courses that do not choose to bring their courses to the edge once or twice a year?  If the former is true (i.e. DJR and CBM et. al. had some sort of special Mojo that allowed them to see or create the subtleties and anomalies that make great courses great) how can this skill be recreated by today's architects?  If it is not true (i.e. there are many courses out there that could be "great" if only they had the supers and the memberships/ownerships to allow for fast and firm), should we not be talking more about GCM (Golf Course Maintenance) than GCA than we currently do on this site?

In 2500 words or less please, and this is an open book exam.......(insert smiley face here).

[DMoriarty]

Rich, I am not going down your semantical road to nowhere regarding the meaning of strategic golf course architecture.  You know what I mean otherwise you wouldnt be answering.  

Certain concepts are best understood by epiphany, such as is described by TEPaul, above.  I am merely wondering if strategic golf course architecture is such a concept.  

Also, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the sophistication of our understandings.  For example, I have read your questions to TEPaul, but I have no idea what all but the first have to do with TEPaul's post or with this thread.  Apparently one our understandings substantially differs from the other's.  

What exactly are  you trying to say?

[THuckaby2]

OK, so let's assume that the worth of strategy in golf course architecture is best discovered by epiphany, on the course, than by reading about it in a book.  I'll buy that.  Doing is always better than thinking about doing.  Seems quite obvious.

So where was your epiphany, David?

And why would you assume that "certain people" here haven't had such?

Understandings and appreciations come in many forms.  Just because disagreement exists regarding certain strategies doesn't at all mean that strategy as a concept is not understood, valued, and appreciated.

TH

[ForkaB]

Dave

I really do not have a clue what you (and others) mean by "strategic architecture" any more than I know what President Bush means by "strategery."  Both are full of rhetorical sound and fury, but signify nothing.  At least to me, and some others on this site.  Sorry.

The part of my post directed to Tom was honest and in good humor.  Re the first bit that puzzles you, I really do wonder how much of what we call "great" architecture relates to the topography and how much to the mangement of the flora that grow on that topography ("maintenance meld" for the lack of a better term).  Tom seemed to be saying, in his post (and the several previous ones relating his conversion on the roads to Southhaptom and South Florida) that Seminole and NGLA became much "greater" courses to him when they were "tuned up" by the greens staff for a major competition.  If he belevies that this is so, I was just wondering if a course with less of a pedigree in terms of topography (e.g. PGA-East and Atlantic) could also be made "great" (or at least significantly "greater") through the sorts of maintenance practices done at the other venues.

Capice?

[DMoriarty]

So where was your epiphany, David?

Kapalua Plantation.  Somewhere around my seventh or eighth play.  I am a little slow I guess.

And why would you assume that "certain people" here haven't had such?

Because we all seem to all be speaking different languages when discussing strategy.

Understandings and appreciations come in many forms.  Just because disagreement exists regarding certain strategies doesn't at all mean that strategy as a concept is not understood, valued, and appreciated.

Generally true of course, but contrary to my experience when it comes to strategy.

Look Tom, I am not casting aspersions at "certain people."  I am merely positing that perhaps one might have to immerse themselves in strategic golf architecture in order to really understand strategic golf.  Because of changing course styles, trees, and current maintenance practices, I am not sure many have had that opportunity.  Maybe I am wrong, but nothing has been said on this thread to convince me that I am.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty & TEPaul,

Perhaps when TEPaul negotiated golf courses successfully he subconsciously understood the architecture of those courses as it related to the playability of those golf courses.

I wonder if TEPaul's handicap dropped precipitously shortly after his epiphany when he consciously understood the architecture ?

I would suspect not.

I find it hard to believe that as a successful navigator of golf courses that TEPaul didn't have any clue about the architecture of the golf course.  He may not have known anything about design and construction, but surely he understood the spatial relationships between the features on the golf course.

Then again, perhaps he's just another idiot-savant  

[THuckaby2]

David:

OK, gotcha.

