Strategy, Experience, and Astronomy.

[DMoriarty]

DAve, this is exactly my point.  How do you KNOW?  Who's to say what's right?  That said, how do you know what is a good strageic decision and what's a lousy one?  Unless you can tell me that there definitely are merits to one vs. the other, I'm forced to conclude that it's irrelevent.  If #10 was really obvious, then everybody would do one thing.  But they don't.  They do all kinds of stuff.  So how can you really tell me that strategic decisionmaking matters when 60+ years of play by the best in the world shows no clear cut advantage to one strategic option vs. the other?

Huhh?  Whaaa?  Either I have lost my mind our you have stopped making sense.  Why do you equate "no clear cut advantage to one option" with "strategic decisionmaking not mattering?"  And how in the world do you conclude that there is no "strategic advantage" to the different options at Riv. 10?

Lets cover the bottom line first: Strategic golf course architecture is about future possibilities, not about past results.  As the sports broadcasters are so fond of saying (imagine me trying to imitate Cosell):  "That is why they play the game."  

Sure, past results might give you a clue as to what will probably happen,[/i] who knows what will happen once the contest begins?  That is the essence of sport.

If two baseball teams were so equally matched that it was impossible to pick a favorite, would you say 'lets just call off the World Series and call it a tie,' or would or would you let them play and enjoy every minute of it?   How about two boxers, who if they fought 50 times would each win 25, if they survived?  Should we have them fight or hug?  

And, by the way, there are clear cut potential advantages/ disadvantages to each option at Riviera 10.

Back to your first question:  How do I know that they arent really weighing their options at Riv 10?  I dont for sure,  but as I sit there all day and consistently see those who lay up left score much better than those who go for the green, I start to have suspicions that perhaps the PGATour golfers arent really very good at weighing their options.  

But I guess it is possible that have weighed the options and that they think they have made the correct play.  Or maybe the lure of a short hole without OB, water, or USOpen rough is just too tempting to pass up.   But these two possibilities make much more sense on Thursday than on Sunday.  

[DMoriarty]

Shivas.  

Step back for a minute and lets look at how your thoughts play out on the course.   Specifically, step back onto the tee at CPC 16 and caddy for me in a very important match which is all square through 15.  Lets pretend that under the conditions we know that the two options balance pretty evenly, statistically speaking.  Its my honor, and I nervously turn to you for advice.  Will you really tell me the following?  

    "It doesnt make any difference what you do, statistically speaking. "

Your Vegas analogy is inapplicable.  At the roulette table you have perfect information.  You know the odds before you play.  And they are bad odds, even by Vegas standards.  So I dont play roulette.  But, if you like roulette you can play.  And I will even modify the wheel a little, in your favor.
--I have taken the green off the board.  36 numbers, half black half red.  In other words, I generously cut out the vig.  
--Your bankroll is a one million dollar ($1,000,000) short term loan you borrowed from a corner "banker" named Vinny.  
--House rules:  You must place the entire million on a single bet:  one color, one third, or one number.  
--I get to pick the bet for you.    

What would you have me do?  

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, it doesnt matter what I do.  Makes no difference, because there is "no advantage, statistically speaking."  

So I think I will put it all on 26.  And dont worry about Vinny, I am usually pretty lucky.  
_______

As for Riviera, I have watched quite a few pros play that hole, and I really have a hard time believing that they have mathematically calculated their best chance.  It is really suprising how many go for it, especially given the rarity of eagles.  

[TEPaul]

Dave:

When you say things such as this;

"DAve, this is exactly my point.  How do you KNOW?  Who's to say what's right?  That said, how do you know what is a good strageic decision and what's a lousy one?  Unless you can tell me that there definitely are merits to one vs. the other, I'm forced to conclude that it's irrelevent.  If #10 was really obvious, then everybody would do one thing.  But they don't.  They do all kinds of stuff.  So how can you really tell me that strategic decisionmaking matters when 60+ years of play by the best in the world shows no clear cut advantage to one strategic option vs. the other?

or this;

"But you're missing the point again!

"How in the world" I conclude that that there is no strategic advantage to the options at #10 Riviera is based on the LACK of evidence that one or the other is the better play.  So how in the world can there be a strategic advantage if there is no statistical advantage to one or the other than anybody can cite?  That's like saying that there is a statistical advantage to hitting 6 iron vs. 7 iron on, say, 16 at ANGC or anything else.  This is pure speculation.  I can't take it as anything but.  

Don't you think that if 40 years showed that an iron out to the left was, say, .25 per hole a better play, then players would say "HEY!  that extra shot over 72 holes is worth $____, and I'm an IDIOT for going for it" or vice versa if going for it was the better play?  Can you really be THAT condescending toward the intellect of the best players in the world that you think they don't know what the hell they're doing?

And if there IS no advantage, statistically speaking, then WHERE IS THE STRATEGIC CHOICE IF IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU DO?"

or particularly this;

"but you kinda ignored my point about the role of hindsight in verifying the import of strategic decisionmaking.  How can you look back on a hole and know you made the right choice?  Especially with conservative play?  You play for the fat side and hit it there, then you play a conservative approach.  YOu have an easy 2 putt.  Who's to say that was the best play?  How do you know?  Conversely, you play aggressively and screw it up somethin' aweful.  You take a big number.  How do you know you wouldn't have done that playing conservative, too?  The only scenario I can come up with for KNOWing that you made the right choice is where you play aggressive and it pays off with eagle or something.  Then, if the conservative play would take eagle out of play, you can say that you made the right choice (short of holing a third shot from layup-land or something, but you can't count on that).  

So, I have to ask:  Is the following a ridiculous statement (and if so why?): it is impossible to say with certainty after the fact that you made a wise strategic choice on the golf course because you never KNOW what the other option would have brought you.  

And if any "choice" example you give is so clear cut that it's obvious (say, you're leading by 3 and there's a 285 carry off the tee), then it's not a true strategic choice!

