[Mark_Fine]

Michael/Erik,
If you are playing golf for a living, you probably know your limitations and play the percentages most often (unless you are Phil Mickelson)     But most of us play for fun and most of us are tempted to do things we maybe shouldn’t try to do if we were playing the percentages.  That is why design temptation is one of the most important and exciting aspects of golf course design.  The thill of making a birdie or an eagle (at the risk of making a bogie) is worth it (at least that is what golfers who take on the challenge think).  I am 99% positive I would make no worse than a four 99% of the time if I played #16 at Cypress Point with two wedge shots but knowing I can reach that green with a long iron or wood or some kind of club in one shot, the temptation won’t allow me to do anything but go for it even though it brings 5 into the picture.  I know I won’t make a one if I layup and a two is unrealistic as well.  The same logic goes for trying to take on a diagonal bunker vs playing safely away and leaving a much longer approach shot,.., and the list goes on.  Smart play is hard to do even if it is smart to do so.  Would you layup from 190-200 yards on #13 at Augusta National knowing you could hit two gap wedges and likely have a great shot at birdie or would you go for it knowing there is a chance you might make three or two putt for your four if you knock it on?  The temptation is what it is all about.  We would all probably score better if we played it safe but easier said than done     Architects know this!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It seems you are saying that a player must initially consider the condition at the green. Realizing that the tree protecting the left portion of the hole will present a less than ideal approach shot from that side of the fairway, the player would then be encouraged to play a tee shot down the right side of the hole. This appears to be a textbook example of the green-to-tee way of thinking. What am I missing?

That you aren't plotting this from the green back by rule. You're not looking back (virtually) from the green and saying "it looks like I should approach from that spot there" and then saying "oh, that's from a tee shot of only 210 yards" or "oh, that would take a 330-yard tee shot." Doing it from the green back makes no sense.

The point is that you can plan "from the tee" down the hole but still think a shot ahead. It's not chess and thinking seven moves ahead (hopefully!), but most golf strategies are actually tee forward. It's rare you have to consider the next shot at all.

It is also Interesting that you selected an example on the importance of angles that does not involve a ball rolling on the ground.

It isn't about angles, it's about obstacles. It's a subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless. And even if you don't want to see a distinction, trees blocking out half the fairway are pretty rare, so if you want to say "balls rolling + the minuscule amount of times trees block a significant chunk of the fairway…" then be my guest.

If you are playing golf for a living, you probably know your limitations and play the percentages most often (unless you are Phil Mickelson)     But most of us play for fun and most of us are tempted to do things we maybe shouldn’t try to do if we were playing the percentages.  That is why design temptation is one of the most important and exciting aspects of golf course design.  The thill of making a birdie or an eagle (at the risk of making a bogie) is worth it (at least that is what golfers who take on the challenge think).  I am 99% positive I would make no worse than a four 99% of the time if I played #16 at Cypress Point with two wedge shots but knowing I can reach that green with a long iron or wood or some kind of club in one shot, the temptation won’t allow me to do anything but go for it even though it brings 5 into the picture.  I know I won’t make a one if I layup and a two is unrealistic as well.  The same logic goes for trying to take on a diagonal bunker vs playing safely away and leaving a much longer approach shot,.., and the list goes on.  Smart play is hard to do even if it is smart to do so.  Would you layup from 190-200 yards on #13 at Augusta National knowing you could hit two gap wedges and likely have a great shot at birdie or would you go for it knowing there is a chance you might make three or two putt for your four if you knock it on?  The temptation is what it is all about.  We would all probably score better if we played it safe but easier said than done     Architects know this!

Thing is, Michael, "smart" does not always mean "lay up." In fact, quite often (maybe even "more often than not") it means "go for it."

Your example of Phil is interesting, seeing as how we have this in our book:

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
I was equating smart with safe but I agree (sometimes) smart could mean going for it. However, “going for it” instinctively means taking on added risk to most of us. 