Just so long as we both understand this wasn't directed at any particular participants here.  

This is an interesting topic, anyway.  I continue to believe that strategic choices have their place, and give spice to the game, but I don't care how well I "think", I'm not gonna defeat Tiger Woods even if he's been lobotomized.  Good ball striking beats good thinking any day.

But "thinking" as I call it - "strategy" in your terminology - is indeed a valuable part of the game.  Not sure if I agree with

"Golf without strategy is like sex without a partner; it can be fun, satisfying, and a good substitute, but it almost always pales in comparison to the real thing."

I've had plenty of completely mindless golf rounds - drinking beer, hitting wild shots, scrambles, etc. - that were completely devoid of any strategic thought, but were also among the most fun rounds I've ever had...

But to each his own.  I kinda like to leave my strategic thinking for competitive rounds, and I enjoy turning such OFF outside of competition.  The challenge is in fact in the turning it off... it's not so easy to do....

In any case, I guess I fail here because in all of my 32 years playing this game, a lot of which has occurred competitively, I can't point to any one moment of epiphany where I "got" what strategy means.  Maybe I just don't get it.  Or maybe it's always just been second nature.  

TH

[DMoriarty]

Rich,  I am no architect and dont know nearly enough about "strategic golf course architecture" to present you with an adequate definition.  So I will follow in the footsteps of Patrick and others and fall back on Justice Potter Stewart's infamous quip:  "I know it when I see it."  Plus, I will add what Justice Stewart was probably thinking:  "And I like what I see."  

If that doesnt satisfy you, check out Tom Doak's description of the Old Course in the Confidential Guide.  I have quoted part of it at the end of this post.  [The description is on point even though much of the strategy of the Old Course wasnt designed.  Strategic golf course architecture strives to present similar options and avenues of play as apparently arise naturally at the Old Course.]
 _____________________

Patrick:  
 I think you may have misunderstood my post.  I am not talking about a general understanding of "the architecture of the golf course" or "the spatial relationships between the features on the golf course."  I am talking about understanding strategic golf course architecture.    I am assuming that there is such a thing and it is distinguishable from most of the architecture that many of us are exposed to on a regular basis.  Assuming TEPaul had never been exposed to strategic golf course architecture how could he have understood it?

As to his handicap, I would be surprised if it dropped much.  I dont suppose that understanding strategic course architecture and lowering one's handicap are necessarily related.  For me at least, trying to understand strategic golf course architecture makes the game more interesting and enjoyable, which is more important than my score.  
__________________________

Tom H. and Shivas,

"Certain people" was Tom's phrase, not mine.  So Shivas you'll have to ask him if he was thinking of you when he wrote it.  You guys are a little paranoid, perhaps?  I wasnt thinking of the two of you in particular but about a whole bunch of posters and non-posters.  Shivas, you may be surprised to find out that some others play golf on their vacations, and some of those even post here.  I just as easily could have said "rater golf" or "four courses in 3 days golf"  or "check-list golf" or any other term which might refer to limited experience on a certain course, as opposed to repeated play under a variety of conditions.    

I was also thinking of some of the authors and architects who have had extensive experience on strategic courses.  For example, Geoff Shackelford grew up playing Riviera.  Also, Tom Doak spent a period of time at the Old Course.  You never hear anyone say,  "I have played  the old course 50 times and have grown to hate it."

But perhaps my post was too antagonistic.  Let me come at this from a different direction.

In his Confidential Guide, Tom Doak explained that he thought that The Old Course was truly one of the greatest courses in the world, even if one sets aside considerations of history and tradition.  He then said:  

"If we disagree on that point, I'll bet it is because I had the opportunity to live in St. Andrews just long enough to understand the true nature of the golf course, and I doubt you have."  p. 52.

Later he says:

"The unique challenge of the Old Course is that tactics play just as big a part as execution . . . It is entirely up to you to figure out the optimal line of attack given [the conditions] and weigh the risks accordingly.
. . .
If you can accept [the hazards] as they are and determine the best way to attack, you'll discover that golf is a fascinating game."  