Now, if you buy into this premise (and I'm not certain that even I buy into it; I'm kinda winging this), then what result?  Well, how can strategic decisionmaking be an important component of the game if you can't even say with certainty that it had an effect on the game?  Could it be that "strategy" is nothing more than guesswork before the fact and poorly-informed rationalization after the fact?  Say it ain't so, Joe...."

Sorry to quote so much of what you said but it's all important in this discussion.

On to the next post this quoting has gotten so long...




 

[TEPaul]

Shiv:

When David Moriarty responds to you that a golfer can never really know if the choices he made were the correct one he does mean that. And, I for one, certainly agree with that. He isn't missing the point you made that without knowing what choices are correct strategy therefore becomes irrelevant, he just feels, as do I, that your point has very little if any validity--your point then becoming your premise to conclude that strategy really has little if any meaning.

I hope you don't take his response, or mine as some kind of personal insult--it's just that you seem to be completely failing to see pretty much the essence of what golf is all about!

A man such as Behr often referred to golf's and architecture's strategies in a series of essays from many angles of interest to architectural analysts. One essay was on the correct use of penalty in golf architecture--and seeing as hazards (potential penalty) are the raw material of an architect's ability to create strategy in golf, this paragraph by Behr has a lot of meaning both as an explanation of strategy in golf and architecture as well as being very pertinent to this discussion we're having;

Behr said;

"Hazards are not penal areas. Punishment is not the end that penalty serves. On the contrary, hazards are pressure areas acting upon the mind. They make a call upon intelligence. And intelligence, in terms of pastimes, may be defined as the skill of the mind to cope with experience. Therefore, if a golf hole is to have form, its hazards must so react upon one another as to create unity. And as a result of unity the mind of the player is projected into the future. Each stroke comprehends not only an immediate problem but a future problem as well. It follows that every hazard of a hole, even the bunkers that abut the green of a three-shot hole, must be felt by the player at the tee. Thus the golfer, just as the player of games, is forced to assume immediate risks if he wishes to rid himself of future liabilities."

The most important areas of that paragraph I think are 'make a call upon intelligence' as well as 'intelligence....may be defined as the skill of the mind to cope with experience', as well as his mention that all this decision making basically casts the players mind and his thought processes into the 'future'----which frankly Dave, I think we can all agree is generally unknowable with any kind of certainty!

Can you now begin to see why your point that if the future results of the use of various strategic options in golf architecture ARE NOT KNOWABLE WITH CERTAINTY that that hardly renders strategy (choices, options etc) irrelevant?

Golfers, intelligent golfers, generally set themselves a plan on how to play golf holes (their strategy) and just go with that. If they succeed they probably don't give their choices much of a second thought. If they fail they may analyze that their execution did in their plan--or perhaps they may analyze intelligently that their capabilities did not match their plan. Perhaps they'll do even better than they planned and think to themselves that the luck of the game was with them that time. Perhaps they may even conclude that that excellent result is what they can expect of themselves everytime.

The latter sentiment, common for some reason in so many golfers is what clever architects count on and bank on in their use of strategic temptation--such as driving Riviera's #10 and making an eagle. If that particular option or choice is what you'd seriously consider and more particularly try to do, time and time again, if you played Riviera as a steady diet then no wonder you may be inclined to question the relevancy of golf strategy.

But the fact is you'll never know before the fact or even after it if that really was the best choice and that IS THE POINT, my friend, about the fascination (and mystery) of golf strategy and golf generally.

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

Your back and forth with shivas and TEP is the real meat of this thing and is great stuff, but still, to be courteous I shall respond to your last post to me.

1. If you think the pros don't weigh percentages and play the best percentage shot, then you are really fooling yourself.  They do.  Believe it.  I supposed you have a point that they aren't faced with the very difficult choice that Riviera #10 gives them all that often, but still, watch how many 3woods guys like Tiger hit off tees... You may denigrate that as no big deal, but it is a percentage play, and thus is a strategic choice.  All pros with the possible exception of Daly play this way - they weigh the percentages and play the shot that gives them the best chance of success (and success is defined based on the moment, their standing in the tourney, etc.)  If you don't call these strategic choices, then maybe our issue is the definition of that term.

2. Same goes for CPC#16.  Of course we've beaten this to death already, but I faced the same choices you did on that tee, with the same conditions.  The fact I chose to hit driver doesn't mean the strategic choices weren't present... And really, the bottom line there was it was a decent play for me.  I'm not kidding when I say I really felt like I could make it over if I hit it solid, which of course was proven by the result.  It wasn't a 5-club wind at all.... It was a strong wind, yes, but it was quartering from the right - not going straight into us.  And in any case, see, this is where motivation comes in... I had absolutely nothing "riding" on the round - and I knew where I was, the fame of the golf hole, and the unlikelihood that I'd soon or ever get back.  Thus my motivation was to go ahead and try for the green, figuring that if I didn't make it, well... I'd hit 3 from the tee and then decide what to do with that one, not caring all that much if that occurred.  Add that to the fact I really did think I could make the shot, and well... this is all strategic thinking, whether you approve of my decision or not!  I weighed the percentages of success, factored in my motivations, and chose the shot I wanted to hit based on all of that.  I gather your motivations were different than mine, so you went left.  No hassles.  But don't say that strategic thinking was absent on that tee when I was there.... Or in your mind does strategic thinking always have to equal taking the conservative, safe choice?  That can't be true.... Taking the risky shot can be a very valid strategic choice, depending on one's motivations.  Most of the time it won't "work", but that doesn't mean it's not a valid choice.

3. I know you want to broaden this to golf courses and "golf course architecture", and you have a valid concern there.  Perhaps courses being built today aren't presenting many of the really difficult puzzles such as Riviera #10.  But many golf courses DO, and couple this with the fact that the puzzle really IS in the mind of the golfer, and well, I don't share the concern.  My Dad can play his beloved Studio City Par 3 course and the face strategic choices there, because for him, they exist... For example, does he hit his favorite punch 7-iron on #1, because he knows it will stay under the tree on the left given his omnipresent left to right ball flight, or does he try to actually hit a 9iron or wedge to the 100 yard hole this time, giving the ball a fighting chance to stop on the green?  For him, that's a strategic choice, you bet it is... and it sure as hell isn't presented by the "architecture" - you and I would look at that hole and not think twice about hitting a wedge and just landing it on the green - for us there's really no reason not to.

