shot-making, strategy, course management

[Tommy Williamsen]

I am unsure how to phrase this question, so bear with me if it is a little obtuse.

We talk a lot about course architecture. I wonder how important understanding the architecture of a hole is for middle to high handicappers. I have a good friend who has been an 18 for the last 40 years. I have played 1000 rounds with him on a hundred different courses. On the tee, he will be able to see the elegance of the hole, what the architect did, and why he did it. But it generally doesn’t make a difference to how he plays the hole. He might aim left but hit it 50 yards right of his target. Then he will try to hit a shot he could never pull off and make a bogey or double.


If you were to put a percentage on shot-making, strategy, and course management, what would it be for yourself?

[Ira Fishman]

Tom,


I am your friend at least for the last 20 years. Yesterday, somewhere on the back nine, my caddie told me that the line was just left of some tree. I asked him: “you have seen me play for almost two rounds, what are the odds that you think I can hit the line?” which gave him a barely suppressed chuckle.


But two things to consider: 1) when we beat the odds, it feels really good; for you, it is an expected occurrence and 2) on shorter approach shots particularly on firm, use the ground shots, our odds are better so the architect’s strategy about bunker placements and green complex contours matters and can be fully experienced.


Ira

[Tommy Williamsen]

Ira, you must have played with my dear friend. I have heard that exchange many many times.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Some concerns here:

First, the difference between bogey and double bogey is huge for an 18 HCP.

Second, good golf architecture has multi-variate strategies built in. The hard par-easy bogey paradigm is built around this. I’m a higher handicapper, and the number of greens I lay up to is nontrivial, but only if the hole location rewards a bump and run from in front of the green.

Third, different high handicaps have different weaknesses. I was about an 18 for decades, I could pretty much always control the side of the fairway I was hitting to, I just didn't have the distance modern players have because I used an unfitted driver from over a decade ago. Most of my weakness was the long irons into the green, leading to a lot of failed up-and-downs. Since upgrading my driver (with the 35 extra yards the fitting gave me), my handicap has been dropping precipitously. There are plenty of bogey players who can play to different strategies, they just aren't playing the same game as everyone else, and often struggle with things like putting, short game, or approaches.

The vast majority of players are around bogey golf or worse. It's important to remember that while there are 3 million Americans who hold a handicap, there were 23 million Americans have been playing golf for over a year. So the "average index" of about 14 is wildly misleading. I think it reasonable to presume that architects are designing courses with these folks in mind.

[David_Tepper]

As a life-long double-digit handicap, avoiding double bogies is the key to playing a decent round and posting a respectable score (and also being competitive in matchplay).


In terms of strategy and course management, there is really no need to do more than aim for the center of the fairway and aim for the center of the green.
 

[Thomas Dai]

I have often wondered if you took a low hcp player with canny course management skills and made him or her play the game anew from the opposite side, ie as a RH or as LH, to what extent their experience and canny course management would allow them to shoot lower scores than a ball skills talented genuine left or right hander who’d only just picked up the game but who’s inexperience of the game gives little or no course management experience.
Speculation time and there will likely be gifted exceptions but I would suggest that in general there’s no substitute for canny course management.
Atb

[Charlie Goerges]

But it generally doesn’t make a difference to how he plays the hole.

I don't think this above statement is true Tommy. I think the way the architecture affects him is different from how it affects you. If the architecture is good, those different ways can often give him as much to think about as you have to think about. This is vastly oversimplifying it, but I've noticed it with my dad and myself (we have a similar skill dynamic as you and your friend). For me, the farther I am from the hole, the more I care about direction and the closer I get, the more I care about distance (In other words, my driver gets up in the air and is reasonably solid, so I want to end up in the fairway; my shorter irons are pretty straight, but I need to chose the right one in order to end up on, or near, the green). For my dad, the farther he is from the hole, the more he cares about distance (because it is not a given) and the closer he gets, the more he cares about direction (because it, too, is not a given). If the design can play with that dynamic a bit in clever ways, I think you can end up with a course that is fun and engaging for multiple levels of player.

[Peter Sayegh]

If you were to put a percentage on shot-making, strategy, and course management, what would it be for yourself?

Not sure if this is what you are asking, but personally:

On any tee, I'm 100% confident in my strategy.

[ward peyronnin]

Tommy

I can think of two relevant comments.
First is we all have a better chance to hit a decent shot when we have a discreet target at which to aim. In college I became a much better frisbee golfer when I realized I needed to develop a target for each shot not thrown toward the actual hole( which were trees, statues, lightpoles, etc.) I treid to imagine i was throwing at an imaginary person as if we were playing pitch with our frisbees. Lines of play are not it; producing a target from them is. Throwing a bsaeball at a mitt or shooting an arrow at a bullseye are other examples.
Secondly, as some have alluded, presenting a line of play at least informs where to play for a better chance at  the best miss for a less skilled player. So I do not see your premise as reason to ignore architecture. 

[Jim Sherma]

I have had between a 3 and 7 index since 1980 with most of that time spent in the 4.0-5.9 range. I consider myself a fairly good ball striker but I can honestly say that I have had very few stretches where I really glimpsed good enough golf to really engage with the architecture as I imaging the top players do.


At my peak I've achieved the ability to control the spin, curve, trajectory and distance at a level necessary to meaningfully hit to fairly specific targets with the ball moving in a chosen way and having either more or less spin to control the first and second bounces. This allowed me to play off of slopes to move the ball left /right towards pins and also meaningfully use backstops. During these stretches I get really focused on the architecture and can understand the process of working my way backwards to develop meaningful strategy off the tee. Most of my under par rounds have been during these stretches.


The first step down, still good but not resulting in the same level of interaction with the architecture, is where I make very few mistakes and hit a lot of fairways and greens. However I do not have the same level of confidence and control as above. Broke par a couple of times during these stretches, but generally end up consistently at the better end of my scoring spectrum without the really good rounds. The interface with the architecture is more macro and focuses more on avoiding big numbers while grinding out a lot of pars. Focus is on bunkers/hazards/ob/greens/fairways and not really on internal slopes unless they are very obvious.


The majority of my golf is played while simply trying to maintain good contact and consistency and basically just trying to stay out of big trouble while hitting some fairways and greens. The architectural interface is very general and even more macro given the greater dispersion of outcomes. It's not that I don't care about the architecture, it's just that the micro aspects of it don't mean much. Therefore, I end up not having much interest or exerting much energy considering them. The scoring distribution during these stretches is a function of whether my bad swings cost me a half stroke or stroke and distance based on where they come in the round and what trouble they end up in.


I always think about the architecture as an academic and aesthetic exercise. This post relates to how I'm interacting with it as a player as I cycle through my game's cycles.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I hate to pick on my friend, but I would put 35% shot-making, 10% strategy, and 55% course management in importance for him. When he has been my member/guest partner, I tell him what club to hit and where. He always plays better, because I won't let him hit shots his skill level won't allow. He is a great guy but hates to play the prudent shot. He could be a lot better if he would manage the course better. I think it is true for many guys. I know it is true for me, and I have been single digit since my teens.

[Jim Sherma]

Tommy - what percentage of rounds are you trying to grind for best score? I know that’s the point of competitive golf. Yet I find it hard to go “there” every round. The vast majority of rounds that I’ve shot or broken par has been in tournaments. It’s not that I don’t care, it’s more that it’s just hard for me to be in full grind mode.