Isnt he suggesting that it takes some experience to understand and appreciate the nature of a course like the Old Course?  Do you agree with this assessment?  Do you think that this is because the Old Course is a complete anomaly, or is there something about the Old Course which makes it difficult for golfer (especially American golfers) to grasp?  

What is it about the Old Course that makes it so hard to appreciate without extensive experience?  

[ForkaB]

Dave

You and Tom Doak get the weekly JakaB Memorial Hyperbole Award.  For Tom to write that TOC is "unique" in requiring tactics in equal measure to execution is naive at best, and thoughtless at worse.  There are myriad courses one could say that about--maybe even all courses.  In fact, the balancing of planning and action is what makes golf such a strategic game--whether you play at Torrey Pines or Riviera.  As for your comment that "nobody" who has played TOC 50 times "hates" it, it is either uninformed or fatuous (if your use of the word "hate" was meant to be literal, rather than figurative.  I live in Fife and I know a lot of good, expereinced, and, yes even strategic, golfers who find TOC very underwhelming.  I'm one of them, even though I haven't played it 50 times, yet....

As to why some of us feel this way, well, you'll have to come over to see for yourself and not rely on Tom Doak's memories of his few weeks there 20 years or so ago--but, let me offer these observations:

1.  The course is coyote ugly.  Starting with the 1st hole which is best viewed backwards, through the next 6 which have as much definition as a photograph taken by a wino with the DT's, to the "hit it over Gropius's worst nightmare" tee shot on 17, the course grates the eye.  But, then again, were not talking "eye candy" here, are we, so how about.....

2.  The course is flat as a pancake, but with numerous unmelted knobs of butter scattered around so that you can never know exactly where you are going or, most importantly, what exactly happened to your shot after you hit it.  How do you "learn" from a course where you have virtually no visual clues to tell you whether or not a strategy or tactic has worked and why?  How can you develop a "strategy" when you have absolutely no knowledge of the field of play or the possible consequences of various tactics and the quality of their execution?  It's "hit and hope" golf at it's highest art form.  

3.  The biggest semi-unmelted blobs of butter are called "greens."  They have great contours, and are a joy to (try to) putt, but to call approaching most of them "strategic" is like calling craps a "sport" (or is it a "game"--Max Behr fans, please help me out....).

4.  The course, as played by most visitors, is woefully short.  It lives on as an Open venue only through the addition of about 1000 yards of back tees in the whins which completely disrupt the flow of the course when played.

All that being said, I like the course, for all its flaws--just as I like LA, for all it's goofiness and je ne care to sais quoi.  However, nobody (that I know of--got to avoid next weeks JakaB award) has ever called LA a world class city.....

OK, have I offended enough people yet?

[TEPaul]

"Tom P
Do you think that NGLA and/or Seminole are intrinsically more capable of being "tuned up" than, say, Atlantic or PGA-East?  Did MacDonald and/or Ross actually design the little anomalies that make either course more interesting when played fast and firm, or do similar anomalies exist on other courses that do not choose to bring their courses to the edge once or twice a year?  If the former is true (i.e. DJR and CBM et. al. had some sort of special Mojo that allowed them to see or create the subtleties and anomalies that make great courses great) how can this skill be recreated by today's architects?  If it is not true (i.e. there are many courses out there that could be "great" if only they had the supers and the memberships/ownerships to allow for fast and firm), should we not be talking more about GCM (Golf Course Maintenance) than GCA than we currently do on this site?"

Rich:

Firstly, I don't know Atlantic or PGA East so I can't compare them to NGLA or Seminole if all were 'tuned up' as you say. Frankly, in all my travels I haven't seen that many courses 'tuned up' to play as thoughtful, interesting, possibly intense and demanding of intereting little strategies as I did at NGLA and Seminole during those times I mentioned. But others where I have seen that condition to varying degrees would include PVGC, HVGC, Merion, Oakmont, RCD, Misquamicutt, GMGC (very occasionally), Cedarbrook, Stonewall, and even little Mallow among some others.

