Was strategy way different when greens were slower?

[Matt_Cohn]

With even lots of public course greens running at 10+ and tournament greens sometimes 12+, staying below the hole and not short siding oneself are really important parts of proper strategy, especially in tournament play.


Was that a big thing 75 or 100 years ago? When Bobby Jones was winning, I imagine greens were running, what, 5 or 6? Certainly if I were playing greens at those speeds, I wouldn’t care if my putt was downhill, and I would be more aggressive on approach shots because any recovery I left myself would be a lot simpler.


So I’m curious if this emphasis on not short siding and staying below the hole is relatively new Or if Bobby Jones and Byron Nelson and Ben Hogan emphasized as much as we do now.

[Michael Felton]

With even lots of public course greens running at 10+ and tournament greens sometimes 12+, staying below the hole and not short siding oneself are really important parts of proper strategy, especially in tournament play.


Was that a big thing 75 or 100 years ago? When Bobby Jones was winning, I imagine greens were running, what, 5 or 6? Certainly if I were playing greens at those speeds, I wouldn’t care if my putt was downhill, and I would be more aggressive on approach shots because any recovery I left myself would be a lot simpler.


So I’m curious if this emphasis on not short siding and staying below the hole is relatively new Or if Bobby Jones and Byron Nelson and Ben Hogan emphasized as much as we do now.

Possibly, but worth noting that lob wedges and perfect grooves and other tech added to wedges to enhance spin generation would not have existed then, so leaving yourself a downhill chip from the rough without much green to work with would still have been relatively challenging.

[Mike_Young]

Then and now..not sure that 95 percent of golfers even consider strategy when playing...JMO

[Kalen Braley]

Then and now..not sure that 95 percent of golfers even consider strategy when playing...JMO

Mike,

That reminds me of Ron White's famous quip when he talks about getting arrested while on a drunken bender.

"I had the right to remain silent...but I didn't have the ability"

I think it certainly applies to many of the 95%, we do try...even if in my case I only manage to pull it off every now and then. 

[Peter Sayegh]

Then and now..not sure that 95 percent of golfers even consider strategy when playing...JMO

Spot on.

[Charlie Goerges]

Then and now..not sure that 95 percent of golfers even consider strategy when playing...JMO

Spot on.

It may be true (I'd put the percentage lower than that though), but I still think the architects should design strategic courses. Most of the rich dudes who commissioned Michelangelo didn't know shit about art, but he still gave it to them.

[Matt_Cohn]

Then and now..not sure that 95 percent of golfers even consider strategy when playing...JMO

Mike,

That reminds me of Ron White's famous quip when he talks about getting arrested while on a drunken bender.

"I had the right to remain silent...but I didn't have the ability"

I think it certainly applies to many of the 95%, we do try...even if in my case I only manage to pull it off every now and then. 

True, I’m definitely thinking about very good players with this question. In general, it’s very easy for any golfer to play strategically, but most people don’t care enough to do it.

[Matt Schoolfield]

With even lots of public course greens running at 10+ and tournament greens sometimes 12+, staying below the hole and not short siding oneself are really important parts of proper strategy, especially in tournament play.


Was that a big thing 75 or 100 years ago? When Bobby Jones was winning, I imagine greens were running, what, 5 or 6? Certainly if I were playing greens at those speeds, I wouldn’t care if my putt was downhill, and I would be more aggressive on approach shots because any recovery I left myself would be a lot simpler.


So I’m curious if this emphasis on not short siding and staying below the hole is relatively new Or if Bobby Jones and Byron Nelson and Ben Hogan emphasized as much as we do now.

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that a lot of contours have been softened as green speeds have gone up. So that, maybe you wouldn't be scared of a downhill putt, but you might still be scared because the putt would have been more downhill.

The other issues that I suspect is that reading the grain is somewhat of a lost art. I suspect that the grain direction had a very significant roll in Bobby Jones's day, so even subtler downhill putts were just more complicated to begin with.

Full disclosure, I'm a faster-is-better hater for various reasons, so I may be a bit bias. I'm also a mid-handicapper, so take that for what it's worth too.

[Jim Hoak]

Matt, I'd guess you and I are in agreement on this subject.  The "faster-is-better" crowd has, in my opinion too much testosterone--it is over-the-top machoism.  It's often gotten to the place where people brag about how fast their greens are--not how good they are.

[Tim Martin]

Matt, I'd guess you and I are in agreement on this subject.  The "faster-is-better" crowd has, in my opinion too much testosterone--it is over-the-top machoism.  It's often gotten to the place where people brag about how fast their greens are--not how good they are.

