A rare strategic choice for me

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents - really good posts.

The psychology -- both personal/individual and in relationship with the architecture -- is fascinating. The more I think of it, the more aspects come to mind. 1) The fact that I felt vaguely guilty about playing that Par 5 the way I did; the architect went to all the trouble of putting a fairway bunker on the left side about 240 yards out, and there I was taking it completely out of play by hitting an iron off the tee. Where will that kind of madness madness end? I mean, if the architect cleverly creates a very short Par 4 that's driveable even for me but that has a green dangerously surrounded by deep bunkers, it would be like I was spitting in the architect's face if I played it 9 iron-9 iron, two putts. 2) On the other hand, if I could bunt my way around a course in 75-80 strokes, always taking less club off the tee, I would be absolutely thrilled, and I'd win many a match and my back and shoulders would hurt less; and yet, something inside me is determined not play like a 70 year old retiree until I'm actually 70 years old and retired!

Maybe I should only play rounds of golf while wagering much more than my mates and I could possible afford -- this would certainly clarify things, and it sure would make the choices easier, i.e. I'd be playing everything hole like I did that par 5!! Ah, yes -- but then, what would become of my soul!!  

[Brent Hutto]

Peter,

Just for context, I was not ashamed to be "that guy" when I arrived at the 16th hole during my one and only round at Cypress Point. There was a breeze from the right and hurting slightly and for a short-hitting lefty slicer there just wasn't any glory to be had banging a driver and losing a ball in the drink. I played out to the left with a 5-wood then hit an iron onto the green and narrowly missed my par putt. No way that experience would have been made better by a futile gesture of "going for it" off the tee, followed by playing out to the left with my second ball.

[Garland Bayley]

It is exactly that "inherent weakness of the human condition" that sets the table for the architect. They know we (all levels of golfer) are going to try to reach just beyond our limits to pull off a shot. Like bookmakers setting a line that may not seem logical but still draws money from the home team fans.

The very fact that this is a game makes it all the more likely that we'll take on a shot that logically we maybe shouldn't because after all, failure can be forgotten quite quickly.

Adding a small bet or entering the weekend competition puts a bit of teeth into the thoguht process and soon enough the golfer really feels like they're active and engaged in something. You have to want to get into the hole in the fewest strokes...it's an insult to the architect to not aim for a score.

You seem to understand the point, but that last bit seems to contradict it.  Many golfers are out there to just try to hit the shots and have fun at it ... they don't remember the score a day or two later.  But if the golf shots were fun to play, they're happy.  That's why it is hard to get most people to lay up, and why the guys who do may win the bets.

Glad you said may. The strokes gained/lost stats guy says laying back is losing.

[Colin Macqueen]

Exactly Peter!!
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the hole par, and lose his own soul?  Mark 8:36.

Cheers Colin