Is "tuning up" a golf course synonymous (or somewhat synonymous) with my ideas on an "ideal maintenance meld"? Definitely!

Would the process or perscription of how to best "tune up" (the ideal maintenance meld) courses such as Seminole and NGLA be exactly the same as compared to Atlantic or PGA East? Again, not knowing the latter two, I don't know.

But I'd say that if Atlantic and PGA East are two courses that have architecture (and potential strategies) that're heavily reliant on the aerial game then I'd say the process and perscription of how best to tune them up (their OWN ideal maintenance meld) would not be the same as a Seminole or NGLA.

So I'm sure you can see where I'm going here! If a golf course is designed (its architecture) to be not much more than heavily reliant on the aerial game, although there's nothing inherently wrong with that, how can it have the overall interest of a course that is designed to offer stratetgies of both the ground game and aerial game? Frankly, I can't see that it can be.

Starting with that basic premise and without getting into a laundry list of specific examples just try to let your mind wander as to the DEGREE of interest, thought, challenge etc, etc that can be generated for interesting and varied strategies when a golf course possesses all kind of nuances and subtleties of both ground and aerial possibilities (options providing varying strategies).

I suppose all this leads us, as I've tried to say so many times before, to an analysis of how the aerial game and the ground game relate to one another when it comes to both the design and particularly the maintenance of a golf course and how that works towards overall interest and challenge and strategic thought (or not!).

If a golf course is either designed or maintained to primarily accomodate the aerial game, and not the ground game, that leaves something to be desired, in my opinion. What it leaves to be desired is the intersting alternative of the ground game and all its many facets when it comes to how the ball bounces and rolls across the topography of terra firma and Mother Earth and what all that can mean in interesting strategic considerations and possiblilities!

But finally, a balance of some sort needs to be struck, in my opinion, to bring ground game strategies and aerial strategies into an equlibrium that makes decision making anything but clear and straight forward. Obviously golf courses that are not designed with much in the way of ground game strategies can't really do that, can they? And courses that are designed with ground game strategies, particularly fascinating ground game strategies, can't really do that either if those ground game strategies are not maintained or maintained to their fullest, can they?

When you get all that under your hat then is the time to start talking about exactly how and to what DEGREE all those subtleties and nuances of architecture contribute to the overall interest, challenge and multiple possibilities of any golf course and its architecture---or not!

If any golf course offers both--and to fascinating and challenging degrees through both its inherent architecture as well as maintenance practices that enhance and create that equilibrium of aerial and ground game possibilities, then I would say its a good golf course, perhaps a great golf course that is doing all it can to highlight all that it is and has!

[TEPaul]

And ultimately, what is strategy? Strategy to me both in general definition as well as in golf and golf course architecture is a PLAN--a plan to play any shot or any golf hole to best effect.

What if a golf course obviously provides one plan and nothing much more? It can still probably be interesting or challenging or whatnot, but can it be as interesting and challenging to the mind as a course that offers more than one PLAN (strategy), perhaps many plans to pick from in playing a shot or hole to best effect? And what if the mental calculations of which plan (strategy) to CHOOSE and USE really are in some kind of balance or equilibrium--or appear to be?

Wouldn't that be more interesting and challenging and ultimately enjoyable than a course that only offers one basic best plan (strategy) in sort of a one dimensional pass/fail sense?

I think so--and here's ultimately why. Because with the latter (the architecture with numerous plans (strategies)) it's actually possible to hit very good shots and then come to realize that you simply may have picked the wrong plan (strategy) or let's say not have understood that plan (strategy) as well as you should have.

That to me is when golf and golf's architecture begins to enter the skill level of not just the physical but a combination of the physical and the mental--and it can't get much better than that as far as I can see.

