News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jeremy_Glenn.

"course management" vs. "strategy"
« on: April 06, 2003, 12:49:06 PM »
In another thread, Tom Doak says the following regarding Tiger's club selection for his tee shot in order to avoid the "first cut" at Augusta National and how it brought strategy back to Augusta.

Quote
Where I would differ is to call that "strategy."  He is making choices, but those choices are mostly based on which club he is confident about hitting straight.  I'd call that "course management."

Isn't course management simply a golfer's response to a courses strategy?  If Tiger uses course management, doesn't that mean that the course has strategy?

Aren't the two related and inseperable?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Gary_Smith

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2003, 01:19:07 PM »
"Aren't the two related and inseperable?"

Yes, definitely. It seems to me by employing course management one is automatcally using strategy.

But I guess it depends upon what the definition of is is.  :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2003, 01:57:40 PM »
Jeremy,
I think that the "strategy" of a course refers to the collective stratagem architects use in building a course but it can be used to define the "plan" a golfer formulates to play it.    
I've always felt that course management is more relative to defining how well, or not so well, one has implemented one's "plan".

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

DMoriarty

Re:
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2003, 02:13:34 PM »
I'm not sure that taking the same line but just being more careful to keep it in the short grass really should count as strategy, at least not in the tradition of strategy at Augusta.  

If anything it would be what I would call vertical strategy, where the golfer can choose to try to hit it farther (vertical) at the risk of going off the fairway into the rough.  Or he can hit it shorter, and have a better chance of hitting it into the fairway but have more club left in.  This is the kind of "strategy" we see with US Open set-ups, where the only choice is how far to try to hit it.  

I've never played Augusta, but based on what I've seen and read, I always thought of it as a course where horizontal strategy was important.  By horizontal strategy, I mean hitting the ball to a position or in an alley that provides the best angle of approach to the pin position on the contoured greens.  

While the rough may have increased vertical strategy (by making it more like the US Open), it doesnt seem to have increased horizontal strategy.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Gary_Smith

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2003, 02:19:02 PM »
Just out of curiosity, are some of you guys lawyers?

 :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

DMoriarty

Re:
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2003, 09:04:38 PM »

Quote
Just out of curiosity, are some of you guys lawyers?

 :)

That depends what you mean by "lawyer."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RobertO4653

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2003, 10:50:35 PM »
Strategy simply put is the way one is going to decided to play the hole, in that he will take into consideration the best location for the tee shot to afford him the best line into the pin for that day. (when playing tournaments one knows the pin placements for all of the days that is why there are practice rounds) Management simply put is the selection of clubs used to achieve that goal (par the hole or better)case in point a three wood might leave you with your bread and butter club into the green whereas a driver might put you in a awkward yardage club. A punch 4 iron is better than a hard five, a flop is better than a bump and run, a thirty ft uphill is better than a 5 ft downhill, we get the picture now.

So when standing on the tee you are looking at the placement of the shot to achieve par or better you know what you are going to do, and where you need to hit it (strategy) now manage whatever happens to include good shots, bad shots, and emotions.

So even though strategy and management are uniquely different they are a must as a team to conquer the hole.

Robert
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2003, 03:35:25 AM »
Jeremy

I agree with your comment.  "Course management" is just another way of saying "thinking strategically."

An interesting corollary to your comment: who do you/we think is the better example of a strategist, Tiger Woods or Tom Doak, Alister MacKenzie or Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus (player) or Jack Nicklus (architect)  I know where my vote lies.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2003, 03:47:49 AM »
"An interesting corollary to your comment: who do you/we think is the better example of a strategist, Tiger Woods or Tom Doak, Alister MacKenzie or Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus (player) or Jack Nicklus (architect)  I know where my vote lies.

I think a more interesting question is TOC. Who do you think is a better example of a strategist there; Mother Nature when she basically formed that course some time ago or Tiger Woods when he won the Open there in 2001? And the even more interesting question within that question is; Do you think when Mother Nature basically formed that course some time ago she either knew or cared what Tiger Woods's strategy would be when he won the Open there in 2001?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2003, 04:48:40 AM »
Tom

Tiger's win at TOC in 2000 was a (perhaps THE) tour de force in strategic thinking (and clinical execution).  Your "Mother Nature" analogy makes the point better than I ever could have that there is no such thing as a "strategic" golf course.  Thanks!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Gary_Smith

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2003, 05:32:34 AM »
Somehow, I don't think Tiger Woods has belabored himself with all this bullshit.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2003, 06:10:23 AM »
"Your "Mother Nature" analogy makes the point better than I ever could have that there is no such thing as a "strategic" golf course.  Thanks!"

Rich:

I don't think that's quite so! There certainly is such a thing as a "strategic" golf course. But the difference with one such as TOC (Mother Nature) compared to perhaps one of a more modern age variety basically gets down to the question of;

"Whose strategy is it? Is it the golfer's or is it the architect's?"

The answer to this question and the differences gets to the basis of most everything that a Max Behr talks about in many of his articles on golf architecture.

The "strategy" of a golf course should not be the architect's alone! The architect should not attempt to DICTATE to the golfer what the golfers strategy should be. The architect should create something that makes the golfer feel as if his "strategy" is uniquely his OWN! Only in this way can the golfer feel a certain sense of FREEDOM that he controls his own destiny and is thinking "strategically" for himself--that he's forming and executing his own strategies, in fact, and not having to constantly conform to some architect's strategy!