[Michael Felton]

Michael/Erik,
If you are playing golf for a living, you probably know your limitations and play the percentages most often (unless you are Phil Mickelson)     But most of us play for fun and most of us are tempted to do things we maybe shouldn’t try to do if we were playing the percentages.  That is why design temptation is one of the most important and exciting aspects of golf course design.  The thill of making a birdie or an eagle (at the risk of making a bogie) is worth it (at least that is what golfers who take on the challenge think).  I am 99% positive I would make no worse than a four 99% of the time if I played #16 at Cypress Point with two wedge shots but knowing I can reach that green with a long iron or wood or some kind of club in one shot, the temptation won’t allow me to do anything but go for it even though it brings 5 into the picture.  I know I won’t make a one if I layup and a two is unrealistic as well.  The same logic goes for trying to take on a diagonal bunker vs playing safely away and leaving a much longer approach shot,.., and the list goes on.  Smart play is hard to do even if it is smart to do so.  Would you layup from 190-200 yards on #13 at Augusta National knowing you could hit two gap wedges and likely have a great shot at birdie or would you go for it knowing there is a chance you might make three or two putt for your four if you knock it on?  The temptation is what it is all about.  We would all probably score better if we played it safe but easier said than done     Architects know this!

Couple of things - one, two wedges does not guarantee a 4. How often do you make bogey from 120 yards in the fairway? If you're like me it's way more often than you feel like you should.


Two - I don't think DECADE would ever suggest laying up in a situation like that. I think it would suggest hitting the right club for the green, but aiming it at a point where it's pretty unlikely to go in the water. (I've never played it - not sure what the carry is in the "safe" or the "risky" directions - *sob*)


The hole that comes to my mind thinking about this aspect of it is the 6th at Winged Foot West. Plenty of players hit an iron off that tee. Scott was yelling to everyone on Twitter about how it's the wrong play. I'm not sure what the scoring averages were from people who went for it versus people who laid up, but I suspect it was lower if you went for it. That fairway is only about 25 yards wide at long iron distance. You're going to miss that a good chunk of the time. Then you're 100 yards away in thick rough rather than 30 yards away in thick rough. Sometimes you'll hit it on the green and have a fairly locked up 3. Sometimes you'll hit it in the rough and still have a chance of a 3. Sometimes you'll hit it in the bunker and you'll have a decent chance of a 3. If you lay back and miss the fairway, suddenly 4 is no easy task.


At its simplest, DECADE would say get it as close to the hole as you can without taking undue risk. The rest of it is just quantifying what's undue.

[Mark_Fine]

Michael,
If you played the hole you would understand what I am saying better.  It is 230-240 yards all carry into the wind over the ocean to a green surrounded by hazards.  My handicap is +1 so I definitely make bogies but not too often with wedges in hand.


I just played the 6th at Winged Foot this summer.  First of all not many players can drive that green.  If you can’t reach the green from the tee, the play is to hit something you can get in the fairway as the rough is extremely penal.  If the rough happens to be cut down then hit it to you favorite scoring yardage what ever that is. 

[Ben Hollerbach]

We gave an example in the book of a tree blocking approach shots from the left side of the fairway, and thus, shading that side of the fairway a shade of grey… meaning that golfers should favor the right side of the fairway with a large chunk of their Shot Zone in the right rough (given a large enough tree of course, as shown in the book).

You're not looking back (virtually) from the green and saying "it looks like I should approach from that spot there"

These two comments are opposed to each other. If you don't look back from the green, you wouldn't know that the tree is blocking the approach shot and the best approach shot was from a different position.

And mostly, if golfers think strategically, they have told me things like, "You have a bunker left, telling me to hit right off the tee, but then you make me come over a bunker from that side of the fw, so what's up with that?"  Most, don't accept my "Golden Age" based explanation......

but most golf strategies are actually tee forward. It's rare you have to consider the next shot at all.

Jeff's all to common example illustrates a situation in which a player not considering the next shot is penalized for it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark Fine brings up the "I didn't drive all this way to lay up" classic example of CP 16.  So, yes, where you are playing does change the context for most of us.


I was really thinking of a decent(A or B) club player who plays his own course 20-30 times per year.  I would bet in most cases, he/she is at least subconsciously trying to score their personal best for the year or career most days, knowing they will come back again, and try to shoot one stroke lower next time.


