Best Descriptions of Strategy

[Tim_Weiman]

On the Sand Hill thread with beautiful pictures presented by Paul Turner, JakaB asks if someone could explain the “strategy” of the first hole. Having never made the journey to Sand Hills I am not able to oblige.

But, JakaB’s inquiry did get me to thinking:

Where can one find the best descriptions of strategy? What books? Chapters? Pages? Referencing what golf holes?

I am tempted to think Tommy Naccarato may mention the Desmond Muirhead/Tip Anderson book on how to play St. Andrews. What are everyone else’s favorite writings about “strategy”?

P.S. I’ll have to think through my own golf architecture book collection to nominate a few of my favorites.

[JohnV]

To quote Tom Doak:

Tom Doak’s Three Strategic Principles

1.   That the hole location on a given day may change the ideal strategy for playing the hole.  
2.   That the hole location will not only suggest a "best" line of attack but also a "best" trajectory of shot.
3.   That the strategy includes calculation of the "best" place to miss the shot, and that certain areas around the green will leave an almost impossible up-and-down.

and Bobby Jones:
There are two ways of widening the gap between a good tee shot and a bad one. One is to inflict a severe and immediate punishment upon the bad shot, to place it's perpetrator in a bunker or in some other trouble demanding the sacrifice of a stroke in recovering; the other is to reward the good shot by making the second shot simpler in proportion to the excellence of the drive.

Not having been to Sand Hills, I can't comment on the 1st hole there, but those are a couple of good descriptions to me.

[TEPaul]

One of the best and most understandable definitions and descriptions of golf strategy can be found in Geoff Shackelford's new book "Grounds for Golf" on pages 11 and 12!

If even a rudimentary golfer would take the time to really understand what's said on those two pages he'd be more than capable of filling in for himself any details he may be interested in.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

To repeat for about the millionth time--THE ARCHITECTURAL SIDE OF GOLF. You also have to be able to understand the translation of what Thomas and Hunter are saying in their books. If you do, viola!

And how can I not bring up the Es Spritus de Santu Andrew?

[TEPaul]

I played golf the other day at Hidden Creek with James Duncan the project manager for that course and we had a great time going around talking over the specific, the general and very much the philosophical about golf architecture. At one point he mentioned the fascination of working with Coore and Crenshaw and the Boys and how they work together, go try their own things sometimes and come back together again and what all that symbiosis can mean.

At one point the subject of strategy in golf architecture came up and James mentioned that he felt Bill and maybe some of them sometimes go beyond thinking about golf strategy when they conceptualize and create. Think about what that means for a while. Some will probably conclude that might mean they're going off the deep end and others might conclude that means they're getting to that place where naturalism in architecture really is! Did some architect create all those little nuances that the old course plays across! Did some architect make that in just the right spot or landing zone that way. No, they just used it that way!

[Art_Schaupeter]

Golf Architecture in America (George Thomas, Jr.) is one of my favorite sources for inspiration.  There is an ongoing discussion of the importance of strategy throughout the book.

[TEPaul]

One of the best descriptions of strategy I ever heard was how to get into Peggy Sue's panties in a drive-in movie in the least amount of time!

[Tom_Doak]

Bobby Jones:

"There must be something to do, and that something must be within the realm of reasonable accomplishment."

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Not sure I agree with your last post. I think there is sometimes confusion at GCA between "difficulty" and "strategy".

The debating point on "difficulty" is usually whether or not it is reasonable or fair. I think that is what your last post is about.

I take strategy to be something different. Strategy is about weighing the consequences of different choices. The debating point on "strategy" is whether it is interesting; whether there are real choices. A non-strategic course is one where there are no different consequences for different choices.

Sometimes a non-strategic course can be very difficult or challenging. See: USGA Open set-ups.

And sometimes a strategic course can be very easy.

An example: A pin position taken in isolation may be hard, easy or unfair soley by virtue of where it is located on a green. Pin position alone is neither strategic nor non-strategic. It isn't a "strategic pin" unless you are talking about its position in relation to the shot choices you have to make in order to maximize your chances of getting close to it.

It's the difference between "difficulty" and "strategy".

Bob

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Excellent post! I'm afraid the distinction may go right past many--maybe most! Not necessarily here but generally speaking. Your last sentence;

'It's the difference between difficulty and strategy' may need some clarification;

Wouldn't it be better to say "It's the difference between difficulty and relative ease"? In a real sense those things (both sides of the spectrum) must be the overall parameters of "risk/reward" in a general sense.