In the end, I suppose this is another key difference in how we look at this:  I really do think the strategy is in the mind of the golfer, and he can find it on any course (with the hard decisions obviously existing more on better designed holes).  You would seem to disagree with this, and say that the architecture presents the strategy, and so we ought to promote it more before it disappears forever.

I don't wholly disagree with your take (if I have summarized it correctly, and please forgive me if I haven't).  I just don't share the concern that it's a huge big deal, given one can find strategic choices to be made anywhere, based on his motivations, style of play, etc.

Maybe I also don't find strategic choices as lacking on modern courses as you do... I seem to have quite a few every round I play, no matter where it is.  And it's not because of the quality of courses I play - they are all over the place at my beloved and be-hated local muni, Santa Teresa.

This continues to be one hell of an interesting topic, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise before.

TH

TH

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul:

You and Behr pretty much summed up what I have been trying and trying and trying to say.  Thanks.  

The Behr paragraph reminded me of something MacKenzie wrote in Spirit of St. Andrews about hazards or bunkers, I forget which.  It was something like:  'Bunkers shouldnt be used make the game harder, they should be used to make the game more interesting.'   I dont think MacKenzie elaborated like Behr, but it seems they were of the same mind on this issue.  

Tom H.

1.  I am not trying to be condescending (as Shivas said) or denegrating when I say that I dont think the Pros always weigh their options.  I am telling you what I have seen.  I maybe wrong.  I've said my piece on Riviera 10, but you may want to check out what TEPaul says above on it as well.  

  Lets take the best (and one of the smartest) player in the world in a recent major, the Open.  Watching on t.v., I was left with the impression that Tiger may have lost due to poor decision-making.  More than a few times, Tiger faced difficult shots in high wind to very undulating green, yet tried to drop the ball onto the pin with one of his launched irons.   The example I keep thinking of was a 6 iron into the wind on 16 on Fri or Sat.   It looked like he hit it perfectly, straight at the pin, but the ball dropped on the false front and rolled back and well off the green.  It wasnt so much that he probably hit the absolute wrong shot for the situation, it was that afterword, he used the shot as an example of how the course was playing unfair; he said he hit it perfectly and it rolled back 40 ft.  Since when is having the wind stop a high ball unfair?  
Bottom line, I think these guys play with great confidence and they have a high degree of trust in what they do week in and week out.   When they are faced with a mental dilemna, I think they have a tendency to fall back on their strengths, and try to hit what they know, to a fault.  

2.  Sounds like we are in agreement on CPC 16.  It is a strategic hole.  My comment was directed to yours of a while back when you and Shivas were arguing that there were very few situations where anyone who could make it should ever lay up.  
    Is your consideration of the possible glory of having your name on the wall a strategic concern?  I guess so, but that is not really the issue.  I am concerned with what whether the course presents the golfer with multiple avenues of play, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages.  And TEPaul is correct above.  And creating the temptation for glory is a large part of the success of CPC 16's strategic architecture.    
3.  I am amazed that you keep saying that I am trying to broaden this to golf courses and golf course architecture.  I am not trying to broaden anything.  This has been about golf courses and golf course architecture from the beginning.  You guys keep talking about what does or doesnt go through your heads, but that is all beside the point.  
  As to club selection being strategy, I guess you can define it that way if you want.  But that type of decision-making has very little to do with the type of strategic golf course architecture which we are discussing.  I break it down like this.  Club selection is an example of vertical strategy, where you have have a line and you are just trying to decide how far to hit it along that line.  I am talking more about what I call horizontal strategy, where you are trying to figure the best line of play from multiple and distinct possibilities. I find the latter to be quite rare and much more interesting.  

[TEPaul]

David:

You made a lot of interesting remarks in post #65. Most of them have been made before in one way or another but it's always edifying to repeat them.

You said;

"Sounds like we are in agreement on CPC 16.  It is a strategic hole.....And creating the temptation for glory is a large part of the success of CPC 16's strategic architecture."

It would be hard to deny that #16 CPC's option of going directly at the green from the tee is one of those situations in golf that is extra specially tempting and alluring. Why? Not simply because of the character of that particular shot but additionally because of the extreme fame of that hole and that shot. In other words if all the golfers who pass through that hole had never heard of it before many many more may be inclined to use more caution (and the alternative option of going left). But the fact the hole is known the way it is increases the temptation to try that shot exponentially I'm sure. I'm sure some probably even feel it's a display of lack of manhood not to attempt that carry. God knows how much that temptation may have been increased by the knowledege that it was Marin Hollins's own shot who confirmed to MacKenzie that it could legitimately be done in the first place! God knows how many thousands of golfers have been seduced into trying that shot (and failing) under the sentiment--if a women can do it at least I have to try!

And you said this:

"As to club selection being strategy, I guess you can define it that way if you want.  But that type of decision-making has very little to do with the type of strategic golf course architecture which we are discussing.  I break it down like this.  Club selection is an example of vertical strategy, where you have have a line and you are just trying to decide how far to hit it along that line.  I am talking more about what I call horizontal strategy, where you are trying to figure the best line of play from multiple and distinct possibilities. I find the latter to be quite rare and much more interesting. "

Of course club selection is strategy or a form of strategic choice. But of what kind? You break down strategic choice into two basic areas--eg vetical and horizontal. I prefer to call them "distance options" or "direction options" or "accuracy options" or "length options". One is the choice to hit your ball as close to your eventual target as possible and the other is to hit your ball to a position (angle) to make your next shot easier somehow.