One problem with my postulation is golfers are all a bit differently abled, playing different courses for different reasons, in different seasons, etc.  I have to admit, there really isn't any one size fits all answer, but still believe that for scoring, all these modern stats are for the better over some nostalgic way of thinking that may not really work for most of us.  And yeah, even if that means we realize playing conservatively really makes more sense.


That said, for the designers here, the question becomes just how to create reasonable temptation, how often, what holes, what hole types, etc.  And, I think it turns out that stats more or less defend those designers who try to design to favor shot patterns/types over the simplistic location, location, location implied in many treatises on strategy.  As I have said before, no concept is so good it should be repeated 14 times off the tee, a few so bad it shouldn't be used even once.


A variety of tee shots, to location, via carry, flank, double flank, center, pinch, distance limiting hazards is great, and better if mixed in with a few where you can bomb it to a big area, maybe a few very narrow for accuracy demands, and most with designed in strong indications that a fade, draw, shot into a cross slope, etc. that call for a shot even if that is just your best method to get to the center (or any part of) the.  As always, JMHO.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Jeff,


Bobby Jones Golf Course, the reversible 9 hole course in Atlanta, has 7 tee locations per hole running in both directions. They encourage players to mix and match teeing locations during their round. For those playing the same routing twice to make 18, this practice help to break up the repeat 9, presenting different challenges each time. But it also allows players to adjust the difficulty of certain holes, making some of the shorter par 4's drivable for virtually everyone.


Rather than trying to design a risk and reward hole that is fitting for all, the teeing system transfers  that choice to the player. Considerations may have to be made as to how to balance a wide range of play from multiple tees, but in the case of Bobby Jones, The holes that could be drivable for all utilize certain features that help to create that strategic balance.


Holes like Azalea 3, Azalea 4, and Magnolia 7 force the player to contend with water; choosing both the tee box they wish to play from and how much of the water they want to contend with.  On Azalea 6 / Magnolia 4, the holes play up and over a hill to an undulating green. The blindness of the tee shot and the difficulty of a half shot approach can discourage players from going for the green.

I was really thinking of a decent(A or B) club player who plays his own course 20-30 times per year.  I would bet in most cases, he/she is at least subconsciously trying to score their personal best for the year or career most days, knowing they will come back again, and try to shoot one stroke lower next time.

I would wonder for those who have a home course that they play time and time again, If the course offered quite a few risk/reward options how often they might go for broke and try them all. If they have a sound strategy that can produce low scores but nothing earth shattering, what risk is there for them to try and go all out every once in a while just to see what happens?


Back in high school, our team would play "go low" rounds. Playing from the up tees, par was already a given on any hole, so the winner had to be way under par. We'd try every ridiculous shot in the book to try and get birdies and eagles. It was a lot of fun and taught us how to play aggressively.

[Brad Steven]

As someone who might fit the bill of your target golfer, I tend to find myself willing to take more risk on holes I deem to be birdie holes.  Stepping to the tee on a 500 yard par 5, I'm already in the mindset of a full-send drive and firing my second shot at the pin (or green at least) and little will push me off that track because I've got it in my mind that I need to push for birdie. 


Conversely, standing on the tee of a 220 yard par 3 with a hybrid in my hands, I'll not at all be likely to be as aggressive - thinking more about getting the ball somewhere safely on the green so I can two putt and get out of there. 


In the end, the shot in both cases could very well be just about the same but my mindset is different.  I realize I'm not addressing your question of "worth it" but after all the comments, I thought I'd share this angle. 


I like to make birdies so getting a ball on a par 5 in two and getting birdie putts inside 10 feet are worth taking risk for.  I don't assume I'll not make birdie on a par 5 if I lay up but surely my conversion from inside a 100 yards is dramatically lower than my two putt conversion or up and down conversion greenside.  I don't two putt every time on par 5s and I surely don't make every 10 footer (maybe 1 in 4) but if taking some risk presents these opportunities, I'll take them. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,


Bobby Jones Golf Course, the reversible 9 hole course in Atlanta, has 7 tee locations per hole running in both directions. They encourage players to mix and match teeing locations during their round. For those playing the same routing twice to make 18, this practice help to break up the repeat 9, presenting different challenges each time. But it also allows players to adjust the difficulty of certain holes, making some of the shorter par 4's drivable for virtually everyone.