But great golf architecture needs those multiple possiblities (plans and strategies) as well as an ideal equilibrium of them to test that combination of physical and mental skill.

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

Your first post said "some on this board."

I equated that to "certain people."  So if you weren't talking about me and Shivas, who did you mean by "some on this board"?

Actually, I never thought you meant me.  I did think you meant Shivas.

And if you say you didn't, then fair enough.

In the end, your first post was very antagonistic.  But kudos to you for recognizing that.  But man, don't blame me for equating "some on this board" to actual humans...

But anyway, now you have me totally confused.  Does one achieve this understanding of strategy in golf course architecture from an epiphany (like you at Kapalua Plantation, TEP at NGLA) or through "extensive experience" (like Doak - and I'd add Kilfara - at TOC)?

Or does the epiphany only come after the extensive experience has been achieved?

I truly don't buy any of it.  I honestly believe it's second nature - some golfers just plain know how to "read" a hole.  Of course their abilities and knowledge deepen with experience, as they face more competitive situations, but I don't buy that any one magic moment, ie epiphany, is required for understanding of it.  Just like Shivas, I come to some holes and immediately hit 2-iron, or aim far away from what seems like the shortest easiest angle, because I can see the best way to play the hole, with the highest percentage for success.  No epiphany gave me this ability... And to be honest, it's really not rocket science.  And of course I didn't know this as well as I do now when I started playing as an 8 year old, but what I did know even then is the concept that there are good ways and bad ways to play any golf hole, and one should seek such out... Obviously one gets better at how to discern such over time.

Oh, I am far from infallible - I'm still trying to figure out the "best" way to play #12 Rustic Canyon, for example - and you have helped me a lot there - but basically what I'm trying to say is that on the VAST majority of golf holes, it ain't that hard, and it requires no epiphany to understand.

BTW, appreciation of TOC only comes over time because it looks like such a boring piece of shit course at first glance.  Remember what Sam Snead said?  He's not far wrong.  Of course for those who appreciate golf history, it has its charms... But the golf course itself, well... it doesn't look like much.  Seems pretty simple for the first few playings, also - just avoid the bunkers, hit it over the omnipresent false fronts, and a good score can be achieved.  Darren - and Tom - can explain and have explained how the appreciation deepens over time... There is a definite "learning curve" that seems to occur without fail, for nearly all golfers who care enough to play the course 30+ times and try to learn it anyway.

TH

[TEPaul]

"Golf is not about thinking.  It's about, as Rich implies and I'm going to embellish, the balancing of a little bit of planning and a whole lot o' action."

Shivas:

That remark and some of the other paragraphs of yours leading up to it in your last post are just unbelievable to me. But go ahead and just keep thinking things like that as it applies to golf's strategies and how to best use them.

Basically you're sort of trying to deny golf's old strategic adage of the tortoise and the hare which is the essence of how golf strategies on the part of otherwise apparently disproportinate physical capabilities can be leveled to some interesting degree through thought (yes thinking) and how exactly it applies to architecture. That old adage was not something the best of the old highly strategic architects used just to sound good or sound clever--it actually had real meaning and worked in what they conceived of and created.  

I've seen it hundreds of time, thousands of times all in the hands of some excellent golfers, ball-strikers etc. They're great at that but many are a bit light to varying degrees on thinking and generally--and I do mean generally it costs them. There is a select group of others I know who're also good ball strikers but what separates them from the other great ball-strikers is their clear ability to think better. Basically it just gets down to a better understanding of the ramifications of risk/reward in golf which generally is heightened in really good to great golf architecture! These are the players that one knows about, reads about and the ones who're more successul than the rest who pretty much hit it the way they do. What separates them? You guessed it--thinking and thinking well and better!

This thread should in no way degenerate into posters claiming that anyone is disparaging their knowledge of architecture or anything else or claiming that "I know better than you do".