It does seem to me that in modern architecture "distance" options are probably a little more prevalent compared to some of the older architecture and older architecture seemed to rely more on "direction" options but mostly using a combination of both. There may not be a much better combination of both ironically than TOC.

Behr's philosophy on this particular subject was very interesting. One might say he was the king of all "direction" option thinkers or designers. That's precisely why he stressed the use of width in architecture so much in combination with his ideas such as "line of charm" ("line of instinct").

It seems to me that Behr's "Line of charm" ("line of instinct") idea is somewhat misunderstood. It's true he proposed to make decision making interesting by placing a hazard feature precisely at that point where a golfer's instinct told him he should hit the ball.

But what did that idea accomplish? It definitely created an option of what Behr called "shooting the bones for the whole works" (heroic) which was definitely the ultimate combination distance AND direction option! But what were the alternatives that were created by designing that option (surrounded by width of fairway)? It created the option of going left of that point, right of that point or short of that point, and frankly in architecture and design you can't really create any more options than that.

Behr also did not much believe in rough and he did believe that hazard features should basically be placed within fairway lines. That essentially gave all golfers more to work with and the penalty was one that a golfer suffered basically for overreaching himself of failing to think intelligently, not necessarily for hitting a very poor shot.

So what if a golfer hit a very poor shot, say hit the ball well wide of all that interesting architecture, perhaps with a shot that was seriously off-line of any intended option?

Hah, well that situation alone may very well be the single greatest reason why Behr was so misunderstood or that his philosophy was not bought into by golfers and golf architecture in general both back then and in the future. That occurence and Behr's philosophy on it ran afoul of the thinking that a golfer who hit a seriously poor shot should be additionally penalized by being in some flanking hazard or worse and be additionally penalized for his mistake basically in execution not necessarily in intelligent thinking. That is the very thing Behr objected to most. That was in fact using the whole idea of penalty in a negative way, in his mind, instead of a postive way to inspire a golfer to do or try his best. Behr felt additionally penalizing very poor shots was mirroring and magnifying a golfer's weaknesses and dispiriting him--not a good thing in golf. The idea in architecture to him was to inspire by design not dispirit!!

In a situation such as that, Behr and many of his contemporaries (probably MacKenzie and Jones) felt that shots such as that did not even need to be dealt with architecturally in any penalizing sense.

Why? They rationalized that shots such as that were penalty enough and did not need to be dealt with by having hazard features and such gobbling those poor shots up. They rationalized that that technique was inspired by man's inclination to alway punish that which was not ideal or correct! And they also philosophized that shots of that nature, even by good golfers were further dealt with in a certain form of penalty which they called "indirect tax" which basically meant, even if that golfer had a clean shot from those positions he was at least seriously out of angle to a green, for instance, as to make what he did next to make up for that mistake a potentially heroic situation.

Look at that idea. If the golfer hit a terribly poor shot instead of being immediately penalized he had the opportunity (the option) to redeem himself by something heroic! What could be a better idea than that--the idea of redemption--certainly a wonderful thing in both life and sport. But could instant and "direct tax" penalty accomplish that idea of heroic redemption? Of course not!

Again, Riviera's #10 is a great example of that. Hit the ball well wide of that green, even with great distance and only those who know that hole understand the "indirect" problems one has, but certainly not the lose of opportunity to POTENTIALLY recover and redeem oneself.

The one thing I really don't want to see happen on this thread is for some architecture analyst to rationalize that the golfer who ended up losing to Mike Weir this year in a playoff on that hole actually hit the ball close from a bunker well to the right of that green and that that PROVES that situation does not have serious consequences ("indirect tax) because of his recovery shot. That in my mind in no way whatsoever indicates that the indirect penalty of hitting the ball well right of that green is not severe enough to make that risk/reward option of driving the green interesting. All that instance indicates is that golfer just happened to hit one of the most remarkable recovery shots imaginable. He really did redeem himself momentarily by that remarkable recovery shot!

And of course in golf architecture, classic architecture, one should never minimize the importance of the remarkable recovery shot! What if he was under a tree? Would the situation have been half as interesting--not to mention ongoing?

But Riviera's #10 is the king of all strategic (multi-option) holes as it possesses both multiple "distance" and "direction" options.    
 

[THuckaby2]

David:

Yeah, what TEP said.  

Seriously, I completely concur with his reply and can add little to it.  All strategic choices - either regarding distance or direction, remain strategic choices.  Those regarding direction - ie angles - don't occur all that often, so yes, when they do occur they are more interesting - in general.  But "tempting" shots - ie CPC 16, Rustic 3,7,12 - have great value also...

And yes, I do understand that on those three holes at Rustic "horizontal" is part of the issue also...

As for the pros, ok they aren't perfect.  But they DO weigh percentages and make the best play based on that.  It's odd to me you would disagree with this... But ok, fair enough.

Anyway, grest stuff.  I continue to believe this is more in the mind of the golfer than in that of the architect, but we can agree to disagree on that.  I find strategic choices on any course I play, depending on my motivations.  I'd venture to say most golfers do.  But if you want to limit this to what the architect sets out for us, well... that's ok.  One way or the other, I believe we can agree that "strategy" is a very important part of the game.  If architects present us with more puzzles and thus make it easier for golfers to be faced with these things, then great... I would just still maintain that "strategic choices" exist whether the architect consciously builds them in or not.

BTW, on CPC 16, heck yeah the chance to get my mug on the locker-room wall was part of the motivation - it always will be.  BUT that being said, I still maintain I played the correct shot, which again was proven by the result.  I made it over, gloriously so, and made a par, which was valuable to me for historic bragging purposes.  I assume your exhilirating layup allowed you to achieve the same satisfaction.  I know you're not score-oriented also, or I'd ask what score you made on the hole.  

You knew I had to throw that in sometime.

TH

[TEPaul]

The only time I ever played CPC was maybe 15 years ago after we finished the tournament that used to be known as the "Gordon Gin World Pro-Am" at Pebble and Spyglass. It was our pro from GMGC and three of us scratch amateurs and on #15 CPC I hit it closest and we made three birdies and a par. On #16 I hit it closest and we made three birdies and a par. Who didn't make the birdies? You guessed it--ME!