Rather than trying to design a risk and reward hole that is fitting for all, the teeing system transfers  that choice to the player. Considerations may have to be made as to how to balance a wide range of play from multiple tees, but in the case of Bobby Jones, The holes that could be drivable for all utilize certain features that help to create that strategic balance.


Holes like Azalea 3, Azalea 4, and Magnolia 7 force the player to contend with water; choosing both the tee box they wish to play from and how much of the water they want to contend with.  On Azalea 6 / Magnolia 4, the holes play up and over a hill to an undulating green. The blindness of the tee shot and the difficulty of a half shot approach can discourage players from going for the green.

I was really thinking of a decent(A or B) club player who plays his own course 20-30 times per year.  I would bet in most cases, he/she is at least subconsciously trying to score their personal best for the year or career most days, knowing they will come back again, and try to shoot one stroke lower next time.

I would wonder for those who have a home course that they play time and time again, If the course offered quite a few risk/reward options how often they might go for broke and try them all. If they have a sound strategy that can produce low scores but nothing earth shattering, what risk is there for them to try and go all out every once in a while just to see what happens?


Back in high school, our team would play "go low" rounds. Playing from the up tees, par was already a given on any hole, so the winner had to be way under par. We'd try every ridiculous shot in the book to try and get birdies and eagles. It was a lot of fun and taught us how to play aggressively.

Ben,


I know reversibles are popular now, but I hold out judgement on whether it's better to purposely design a hole to play great one way, rather than compromise on two way play. My old home club reverse their course every once in a while (during construction, overseed, spiking) and while not designed specifically to do that, it was never as good in reverse.  I would guess purpose designed reversibles would be better than my experience.


On regulation courses, I do like the idea of alternate tees with different play angles on at least a few holes to keep the course from playing the same every day, although I am always amazed at how so many golfers like the pins up when the tee markers are back to make sure the hole plays the same length every day (?)


I have always agreed with the approach of playing different tees or different games every day to provide variety on any design, i.e., playing the new 4.500 yard forward tees, which surprisingly don't really improve my score......


As to going for broke every day on your home course, in addition to the fact that it appears as if they would slowly see a bad statistical correlation, I see a trend against risk after golf balls passed $4 each.....at least if the "go for broke" involves any type of lost ball hazard.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm watching a bit of the LPGA Shoprite Classic, being played at New Jersey's Seaview Golf Club-Bay Course (which the website says opened in 1914, designed by Hugh Wilson and Donald Ross.)

The commentators were talking about the challenging greens and agreed that they'd be happy/wise to aim for the middle of the green 18 times in a row, regardless of the pin placement.

So to put the question too bluntly/simplistically: does that mean on Donald Ross courses it's never worth the risk of firing at the pins?

[Ben Hollerbach]

Jeff,


I've found that only one of the two directions at Bobby Jones is effectively playable. It very much has the feel that they figured out how to make the backwards routing "work", rather than incorporate both routings into a whole.


My selection of Bobby Jones as an example was specific towards their multitude of tee locations and encouragement of playing from multiple tees.


While many courses may not want to lay out so many teeing locations on their course all the time, It does seem like a valuable exercise for courses to evaluate how they may infuse more opportunities into their routing. I could foresee scenarios in which the 4th hole is set up as stout par 4 from the white tees but a getable par 4 from the blue, and in reverse, the 15th would be getable from the white and stout from the blues.


I'd never expect a player to go for broke every round. But every once in a while, playing a later afternoon round on a Sunday, why not see what happens if you try for every short cut and attack every flagstick?

[Ben Hollerbach]

I'm watching a bit of the LPGA Shoprite Classic, being played at New Jersey's Seaview Golf Club-Bay Course (which the website says opened in 1914, designed by Hugh Wilson and Donald Ross.)