There’s a club in my area that boasts “fastest greens in Connecticut” on their website. Considering the amount of slope and contour I don’t find the claim to be a selling point.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Strategy has faded with time. I don't think the greens were crazy slow 50 years ago but they were less receptive mainly due to the ball and clubs and perhaps even the conditioning of the fairways.


The Modern Ball and Clubs have done the most damage to strategy. 50 years ago you had to learn a golf course and if you got wrong sided you had play away from the pin perhaps just happy to get on the green.


Its a different game now. For really good players there is very little strategy, they just hit THE NUMBER.

[Tim_Weiman]

Then and now..not sure that 95 percent of golfers even consider strategy when playing...JMO

Mike,


Your estimate probably isn’t far off. Mid handicap players just struggle to hit decent shots. I think you have to get into single digit level competency to think about strategy and different shot options.


Tim

[Thomas Dai]

"Strategy, what's strategy? Pass me my 460cc Driver" said Mr Wackit to his buggy passenger Mr Wackit-Evenharder.
Course conditioning and modern era equipment have radically changed the game with less need for playing strategy being one of the consequences.
As to putting surfaces, firmness and trueness of roll should be more important than pure speed.
atb

[Tim_Weiman]

With even lots of public course greens running at 10+ and tournament greens sometimes 12+, staying below the hole and not short siding oneself are really important parts of proper strategy, especially in tournament play.


Was that a big thing 75 or 100 years ago? When Bobby Jones was winning, I imagine greens were running, what, 5 or 6? Certainly if I were playing greens at those speeds, I wouldn’t care if my putt was downhill, and I would be more aggressive on approach shots because any recovery I left myself would be a lot simpler.


So I’m curious if this emphasis on not short siding and staying below the hole is relatively new Or if Bobby Jones and Byron Nelson and Ben Hogan emphasized as much as we do now.

Matt,


I don’t know about 75-100 years ago, but forty years ago I played the two good Cleveland Metroparks courses many times - Manakiki (Ross) and Sleepy Hollow (Thompson) - and it was quite obvious that keeping your approach below the hole was critical. It was even true at Big Met, another Metroparks course that has often been cited as the busiest course in Ohio.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:


The irony is that the modern Tour player coaches consider what you have described as strategy less important today than Ben Hogan and Bobby Jones did.


You can't read Jones' description of Augusta National in GOLF IS MY GAME and think he didn't believe in staying below the hole and giving himself a good angle of approach.  But the coaches today say that doesn't matter, or at least, it doesn't matter as much as avoiding hazards and having short approach shots.


I thought a lot about this when we were working on the redesign of Memorial Park.  The younger players told me that angles didn't matter, but the older guys said to keep doing what I was doing . . . that the angles DID matter, even if the young guys weren't willing to play for them.

[Adrian_Stiff]

TD: Strategy still works (although less) for most players though so BIGYES keep doing what you re doing for the 90%.

[Ben Sims]

Tom,


I seem to remember a thread that involved Erik B where you said something to the affect of, sure strategy/angles may not matter much, but I’m still going to keep building it.


FWIW, I think turf speeds must result in strategy mattering more. I don’t think the spin and launch of modern equipment from shots under 40 yards can possibly offset some of the slopes and speeds we see.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I thought a lot about this when we were working on the redesign of Memorial Park.  The younger players told me that angles didn't matter, but the older guys said to keep doing what I was doing . . . that the angles DID matter, even if the young guys weren't willing to play for them.

The basic gist of my presentation to the ASGCA at the annual meeting last fall was that angles don't matter… if the game is played point-to-point. If you fly the ball to a point and stop it relatively quickly, angles are irrelevant, because the ball isn't "interacting" with the stuff on the ground. (Harbor Town might be an exception with its aerial hazards — trees).

But when the ball is rolling… lower skilled players, firmer conditions, recovery shots, etc.… angles can matter. (The 12th at ANGC is one of the rare times angles matter point-to-point.)

Also… angles matter esthetically. But… that's not really strategy related (unless you use "angles" to deceive, mislead, or steer players into making certain choices, which I think Pete Dye was pretty good at doing).

[Matt Schoolfield]

Please let me know if I'm correct in this line of thinking specifically about green speeds and high, spinning approach shots:

• If green speeds are slower, the resulting firm green can have larger contours.
• If the firm green has larger contours, their steeper angles can do more to deflect shots from thoughtless approach lines, while being more receptive to thoughtful approach lines.
• A shot that is deflected by a greater margin is punished by a greater margin.