[THuckaby2]

Whoa... that is some damn fine play.  I can see all the birdies on 15, but three out of 4 birdies on 16 is incredible.  Well done.... by the team that is!  

TH

[DMoriarty]

Tom H.

Funny we both agree with TEP but not each other.  I thought he was saying basically the same thing as me, with an interesting discussion of Behr as an interesting addition.

All four holes have "horizontal" or "directional" options.  It just so happens that it is those directional options are undoubtedly what makes the holes so interesting.  Imagine each with the directional options removed, and the holes suddenly all four holes are much the lesser.  

The Pros?  Tiger Woods, commenting on getting to know the course he is playing for the first time this weekend, said he was just trying to figure out the speed of the greens and firmness of the fairways; he only needed a quick glance to figure out the driving decisions.  

Why do you keep saying that you find strategy in the mind of the player and I in the mind of the architect?  Strategic decisions are of course in the mind of the player.  But strategic golf course architecture is in the mind of the architect.  If the golfer is oblivious, the strategic golf course architecture is still there and hopefully working.  You seem to keep missing that I have been talking about architecture from the beginning.  

Tom I never said that you made the wrong decision on CPC 16.  I wasnt there.  I am positive both Lynn and I made the correct decisions when we played the hole, 45 minutes earlier.  I also think I made the correct decision the first time I played when I put it in the drink, repeatedly.  

But  this isnt about our play.  It's about whether the hole actually presents options.  I seem to recall you taking a slightly different position than now when the subject first arose, but I am probably mistaken.  

I bogeyed the hole, but you knew that.  I was quite happy with that given my bladed second shot.  I was also quite happy with it given the likely alternative.  

[THuckaby2]

David:

I missed nothing, thank you very much.

I know you WANT this to be all about golf course architecture - I just disagree with you and would say that since strategic decisions are always going to be in the mind of the player, the architect's efforts are only part of the equation here.  It's just never going be simply and completely all about architecture.  You said it yourself here and elsewhere - all the great "architecture" in the world doesn't matter for shit if the player ignores it... The converse is true also - strategic choices can and do exist at even the most banal of courses, if the player is of a mind to look for such.... That's all I'm saying, David - it's really pretty simple.

You say tomato, I say tomahto.  

As for 16 Cypress, the wind wasn't blowing any less 45 minutes later when I got to 16.  The cool thing is that we each fully believe we made the right club choice on the tee.  MacKenzie didn't cause this - WE DID!

BTW, if I changed my thoughts on 16 Cypress, it's only to acknowledge that for you, going left was a valid play.  The options do exist, always have.  Whether one avails oneself of such all comes down to one's motivation.  Your motivation on that tee allowed a left shot as a doable, even exciting choice... mine did not.  Perhaps before I was quite more dogmatic about it and even might have called you a name that usually refers to a cat, but hey, that was all in good fun.

 

Seriously, I have come to understand your thoughts re that hole very well, and I see them as very valid.

As for the rest, well... have we reached the end?  Can we "call the whole thing off"?  

TH

[DMoriarty]

Tom,  I thought this website was about discussing golf course architecture, thus my focus.  Your focus on what goes on inside the individual golfer's mind is likely a road to nowhere which will teach us very little about golf course architecture.  

If I understand correctly, you are asserting that it is actually each individual golfer who is making strategic decisions within his own head.  I agree, of course.  To put in terms you are familiar with, this point is so obvious and fundamental that there is little reason to delve into it.  

Where we differ is when you somehow jump from the above truism to the conclusion that the architect and course play a diminished role in shaping and guiding these individual decisions.  Without getting into too much philosophical mumbo-jumbo, you (and the great Mr. Goodale) are falling into an anti-foundationalist trap.   You accurately note that something (golf strategy in this case) is subjective, but then leap to the conclusion that the context (in this case the course) within which the subjectivity is imbedded is somewhat unimportant or even irrelevant.  In fact the opposite is true.  The subjective person is imbedded in the very context which you are diminishing and couldnt escape it if he tried.  The context provides the options, barriers, and avenues which the subjective person explores and negotiates.    And while I am not talking about just golf, the golfer on a golf course provides a pretty good metaphor for the way context constrains the reasonable choices the subjective thinker will ultimately make.

Context is everything.  It provides us with the landscape we navigate through our choices.  And like landscapes, some contexts are more more interesting, thought provoking, and compelling than others.  

So what of your discussion about your dad seeing multiple options and choices on a cruddy par 3 course?  He too is being guided by his context (his ability, experience, the weather, the course, etc.) but the actual course is probably not enhancing his experience much.  As you said, the par 3 course in question is "banal."  I take this to mean that it is not interesting, not strategic, not enhancing his experience much.  Not a course we would ever consider to be great or even good strategic golf course architecture.  Your Dad can or should enjoy it, but it is not very good architecture.    

So yes, strategy decisions do exist at every course no matter how banal, but this is no reason to downplay the importance of courses that really do offer a compelling strategic setting within which enhance the enjoyment of the thinking golfer.  Nor should it stop us from judging courses based on the strategic options they present.  Think of art, architecture, music, even features and landscapes in nature.  The beauty and quality of each is subjective, yet we still are able to distinguish between different types and even make qualitative judgments regarding each.  Same goes for golf courses.  Otherwise we have absolutely nothing to talk about.

I dont think I ever said that great architecture doesnt matter if "the player" ignores it.  I may have said we might question whether a hole is actually strategic if "every player" only finds and utilizes one option, but those are two very different things.  Also, I have think I have softened my view my view on this as the conversation has continued
I missed nothing, thank you very much.

I am curious as to how you know how hard the wind was blowing when I played CPC 16?   You and Patrick seem to share a rather static notions of wind speed and direction . . . .  In my experience wind speed and direction tends to be pretty fluid.