But on the issue of thinking well in golf I'd suggest you do something on your own that I believe will prove my point. If you're able to do it without much bother---play two balls by yourself at least a dozen or more times. Call the first ball your aggressive ball and the other ball your conservative ball. I don't know how aggressive you really like to be because I don't know you but play that conservative ball as conservatively as you can imagine always concentrating on avoiding trouble at all costs.

I can almost guarantee you that your ultra conservative ball will end up beating your aggressive ball in both match and stroke play far more than you might ever have imagined!

 

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

Conservative beating the aggressive is an absolute given.  Shivas knows that, we all know that.  You are misunderstanding his point.

Not that he needs my help, but I get what he's saying (I think) and that is, that everything else being equal, better ball striking beats better thinking any day of the week.

Your example assumes equal ball-striking - it's the same man doing it - that's not the issue here.  Of course conservative, thoughtful play yields the best scores.  That's an absolute given.

But it just seems that Dave M. wants us to believe that one can use smarts to outplay a superior ball-striker.  Of course that CAN happen, but the superior ball-striker would have to be play pretty stupidly.  Smarts can only get one so far on a golf course - the smartest, most perfect strategic thinker still has to execute the shot.  If he can't get where his mind tells him, than what good is it?

So I don't believe Shivas is trying to understate the importance of strategic thought - it is important, it does help.  Rather, what he is trying to say is that all the strategic thought in the world can't take the place of actually hitting the ball well, and it just appears that Dave might be OVERSTATING the worth of strategic thought on the golf course, and perhaps understating the importance of physical ability.

TH

[RJ_Daley]

Looking at some of the better contested majors in the last several years, perhaps one can say that the final leaders were all great ball strikers, but that thinking combined with the that high top pro level of ball striking was the determinant.  What about Pavin at Shinny?  Was the plodder of all grinders, Jansen thinking better or just more consistent?  Did Tiger's victory in 2000 at St Andrews show his thinking side better than ball striking (never in one bunker in 4 rounds)  Why hasn't McChokelstein won a major yet.  Stinkin thinkin lost more majors than better ball striking has won, IMHO.

[ForkaB]

Tom P

Thanks for the replies.

I was using Atlantic and PGA-East just as examples.  Choose your own less-than-revered-but-good course(s) and think of the question--could they be as good as the revered courses (e.g. NGLA, Seminole, etc.) with the "proper" maintenance meld, or is there something inherently "better" about the design of the topopgraphy of the golden oldies?  Or is it only the oldies that have alternative/groiund game routes to most greens (i.e. Pine Valley probably excluded)?  Or is it just speed and firmness, regardless of the design?  When I think of the very good/great newish courses I know I get mixed thoughts on this.  I can conceive of "tuning up" TPC Sawgrass or Bandon Dunes, but not Spyglass Hill or Harbourtown.

Tom H and Shivas

I think that Dave and Tom P are trying to argue that certain courses allow for more strategy/thinking/call it what you want than others.  As you both have eloquently adn rightly said (bookmark that, Huckaby!) all golfers strategize, instinctively and continuously.  Some just do it better than others (e.g. Tom Paul).  Nevertheless, I'll still take John Daly over TE Paul 19 times out of 20 in match play, regardless of how well or "conservatively" or strategically Tom plays.

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

That does need bookmarking, and this day ought to be recorded for posterity.  

So ok, some courses bring out the importance of strategic thinking more than others.  OK, fair enough, that to me is also a given, assumed.  And those will be the more interesting golf courses, for anyone with half a brain anyway.  Again, assumed.  I don't get the big revelation to be gained here, maybe that's the problem!

BTW, Daly only beats TEP 19/20 because on that 20th time we can assume Daly had a LATE night the evening before.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

Some people may have an inherent ability to understand strategic architecture, but an inability to express their understanding.  Previously, TEPaul may have been one of those people.

Then again, maybe he is an idiot-savant    

[DMoriarty]

Rich,

So Tom Doak is engaging in hyperbole for calling the Old Course "unique" in not imposing a set strategy on the golfer but instead letting the golfer try to figure out the best route on his own?  In fact, the Old Course provides no more or no less opportunity for strategic thinking than does Torrey Pines?   I hope you get a kick out of some of places your blind devotion to semantics takes you.  I sure do!