The commentators were talking about the challenging greens and agreed that they'd be happy/wise to aim for the middle of the green 18 times in a row, regardless of the pin placement.

So to put the question too bluntly/simplistically: does that mean on Donald Ross courses it's never worth the risk of firing at the pins?

My recollection of the greens a Seaview is they are not that large and the site can be fairly breezy, meaning holding a green can be challenging as is.


I would not say that is it never worth it to attack pins on Ross courses. I actually think he provides a great deal of opportunities for a player to go flag hunting, but he does often require good execution to be successful.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

At its simplest, DECADE would say get it as close to the hole as you can without taking undue risk. The rest of it is just quantifying what's undue.

Yep: https://share.getcloudapp.com/eDuRGqpX

These two comments are opposed to each other. If you don't look back from the green, you wouldn't know that the tree is blocking the approach shot and the best approach shot was from a different position.

One does not need to stand on (or even visualize) the 15th green at ANGC to know that, despite being in the fairway, left off the 15th tee is not the ideal line.

Again, saying that a tree blocks your next shot is treating the tree not so differently as you'd treat a bunker or a penalty area. You can see it from the tee, and the point of avoiding it is because it obstructs your next shot, or makes it more difficult. Just because it obstructs your next shot doesn't mean it's being planned from the green back - you can see it from the tee.

Golf strategies are built from the tee forward for two reasons, primarily:

• Golfers are standing on the tee, and if they're seeing the course for the first time, have no idea what "from the green" looks like.
• The modern basis for golf strategy is to start with the driver and work down from there if you must. Saying "oh, that's the ideal line to come in on" from 170 is pointless if you can get a driver to a pretty safe spot at 130 or something. "Green to tee" strategizing would have players laying up far too often.

You illustrate the old way of thinking in citing Jeff's post…

Jeff's all to common example illustrates a situation in which a player not considering the next shot is penalized for it.

This assumes that playing closer to the fairway bunker to provide a "better angle" to the green is the best strategy, and for better players, this isn't true. For worse players, it would often depend on the actual sizes of the bunkers, as well as how good they are from bunkers (fairway and greenside).

[Ben Hollerbach]

• The modern basis for golf strategy is to start with the driver and work down from there

Mark Broadie stated the optimal strategy in golf required you to start at the hole and worked backward. This is the logic he used to create the strokes gained statistic.

From his original paper on strokes gained:

"The game of golf can be modeled as a dynamic program. The score on a hole depends on the strategy and results of each of the shots on the hole. The optimal strategy from the tee depends on all of the possible outcomes of the first shot and the optimal strategy for the second shot, which depends on all of the possible outcomes of the second shot and the optimal strategy for the third shot, etc. The solution of a dynamic program involves starting from the last stage, in this case the shot which ends in the hole, and working backwards to determine the optimal strategy."
~Mark Broadie - Assessing Golfer Performance on the PGA TOUR


And from an interview with the PGA Tour:

"The other part is this area of optimization, where determining the best strategy on the tee depends on the next shot and the next shot. Your target off the tee depends on where the hole is and so the way you figure out the strategy on the first shot is you have to start from the green and work backwards. In the mathematical world, that’s called dynamic programming. You’re trying to optimize a sequence of decisions over time."
~Mark Broadie - Q&A with the godfather of golf analytics

[Rob Marshall]

Ben,
Here is what Greg Norman said:


“As I step onto the tee, my mind goes to the green. Before I decide which club to hit or how to play my tee shot, I want to know the exact position of the flag - once I know that, I play the hole backward in my mind.
If I know, for instance, that the pin on a par-four hole is cut on the right side of the green, behind a bunker, then the best approach to that pin will usually be from the left side of the fairway, with a shot that will not have to cross over sand. Thus, I'll want to hit a tee shot to that left side, assuming there's no dire trouble to dissuade me. This usually means I'll tee my ball at the extreme right side of the teeing area and aim slightly leftward, toward position A.
I recommend that you do this type of 'backward thinking' on any hole where you can see the location of the flagstick from the tee. It's a bit like playing pool - you use the shot at hand to set up the ideal situation for your next shot.”