The cool thing is that we each fully believe we made the right club choice on the tee.  MacKenzie didn't cause this - WE DID!"

While what you say may be technically correct, depending what you mean by "choose," I couldnt disagree with the tenor of the statement more.  Sure, we made the decision, but MacKenzie (and Hollins and maybe Raynor and definitely nature) provided us with the extraordinary context within which to make the choice.   It is foolhardy to undestimate the importance of this context in golf or in life.

So have we reached an end?  That depends on whether you have anything else you want to say.  Dont let me keep you if you have better things to do.

[THuckaby2]

David:

Ok, maybe it's me, but I detect a hostile tone to that post.  I swear to the almighty MacKenzie that I am just trying to have fun with this.  But when you say:

"So have we reached an end?  That depends on whether you have anything else you want to say.  Dont let me keep you if you have better things to do."

That sounds pretty hostile.  I notice no smilies or anything either....

Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter.

Back to the substance, I read your entire post (besides the hostile ending) and I say:  OK, great, fair enough. I understand.

Perhaps that puts an end to it?

You think architecture is of vital importance, I think that while the architecture presenting difficult strategic choices does make for the most fun and interesting holes, it isn't the be all and end all of the game, and such choices can be found anywhere if the golfer is so inclined.  Strategic choices, and strategic architecture, are darn fun to discuss, try to figure out, etc.  I don't think I ever said otherwise... My feeling remains that while this is all great, the function of the golfer himself remains paramount, and his motivations - and how he applies such to any golf course, those with wonderful presentations given by the architect and those without - remain more interesting, and to me more important.  I'm not at all saying that the context is unimportant - it is a very vital part of the whole picture... but it remains just a part, and the whole is what interests me, not just this part.   You seem to disagree, and find the context more interesting than the whole of the issue.  Fair enough, that's a basic difference I doubt we should even try to get past.

Again, tomato, tomahto.  I guess we're never going to change how the other feels about this, but can we at least agree on our basic difference here and move on?  I find your take VERY valid, I just differ from it.  Can you grant me the same benefit of the doubt?

BTW, you also forget that I was present that day at CPC.  When you were on 16, I was likely on 13.  Oh yes, the wind was howling... Just for us, the wind on 13 stayed the same as the wind we got on 16 - of course wind is fluid, but on that day it didn't change much, if at all, in the 45 minutes it took us to get to 16 tee.  Thus my assumption was it was the same for you... That is, the wind I felt on 13 was the wind you were feeling on 16.

If that's incorrect and you had a changing wind where we didn't, then fine.

When we played 16, the wind was very strong, but quartering from the right.  The effect was the 200 yard carry became about 220, especially hurting a right hander who fades the ball (or a lefty hook).  If it was significantly different for you when you hit your shot, then fine.

But again, please realize I have ceased to question your shot choice there, and in fact admire you in a strange way for having the balls to go against convention and give up the shot at immortality to play the shot you felt was correct.  Read that again:  I admire your choice.

So what else is left to say?  I don't know.  I just do know I have enjoyed this entire conversation lasting over many days as it has, and I hope you have as well.  I smiled reading your post, even though it did smack me as hostile, and I smiled composing mine.  That to me is important to keep in mind.  I hope you are smiling as well.

THAT is why I come here.  I do enough arguing and frowning in other parts of my life.

 

TH

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

Once again, there was no hostile tone.  I am still posting because I feel that I still have something to say and/or to learn, and will stop when I feel I dont.  You have the same choice.  No hostile intention, just pointing out that you can opt out at any time, if you think you've said or heard enough.  

And I very rarely if ever use smiley faces.  Don't believe in them.  

OK, great, fair enough. I understand.  

. . .

Again, tomato, tomahto.  I guess we're never going to change how the other feels about this, but can we at least agree on our basic difference here and move on?

Tom, again no hostility intended, but you can move on at any time you choose.   But I really dont see this as a "tomato, tomahto" kind of disagreement, but one that is much more fundamental.  Otherwise I never would have pursued it this far.

 To be blunt (but not hostile), I see your position as somewhat dangerous to architecture and the game.  The "architecture is secondary" mentality invites the sort of mamby-pamby, meaningless "anti-architecture architecture" which we see so much of these these days.  You seem to be seperating the golfers experience and enjoyment from the actual course.  Isnt this the same thing that is going on when courses try to substitute eye candy, cart girls, full service, gps, fancy club houses, 18 unrelated "signature" holes, course embassadors, pyramids on the driving range, etc. for quality architecture?  

If architecture is truly secondary, then why participate in all this discussion?  Why rate courses?  Why travel great lengths to play the great courses, with friends or without?  

In short, interesting quality architecture is more than just a theoretical discussion point, it is the end all and be all.  The course is by far the most important factor influencing whether the golf will be enjoyable, interesting, and challenging over repeated plays.  Treating it as secondary to enjoyment with the buddies might be fine for Joe Golfer and his 4 rounds a year, and is certainly a fine attitude for all of us to have on occassion, but it is an unacceptable position for one who professes to be seriously concerned with the study and critique of golf architecture.

Am I exagerating a bit?  I dont think so.  Not one bit.  

[THuckaby2]

David:

Muchas gracias for setting this straight.  If nothing hostile was intended, then fair enough.  Some smilies would help toward erasing this misunderstanding... If you don't believe in such, then that's fine also.  Just bear with me as I try to guess the intentions of your sternly-worded posts.

I don't take any of this nearly as seriously as you do, I guess. I play the game because I enjoy it and it's fun for me... I study the game, participate as a rater for GD and for the NCGA, and participate in discussions here, all because they are part of the great game of golf, which to me is FUN.

I guess the bottom line here, our real fundamental difference, is that to me the GAME will always be fundamentally more important and more interesting than the playing field, although I do enjoy variety in such - obviously.  That being said, as I've said many times before, I could have fun playing golf on a parking lot if the friends are right and the beer is flowing.  

I'd guess you could also, if I know you at all....