I personally had never heard anyone say that as they got to know the Old Course they appreciated it less.  If you and your playing partners really take this position, then I stand corrected.  
__________________________

Shivas and Tom.  I am amazed at how much energy you two have devoted to whether or not this thread was directed at one or the both of you. Have you known me yet to shy away of aiming my posts directly at you?  Why would I start being coy now?    Dont get me wrong, the two of you certainly are among the "some" that I mentioned, just not the "certain" or specific people I was thinking of when I came up with this post.  [Dave, my quote at the bottom has been on there for about a week now.  I found it after you backed away from your previous statements about CPC 16.  Of course the quote is factually correct, it is just entertaining to me to take it out of context then look back on the conversation where you think it in context.  Here is the link in case  you cant recall:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=5789;start=msg110691   TH, I didnt think the original post antagonistic and I still dont.  But I am not surprised you took it that way.

Tom,
If you are confused you may want to revisit my first couple of posts.  Basically the issue as I see it is whether or not it is possible to really understand strategic golf course architecture through learning (books, conversations, discussion forums, etc.) as opposed to experience.  I dont think one need be specific as to the degree of experience (say distinquishing between learning through repeated plays or through an epiphany during a particular round) in order to get what I am saying.  It is about experience vs. book learning, not about experience vs. epiphany.  (By the way, in my case you will notice that the "epiphany" didnt come for quite a few rounds, and I refer to myself as a slow learner.  Obviously I thought the experience  had something to do with providing the groundwork for the "epiphany.")

Shivas and Tom H and Rich,  

You guys seem caught up on whether strategy makes better players.  This is the kind of fundamental misunderstanding that I was referencing in original post.  I am not talking about making better PLAYERS.  I am talking about making better GOLF COURSES.  There is a big difference.  Strategic golf architecture doesnt derive its value from score, but from whether or not the game is interesting, or as the hyperbolilic Tom Doak puts it, whether or not the game is "facsinating."   Trying to hit the fairway then the middle of the green may be challenging, but there isnt much fascinating about it, is there?

Tom, for me understanding the merits of strategic golf course architecture isnt "second nature"  at all.  In my mind, a good way to figure out whether a hole is strategic would be this:

If you can walk up to the tee and instinctively know what the best play is for you, and if your instinct is correct, then the hole is probably not very strategic.

But maybe you are just a lot better at reading courses than I am.  I remember a while back you posted about the Old Course (expressed some disappointment, if I recall correctly.)   As I said, I havent played there, but from what I have seen on t.v., I am very impressed that you could step on the tees at a course such as the Old Course and instinctively know what the best play is for you!  

[TEPaul]

Whatever I said on this thread I take back except for the posts with Rich Goodale. I must've thought this thread was some other subject.

Rich:

If you're asking me to compare another course ideally tuned up to a course like NGLA ideally tuned up and which has the most interesting and subtle strategies in that state I'd say it wouldn't even be close.

I'd use a course like Royal Amelia Links in Amelia Island Florida that I've always liked to play--it's fun with some very nice holes but slap its ideal maintenance meld on it and slap NGLA's ideal maintenance meld on it and they still aren't in the same ballpark.

And again, I like Royal Amelia Links to play.

Actually, I hate to say this but if NGLA itself was wet and soft I'd probably just prefer to wait and play it some other time when it wasn't that way. To see it--obviously the look is the same--and that's wonderful but to play it that way isn't all that great compared to the way it can be. Matter of fact it probably wouldn't be 1/50th as good to play or begin to understand its interesting and subtle strategies.