Bob Rotella said something similar.
It’s an interesting question. I would like to hear what Pat Burke, Jeff Warne, Matt Cohn, and a few others think. It would love to hear how develop their strategy to play a hole.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If I know, for instance, that the pin on a par-four hole is cut on the right side of the green, behind a bunker, then the best approach to that pin will usually be from the left side of the fairway, with a shot that will not have to cross over sand.

(Modern) pros don't play for angles because they don't matter. Fairway versus rough matters a LOT more than right side of fairway versus left side. Maybe they once did, maybe Greg was talking out of his rear end, or maybe Greg was just wrong. Pros get all sorts of things wrong — like the ball flight laws of yore or accelerating through a putt. It doesn't mean that they're right (or that they're right anymore). We know more about this stuff than we did in the 80s and 90s.

I have another story about looking at the pin sheet standing on the tee of a par four or five, but I'll save that for…

I have a longer response to Ben that can wait until tomorrow, but basically, how you solve it mathematically isn't how you necessarily solve it standing on the tee.

[Mike_Clayton]

Greg might well have been talking about the 1st east at Royal Melbourne (13 in the Presidents Cup) - and it'd be a fair bet he had it in mind. When the pin is cut over the bunker on the right and you drive it where you have to pitch over the bunker, 20 feet is a great shot. Drive it left and the pitch is relatively simple.


It may be the exception proving the rule but it's as true today as it was 50 years ago.


Angles matter more at Royal Melbourne than most courses professional golf visits because the shots from one side of the majority of fairways are much different - either easier or harder -  that the shots from the other side.
The other thing about chasing angles at Royal Melbourne is if you hug the tight line on so many holes you finish up 20-30 yards closer to the green - something DECADE tells you will lower your score.
The same is, unsurprisingly, true at Augusta.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ben,
Here is what Greg Norman said:


“As I step onto the tee, my mind goes to the green. Before I decide which club to hit or how to play my tee shot, I want to know the exact position of the flag - once I know that, I play the hole backward in my mind.
If I know, for instance, that the pin on a par-four hole is cut on the right side of the green, behind a bunker, then the best approach to that pin will usually be from the left side of the fairway, with a shot that will not have to cross over sand. Thus, I'll want to hit a tee shot to that left side, assuming there's no dire trouble to dissuade me. This usually means I'll tee my ball at the extreme right side of the teeing area and aim slightly leftward, toward position A.
I recommend that you do this type of 'backward thinking' on any hole where you can see the location of the flagstick from the tee. It's a bit like playing pool - you use the shot at hand to set up the ideal situation for your next shot.”

Bob Rotella said something similar.

So the greatest driver of all time, the father of golf psychology, and the father of modern golf statistics all say the same thing. Not to mention those such as Jack Nicklaus and Hank Haney who encourage players to utilize a green-to-tee strategy

[Rob Marshall]

Ben,
Here is what Greg Norman said:


“As I step onto the tee, my mind goes to the green. Before I decide which club to hit or how to play my tee shot, I want to know the exact position of the flag - once I know that, I play the hole backward in my mind.
If I know, for instance, that the pin on a par-four hole is cut on the right side of the green, behind a bunker, then the best approach to that pin will usually be from the left side of the fairway, with a shot that will not have to cross over sand. Thus, I'll want to hit a tee shot to that left side, assuming there's no dire trouble to dissuade me. This usually means I'll tee my ball at the extreme right side of the teeing area and aim slightly leftward, toward position A.
I recommend that you do this type of 'backward thinking' on any hole where you can see the location of the flagstick from the tee. It's a bit like playing pool - you use the shot at hand to set up the ideal situation for your next shot.”

Bob Rotella said something similar.