But obviously neither of us would want to do this every round!  Heck yeah, one of the greatest aspects of this great game is the variety it prsents.

So while your thoughts do have a lot of validity and I do understand them, I guess I just don't see the dire state of the game that you do.  I believe golf has existed for hundreds of years before you and I, and will continue long after we are gone.  If I choose to enjoy it rather than try to "fix" a problem I don't agree exists, then that's just my choice...

See David, I've never professed to be "seriously concerned with the study and critique of golf architecture."  My apologies if you though I was... I'm really not.  I just play the game and all the things I do connected with that are all just part of the overall joy I get from playing the game.  I am no crusader, never will be.

If this is unacceptable to you, then I'll just have to live with your reproach....

TH

[Mr_Chill]

And I very rarely if ever use smiley faces.  Don't believe in them.  

Paging Dr. Katz, paging Dr. Katz ....

[DMoriarty]

See David, I've never professed to be "seriously concerned with the study and critique of golf architecture."  My apologies if you though I was... I'm really not.  I just play the game and all the things I do connected with that are all just part of the overall joy I get from playing the game.  I am no crusader, never will be.

Tom, now I really dont get it.  Doesnt "rating" golf courses for a national publication entail a serious study and critique of those golf courses?  You surely arent basing your ratings on how much fun you had with your buddies, are you?  

Moreover, why hang out at a website devoted to golf course architecture if you are not really interested in its serious study and critique?
___________________________

Dr. Chill, I dont believe in aliases or Dr. Katz either. . .

[THuckaby2]

David:

You're going to have to live in confusion about this, I guess.

Evaluating golf courses for GD entails giving very specific 1-10 numerical evaluations for very specific criteria set forth by the magazine (that's the way it works for GD, anyway).  Yes, one ought to take that seriously regarding the course at hand, as well as how that fits as opposed to other courses, and I certainly do all of that.  No, fun with one's buddies has nothing to do with it, but of course you know that, and I shall disregard the smartass nature of that question.    But even though one does complete these serious evaluations, that doesn't mean one still can't have fun with the game, nor does that at all mean that one has to take any of this with life and and death-like urgency.  Fun can and does still exist in this evaluation process.  You ought to try it.  

And regarding hanging out in this discussion group, as you can plainly see I enjoy ALL topics here, and consider it a site devoted to GOLF as much as it is to GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE.  There certainly are no other discussion groups I am aware of that come close to the quality of discussion we have here, on all topics.  I'm sure Ran considers me quite the loose cannon, but I also feel fairly confident that he values my contributions.  I'll ask him when I see him in two weeks.

Nope Dave, I am certainly not "seriously concerned with the critique and study of golf course architecture."  Never have been, never will be.  If that means I can't participate here, well... I'll also ask Ran if he wants me to leave.

But you know what?  I admire those of you who are seriously into all this.  Damn right you ought to have the attitude that you suggest. But I also believe it's a big beautiful world of golf, and there is room for us all.

And for every one serious student and critic of golf course architecture, I'd venture to say there are hundreds of thousands of us who just play the game, love it, but take it not much further than that.  Our voices deserve hearing as well.  WE are the consumer, after all.

TH

[DMoriarty]

Tom

For I guy who professes to be all about the fun you sure do take my posts seriously.  I am quite sure you take them much more seriously than I do.

As for my 'smart ass' question, I prefer to think of it as rhetorical, but you say tomato I say potato.  

Tom there is a difference between taking a subject seriously and treating it with life and death urgency.  But you know that.  And taking something seriously and having fun with it are by no means mutually exclusive.  You know that too.

Fun can and does still exist in this evaluation process.  You ought to try it.  

Try what?  Fun or the evaluation process?  As to the former, fun is almost always my guiding star.  As sad as it may sound,  even this is fun for me.  As to the latter, not interested.  I get the feeling that I wouldnt make a very good GD rater.  I was never very good at counting to 10. What do you think?  

Tom, you dont need to go as far as Ran to find somone who values your contributions.  I value them . . . cant you tell?  I keep posting, after all.  

And of course I wasnt suggesting that you not participate here.   I was just asking you an honest question:  Why are you here?  Not questioning whether you should be, whether you should be allowed to be, whether your contributions are valuable.  I was just curious why you choose to spend your time at a site which seems to take golf course architecture pretty seriously.  The fact that you enjoy it is reason enough.  As for me, I think I would be constantly bored with a group that delved so deeply into something that I cared little about.  I watch an occasional pro golf tournament and enjoy it, but I cant imagine participating much in a website devoted to the PGA Tour, for example.  

I think you've nailed the difference between us.  I consider this to be a website about golf architecture, not golf in general.  

As far as you representing the hundreds of thousands of customers out there who just love to play the game,  that is a bit over the top, dont you think?  You are an influential rater for a major magazine, have seen more great tracks than Mario Andretti, and you spend uncountable hours here.  I think that pretty much seperates you from Joe Golfer.

But speaking of the masses, sure they deserve to be heard.  But you said yourself that the masses dont want to take it much further than playing the game and loving it.  Doesnt sound like you think they have much to say at all.  

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

Great stuff.  Let me say in reply:

1. When I said "you should try it" I meant the rating/evaluation process.  Of course you have fun playing the game - I've seen that in person - you are a riot and a joy to play with.  This was a smartass remark, back at ya for yours re me rating courses based on having fun with my buddies.  I see it worked.  

2. As to why I'm here, well... I enjoy it and find it fun - ALL TOPICS.  You'll notice that those that delve too deeply into who did what and why and when re golf course architecture have the least amount of involvement from yours truly.  There are many different topics here that I find interesting, and most of which have little to do with serious study and critique.  Now maybe Ran wishes it were different, I don't know... we'll likely discuss this in NM.  But so long as the wide variety of topics is allowed, I shall be here and be a constant thorn in the sides of the "purists".  The day this becomes "purely" about serious study of golf course architecture, well... I can't say I'd leave completely, I have too many friends here to do that, but let's just say it won't take long before I'd then fall off the list of most frequent posters.  I'd find THAT interesting, but a little dry....just as you - and I - would find a site purely devoted to the Tour boring.  To each his own, my friend.