• Thus, slower green speeds can make approach angles matter more than quicker green speeds.

Am I missing anything here?

[Matt_Cohn]

Matt, I'd guess you and I are in agreement on this subject.  The "faster-is-better" crowd has, in my opinion too much testosterone--it is over-the-top machoism.  It's often gotten to the place where people brag about how fast their greens are--not how good they are.

Last month I played a tournament at Santa Ana Country Club with the greens running 13.5. And that's an actual superintendent's measurement, not just a guess! It was a great test and really fun, but it got me thinking that the overall test of tournament golf must be way different than it used to be. I think of 1920's or even 1970's tournament golf as a persimmon driver and a 5-iron to a green running at 7 or 8. Now tournament golf is a titanium driver and wedge to the same green, but running at more than double the speed (or driver and an 8-iron if they added a back tee at 500 yards)!

[Matt_Cohn]

Please let me know if I'm correct in this line of thinking specifically about green speeds and high, spinning approach shots:

• If green speeds are slower, the resulting firm green can have larger contours.
• If the firm green has larger contours, their steeper angles can do more to deflect shots from thoughtless approach lines, while being more receptive to thoughtful approach lines.
• A shot that is deflected by a greater margin is punished by a greater margin.

• Thus, slower green speeds can make approach angles matter more than quicker green speeds.

Am I missing anything here?

This seems accurate. If a green runs at 7, but the hole is on a 4% or 5% slope, being above the hole would still be very bad. Perhaps that's part of the answer to my question is that when greens were slower, greens were steeper and holes were cut in areas with more slope.

[Craig Sweet]

No one has said anything about modern day green construction, drainage, inputs, sub-air, maintenance practices etc etc...All determine green speed, firmness, and strategy.

[Tim_Weiman]

I thought a lot about this when we were working on the redesign of Memorial Park.  The younger players told me that angles didn't matter, but the older guys said to keep doing what I was doing . . . that the angles DID matter, even if the young guys weren't willing to play for them.

The basic gist of my presentation to the ASGCA at the annual meeting last fall was that angles don't matter… if the game is played point-to-point. If you fly the ball to a point and stop it relatively quickly, angles are irrelevant, because the ball isn't "interacting" with the stuff on the ground. (Harbor Town might be an exception with its aerial hazards — trees).

But when the ball is rolling… lower skilled players, firmer conditions, recovery shots, etc.… angles can matter. (The 12th at ANGC is one of the rare times angles matter point-to-point.)

Also… angles matter esthetically. But… that's not really strategy related (unless you use "angles" to deceive, mislead, or steer players into making certain choices, which I think Pete Dye was pretty good at doing).

Erik,


What percentage of golfers fly the ball point to point and stop it relatively quickly?


Is it more than 2-3%?


Tim

[Tim Gallant]

Then and now..not sure that 95 percent of golfers even consider strategy when playing...JMO

Mike, that might be accurate in the States, but in the UK, I would guess that a majority of golfers on links / heathland courses do consider strategy, even if they wouldn't necessarily label it as such. With ground firmness and speed of surfaces fluctuating throughout the year, I see a majority of fellow golfers adjust to such conditions. Runouts in the fairway change, and landing spots for approach shots vary as well. A texas wedge in the summer might very well be a lob wedge in the winter. Even the ever present wind often influences strategy in a way that might not be true on inland parkland courses.

[Niall C]

I thought a lot about this when we were working on the redesign of Memorial Park.  The younger players told me that angles didn't matter, but the older guys said to keep doing what I was doing . . . that the angles DID matter, even if the young guys weren't willing to play for them.

The basic gist of my presentation to the ASGCA at the annual meeting last fall was that angles don't matter… if the game is played point-to-point. If you fly the ball to a point and stop it relatively quickly, angles are irrelevant, because the ball isn't "interacting" with the stuff on the ground. (Harbor Town might be an exception with its aerial hazards — trees).

But when the ball is rolling… lower skilled players, firmer conditions, recovery shots, etc.… angles can matter. (The 12th at ANGC is one of the rare times angles matter point-to-point.)

Also… angles matter esthetically. But… that's not really strategy related (unless you use "angles" to deceive, mislead, or steer players into making certain choices, which I think Pete Dye was pretty good at doing).

Erik


That seems to me a heavy caveating of your previous position on the Angles Don't Matter thread. Would you agree that for the great majority of golfers who can't stop a ball dead, or don't have exacting distance control, and are playing on anything than soft conditions, that angles do indeed matter ?


Niall