That happened to me in Ireland too. We played Royal Port Rush for a few days and it was in a maintenance cycle--very slow and punched. Anyone could tell the course must be fantastic when its properly tuned up but it wasn't. Then we went down to RCD and played that for a few days and it was absolutely ideally tuned up--about as perfect an "ideal maintenance meld" as I've seen and it was just fantastic--a whole different ballpark from Royal Port Rush. But who knows-turn the whole thing around and the feeling would probably be reversed. It's probably no different than sitting in a Ferrari in a garage vs taking it out for a high speed spin.

I feel the same way about the new Stonewall I saw the other day--it looks like really neat architecture but I really don't want to go up there and play it until the course gets really tuned up because playing it like it is now it wouldn't be 1/50th as revealing of what all I think the course and its architecture can be!

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,

Maybe I should have directed my original post to you personally.  My attempt get a few more interested in the conversation has obviously failed, and your posts are always so perfect.  

I find it downright scary that you find my bold statement downright scary.  Can a golfer just walk up to a hole and "get it?"  Sure, on a non-strategic golf hole.  But on a strategic golf hole, the chances of just "getting it" are much less likely.  In fact, if Joe golfer instantly "gets it," then the hole has probably failed as a strategic hole.  No interest.  No fascination.  

It gets even worse . . .  A golfer can walk up to a strategic golf hole and think he "gets it" when really he doesnt.  More still, the golfer can play the hole repeatedly (and even score well), all the while never really "getting it."   This might be another sign of a successful strategic golf hole.  

Get it?

But really, we are talking about two different things, or perhaps the same thing on two different levels.   I meant to make my post about understanding the "concept" of strategic golf course architecture.  We seem to have digressed into a discussion of recognizing and considering options on a strategic golf course.  Not that this cannot be an interesting discussion.  Just wasnt my plan when I teed off.   My reference to Kapalua concerned my understanding of the concept of strategic golf course architecture.  It had little to do with the spectrum of options presented on any particular hole.  

  But, while we are on the subject, lets put this epiphany thing to rest.  Once again, I am not saying that the only way to understand strategic golf architecture is through epiphany.  My inquiry was whether it was possible to truly understand the concept of strategic golf course architecture without having extensive exposure to it.  Kapalua was somewhat of an awakening for me-- not about strategy off the tee or decision-making or course management, but about the interrelationship between the architecture, the conditions, and the golfer; and about how a single golf hole could present multiple avenues of play, none of which was necessarily the best play in any given situation.  I dont think I had ever really seen this before, or noticed it.  So it took me a few rounds to put it together.  Like I said, I am a little slow on the uptake.  

Judging by many of the courses I have seen and played, the concept of strategic golf course architecture seems to bepretty novel these days.   Why is it unreasonable jor me to wonder whether immersion would improve understanding of that concept?   After all, isnt total immersion the only way for most of us to really learn a foreign language and/or a culture?

[ForkaB]

Dave

It's your lucky week!  Today you win the Tom MacWood Memorial I've-never-seen-the-course-but-I-can-sure-comment-on-it Award. While you're at it, you might just want to look in your dictionary and study the following words:  strategy, hyperbole, unique.  Until you eventually play TOC I won't say that your views on it are rubbish.  For the moment, I'll just consider you to be cheerfully misinformed.

BTW--the hole that you chastised the Huckster on with your infamous bold lettering was the 17th at TOC, which is one of the poster children for the anthropomorphites who think golf courses can be "strategic," and if you know that hole at all, you will know that the Huckster spoke the truth--it is obvious on the tee what shot to hit.  Hitting that shot, however, is often problematical..........

TE Paul

I'm less discriminating than you and would probably still play NGLA or Portrush if slow and soggy, and probably find them to be more like 80% as interesting as the "ideal" rather than 2%.   But that's probably because having played so much fast and firm golf over my life I can very easily imagine how any soft and slow golf course might play when "tuned up."  A substantial part of the enjoyment of golf--and the ability to play strategically--is the use of one's experience, self-knowledge and imagination, which is what Tom and Shivas are trying to say and I don't think Dave M. "gets" yet.  You obviously do