3. For me, this is indeed a website about golf, not just gca.  We see it differently.  Likely the host does prefer your take, I don't know really.  But perhaps he's ok, and the rest of the group is ok, with us meeting in the middle a little?

4. You - and Tommy - keep saying I have some influence.  Dave, you know and I do that I am one of app. 750 members of the GD panel.  So I'd say that I have 1/750th more influence than you do, perhaps.  Hell, your words here likely have WAY more influence than my votes on GD's panel... this place is viewed by many REALLY influential people in the golf business, from all accounts anyway.  I just don't see what influence I have and although I appreciate your thought, well... I don't agree with it.  I continue to just play the game.

5. You may not like what the masses say, but they remain the consumer... thus even if they don't actively say much that you find worthwhile, still, their take does matter.  They do in the end pay the bills.  So perhaps they don't "say" much verbally, but they do with their feet and with their wallets...

Good stuff.  Damn I hope we do get to play again soon... Pasa awaits you and Rustic awaits me.

 

TH

[DMoriarty]

750 GD raters?  Amazing.  It is no wonder courses are going under left and right.  I may be the only one paying for my rounds.

My experience with raters lends me to believe that some of them are likely to be influenced by the opinions of others.  So if one of their kind has an opinion, that person likely has influence.  

Where did I say I dont like what the masses say?   Yes they vote with their feet and many are voting by abstaining from golf.  Thus the urgency that you dont seem to think exists.

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

The ratings we give at GD are confidential.  Thus I can't see what influence any of us has on another, other than what we say here or to each other... Hell, you have more influence in that than I do, that's for sure.  In any case, I remain doubtful about what influence I have.  Thus I feel very comfortable with my take on all this... Now if I were a WRITER with a pulpit to express my opinions, I might take this a bit more seriously.  I'm not, not unless you have a job in mind for me.  

And yes, there are approximately 750 GD raters.  I thought you knew that.

Remember also that the number of rounds done as a "rating" is likely less than 5% for all of us... it sure is for me... maybe others do more, I don't know.  Rest assured I still spend way too much money on this game.  

Re the masses, as I fight to get tee times anywhere decent, I don't see the decline of the game that you do. I can't think of any courses up here that have gone under for lack of business - maybe that's a SoCal thing.  What I do see is courses that are priced approrpiately, and give enjoyment, are the most crowded.  Those that are "too" anything are the least.  By that I mean too expensive, too penal, too hard, too many frills, etc.  I'm not kidding when I say Rustic Canyon represents the "right" way to do things, and ought to be a role model.  You know how the masses feel about that course, as you fight to get tee times.

And I'd guess one can get a time at Lost Canyons pretty easy, right?

This to me is important, as much or more so as the pure design and strategy issues... Perhaps you believe it's the design superiority alone that keeps the masses coming to Rustic and staying away from Lost Canyons, but I'd say that while that is definitely a big part of it, the relative costs are an issue also.... And "design superiority" can also be interpreted a lot of ways... many come back to Rustic because they more easily achieve success there than at a more penal course like Lost Canyons... it ain't all "strategy", in any case, not as I see it anyway.

It's all part of the big picture of the great game of golf.  As Nicklaus said in a classic commercial of my childhood, while putting away a nice volley in a tennis match,

"man does not live by golf architecture alone."

OK, he didn't add the word "architecture".  But he ought to have!

TH

ps - don't assume you know how my various ratings have come out.  I'd bet you'd be really surprised if you saw the forms I've turned in...  

pss - I fully realize I have taken this in an entirely new direction... that's mainly because I believe we've gone as far as we can with the "strategy" discussion, and to me this new direction has validity also... Here's hoping using Rustic as an example will cause no problems.... I only do so because you know so much about it....

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

I have absolutely no idea how hard it is to get a tee time at Lost Canyons.

Would Rustic still be as packed at twice the price?  I would assume not.  But no $100+ dollar course is always packed in Southern California.  Rustic has increased the price twice without altering demand, and they are poised to raise the price again.  I dont anticipate that the odds of getting a weekend tee time will improve much.  

Also, keep in mind the big picture.  Rustic's minimalist design means that it didnt cost $15 million to build.  It can succeed quite nicely without tapping into the fickle and fleeting $120/round crowd.  

But excepting the "Best New Affordable" award, I cannot help but wonder if Rustic is actually cursed by its affordability.  Sure, it's a great course for the money.  But had it opened as a private course, I think the sentiment would stand without the qualifier.

As for the masses, pardon me for my non-egalitarian viewpoint, but I am not ready to turn over the future of golf course architecture to the whims of the masses.

As I see it, golf course architects have two choices when designing for the masses.  They can lead or they can follow.  I would prefer them to lead.

[THuckaby2]

David:

Concur with most of what you say this time.  Heck yeah, Rustic is a role model and shows what can be done cheaply, and this passed along in cheaper green fee to the consumer.  I've always said this.

As for it standing without the qualifier, well... I know you believe that - I think Tommy does also.  We'll sadly never know, nor do I think it matters, really.  Bottom line is the course remains a role model of great affordable golf as well as great interesting golf.  Here's hoping others will follow.

One way or the other, the masses like the course.  If architects use this as a role model and build others like it, then that is one hell of a step in the right direction.  I am all for that, and really could care less who leads and who follows.  The end result will be a good one.

It's a tricky thing to pull off, however... The masses are also lured by frills... cart girls, pretty water features, flashy bunkers etc. do matter to a lot of people and conditions matter to nearly everyone... If you're gonna go minimalist, you're gonna have to offer SOMETHING else to keep them coming back - be it subtle, interesting strategic golf holes, great conditions, cheap price... This just isn't as easy as it seems, and thus all the more kudoes ought to go to Rustic for pulling it off successfully.

TH