If one said;

1/ Greatest difficulty=maximum risk (penalty) and maximum reward
2/ Least difficulty =minimum risk (penalty) and minimum reward

Then, you have a spectrum of choice and expected result. If a hole has a lot of meaning that way you should also have a real spectrum of results (scores).

But I certainly like your last paragraph. That's of no real difference from the things Behr wrote that architectural features are meant to work only in relation to each other to create "unity"--perhaps unity of purpose throughout a hole which in a way is A strategy.

But we all know for any strategic hole to be good and meaningful the high risk (difficult) strategies should pay the greatest dividends (rewards) in scoring ultimately but ALSO must extract the greatest penalty (higher risks) in scoring over time compared to those strategies that are not so difficult which should over time not pay such reward or extract such penalty.

It looks like the "scoring spectrum" as a barometer for hole quality (and holes of most interesting strategies) remains intact theoretically this way. But interestingly, in an overall results sense or scoring sense either end of the scoring spectrum involves basically ONLY the aggressive, high risk strategy which would logically bracket both sides of the more conservative strategies in a scoring sense or results sense.

If it were otherwise the temptations and ultimately the choices (options) would get out of whack and fail to balance each other out ideally!

[BCrosby]

TomP --

To your last point. Yes. The TEP number (a measure of the spread of scores below and above par) remains a good indicator of how strategic a hole is. Scoring average alone doesn't tell you much.

A par four may have a 4.5 scoring average at a US Open site. That's a very high average normally indicating a very hard hole. But the scoring range may be very narrow. Which is typically the case at US Open courses. Why? Because of penal rough, narrow fairways and added length, everyone will play the hole conservatively. There is little pay-off for taking risks. Too many difficulties to overcome. The result is typical US Open scoring that has lots of pars, lots of bogies and not much of anything else.

Another hole may also have a similar scoring average  but it is the result of lots different playing strategies. Players are given lots of options that actually tempt people to take chances. Some succeed, some fail. The result is that the scoring average may be the same but the actual scores are widely spread -lots of eagles, birdies, pars, bogies and double bogies.

A sign of what I believe is a great, great hole.

The TEP number is just another way to parse the difficulty of a hole from its strategic interest. (I hope that passes muster with the anthropomorphic police.)

Gotta get back to work. The difficulty of a hole is often confused with its strategic interest. Not the same thing. Two concepts that inhabit very different logical universes. But people confuse them all the time.

Bob

   

[TEPaul]

"The difficulty of a hole is often confused with its strategic interest. Not the same thing. Two concepts that inhabit very different logical universes. But people confuse them all the time."

Bob:

That's just so, so true--such a prevalent perception. I was trying to look a little deeper into the detail of all that on post #9 but it was early in the morning and I began to think this probably isn't making a lot of understandable sense but as I'm apt to do I just hit the post button anyway!  

I just like the fact that on those types of highly strategic multi-choice holes the tempting high-risk option(s) logically bracket their results (scores) on either side of the results (scores) of the more conservative options. I think this kind of thing gives these really good holes a real strategic balance across the board indicating that all the options and strategies are used a lot. Nothing can be better than that in my opinion. Options that are rarely used aren't really very good ones and holes that have a whole array of options that are used a lot are the opposite of one dimensional holes or even extremely high demand and/or strictly difficult holes that most golfers tend to basically try to play one way most all the time!

I mean, look at Merion's #18 for instance. The hole was designed as a strictly high demand really difficult hole. It's not a multi-optional hole unless one is talking about some kind of recovery. The hole was designed to force even good golfers from the tips to hit two shots as far as they can and hope they get to the green! The same could probably be said for the original design intent of holes such as PVGC's #4, #13 and #18--matter of fact I'm sure that was their original design intent--ie high demand holes!

[Norbert P]

   "...thinking out the proper strategy for playing each hole, deciding which of the alternate routes to the pin is the wise one under the immediate conditions, playing the right kind of shot to suit the terrain and the elements, meeting, in short the ever-fresh challenge which a fine golf hole presents to a man who understands the game ..."

Ben Hogan (with Herbert W. Wind)
Five Lessons - The Modern Fundamentals of Golf

[BCrosby]

TomP -

18 at Merion is a good example of a great non-strategic hole.

But as to your notion that the hole plays extremely long.... Maybe it once did. A couple of weekends ago our very own Mike Young, playing from the tips, hit a PW into the green. (I am pleased to report, however, that he three putted. There is a god.)

Sheeesh.

Bob