So the greatest driver of all time, the father of golf psychology, and the father of modern golf statistics all say the same thing. Not to mention those such as Jack Nicklaus and Hank Haney who encourage players to utilize a green-to-tee strategy

What do they know, right? I would be interested in what the other posters I mentioned have to say. All great players and teachers. Pat Mucci would be another. I started listening to Jeff’s Radio show, it’s loaded with good stuff.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So the greatest driver of all time, the father of golf psychology, and the father of modern golf statistics all say the same thing. Not to mention those such as Jack Nicklaus and Hank Haney who encourage players to utilize a green-to-tee strategy

You're reading too much into Mark's comments about solving a problem mathematically… I'm not going to get into it — it's far too far away from the main point here IMO — so my longer post, I've just scrapped. I did talk with Lou Stagner and Scott Fawcett, and they're in the "tee forward" with slight adjustments as necessary (i.e. like the 15th tee at ANGC) camp with me.

And again, Greg was either talking out of his hind end, playing sub-optimally, or both. You know, Ben and Rob, as a species we learn more about things as time passes. Well, most of us do, anyway.     Are you contending that we haven't learned anything about golf strategy since Norman's heyday? Of course not.

Also, if both methods — tee forward or green backward — arrive at the same strategy (as there's only one optimal one, generally), then who is to say one is wrong and the other is better? I'm just saying tee forward is easier, because it has a simpler default state: follow The Rule by hitting driver, or the DECADE "tee shot flow chart" or whatever. That's often simpler than the green-back strategies. Those are often "Can I hit driver here? Yep. Okay. Right there? Okay, done."

[Rob Marshall]

It’s on Greg’s website today. You would have to ask him if he doesn’t believe what’s on his site. What I do know is that he was a great player. I don’t know the answer if it’s tee to green or green to tee, just posted what his opinion is.

[Mark_Fine]

Play my course today and tell me angles don’t matter!  You need to know where the pin is on most of the greens as that will dictate where most good players will try to get their tee shot.  When a gap wedge lands on the green and rolls another 20 feet or more it is the difference between pars, birdies and/or not holding the green period.  I have always determined my strategy from the green back to the tee.  Of course soft conditions can change things significantly.  By the way, how many architects look for tee locations before green locations and/or design holes from the tee forward?? Not many.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Play my course today and tell me angles don’t matter! … and rolls another 20 feet or more…

Angles begin to matter a bit when the ball rolls. Also, players can stop the ball more quickly from the fairway than from the rough.

Of course soft conditions can change things significantly.

Because the ball doesn't roll as much. Golf becomes more point-to-point.

By the way, how many architects look for tee locations before green locations and/or design holes from the tee forward?? Not many.

It may be zero, of course, but that doesn't mean that's how you devise a strategy to play the hole the best. I talked with Lou and Scott today, and their methodology is tee-forward (with slight adjustments as needed for what the next shot will be, like my 15th at ANGC example), in rare cases.

The topic is "when is taking a risk vs. playing safe really worth it," and in an attempt to get back to that, I'd say that this can basically be determined mathematically these days. Good players can start to learn these calculations and almost do them "automatically," and understand the size of their Shot Zones, so they know that even if they hit a ball in the water sometimes, it may still have been the right play (though, generally, penalties are best avoided).

Also, when to take on the risk changes. If you have a chance to win but don't care if you fall to fifth with a double, your strategy is different than if you're just trying to shoot the lowest average score. And that's one of the things that separate some players: they're more willing to take on risk and make birdie or double more often even on the first or fifth hole of the round…

[Rob Marshall]

Play my course today and tell me angles don’t matter!  You need to know where the pin is on most of the greens as that will dictate where most good players will try to get their tee shot.  When a gap wedge lands on the green and rolls another 20 feet or more it is the difference between pars, birdies and/or not holding the green period.  I have always determined my strategy from the green back to the tee.  Of course soft conditions can change things significantly.  By the way, how many architects look for tee locations before green locations and/or design holes from the tee forward?? Not many.

Mark,
I’m 59 years old and a pretty good player. A friend of mine years ago told me that the ground was a friend to women and old men. He was right. On 450 yard par 4’s I’m trying to bounce the ball in. I need to have the right angle in to do that. It’s interesting to hear tour players talk about needing to learn the “lines” on a new course. To me lines are angles.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()