So called architectural/strategic "roadmapping" is the architect dictating strategy to the golfer! NO GOOD!

The more random multi-optional style of "strategic" architecture where the golfer does not feel the architect is dictating A STRATEGY or HIS STRATEGY to him (the golfer)=VERY GOOD.

So good golf courses do have "strategies"--they have many strategies that particular golfers choose or determine by themselves and use for themselves.

All an architect's strategy on a golf course he builds should be is the way he (the architect) might choose to PLAY a golf course on his own.

And while a good architect is going about creating a golf course that's good because many different players will feel their strategies are their own he should also strive very hard to make everything he does make look as natural as possible as if Mother Nature herself made it at some particular distant time past.

Then and only then will Max Behr rest easy in his grave--and so will I!

But there is still room in this world of golf and golf architecture for golf courses like Desmond Muirhead's original Stone Harbor--probably the antithesis of all the foregoing-- because;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone!"
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2003, 07:47:05 AM »
Tom

How would you describe the "strategy" of the oval at Bridgehampton?  How do you think Fireball Roberts would have described its "line of charm?"

With posts like yours, no wonder shivas is driven to drink!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2003, 09:01:53 AM »
Rich;

I really truly felt that last post would finally deliver you to the Promised Land of golf architectural understanding.

But apparently not! So I'll just have to accept once and for all that you're a benighted soul relegated to live his life and play his "game" of golf in some dim little limited world of Kindergarten existentialism.

"How would you describe the "strategy" of the oval at Bridgehampton?  How do you think Fireball Roberts would have described its "line of charm?""

First of all, as usual, you're wrong. The Bridgehampton race track was not an oval, it was a "road" track. Fireball's strategy on oval tracks was better than anyone's, though. Extremely sophisticated and I know that for a fact because when I was ten I asked him at Castleberry (a oval dirt track) what his strategy was and how sophisticated it was. You have to understand first that Castleberry was a very short oval that was basically round.

So Fireball told me his strategy was to put the pedal to the metal, keep it there all day long and turn left!! Now you must understand I was almost overwhelmed by something that clever. Then about five minutes later Fireball said to me;

"Young Tom, my strategy is even more sophiii...,sophiiisss...,sophiiisstic...ahh shit whatever that big word you just used was, than that and the reason I just lapped that entire field twice to win by about a mile (and he did Rich, on that I'm not joking at all) is because all those other guys were trying to keep their cars under control on that dirt while I just broke my rear end loose on about a 15-20% angle, kept it there all day and drove right around everybody."

Well, you can imagine how overwhelmed I was by the sophistication of that "strategy". I figured Fireball had even felt the exact "firmness and fastness" of that dirt surface right there in the seat of his pants about as well as any man could.

But I never did ask him what his strategy was on that "road" track at Bridgehampton and that was the last time I ever saw Fireball.

And I never asked him what his strategy was that time he drove Le Mans and was leading the race by a good bit after 23 1/2 hours of the 24 hours of LeMans until his car just stopped running. But if I were to guess he probably would've said his strategy was to get to the finish line first. How can you get more sophisticated than that?

But you have to remember at Le Man's road track Fireball was driving a Ferrari and Bridgehampton's road track he was driving his big purple Ford (an incongruous sight if I ever saw one).

So again, I never got to ask him what his strategy was at Bridgehampton but it didn't look too good to me since he lost control of that big purple Ford stocker going past the pits down the hill and did about ten 360s ending up out in the dirt about where the present landing area on the 18th hole at "The Bridge" G.C is now. But as I said once before about that incident---throughout all those ten 360s Fireball never did take his left hand off the top of the door! It was magnificent to watch!!

And I'm not sure what Fireball would have said if I asked him about "line of charm".

Again, if I had to guess though I'd say Fireball would've told me;

"Young Tom, ya auta neva put two words liiike thaaat togetha--they don't make no cents put togetha".

Of course, I never did ask Fireball what he thought about golf. I wish now I had, though--that could've been pretty interesting! But it would've been far more interesting to talk to Fireball about golf architecture. If you gave me a couple of days to explain to him what the word architecture meant I'm sure he would've come up with all kinds of fascinating analogies between playing a really great "redan" shot into the wind and how he took that 26 degree slope on the north turn at the Talledega International Speedway.







« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2003, 10:08:32 AM »
Rich:

Your new all-encompassing definition of strategy means that a single-file-narrow golf course through trees can now be called "strategic," because we all have to decide what club we can hit straight enough to stay out from under the branches.

That isn't strategy to me.  Strategy is picking a line, not a club.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2003, 10:20:17 AM »
Tom

My definition, with which most "strategists" would concur, says that no relatively inanimate object (such as a golf course) can be "strategic."  You can believe otherwise, if you wish.

To me, strategy is the province of golfers.  It involves (among many other things) picking out a line and a club.  The course is merely the venue for these choices.  I cannot think of a course or a hole (even the simplest par 3--e.g. #10 at Pacific Grove) which does not demand strategic choices (even though they might often be limited) of the individual golfer.  These choices multiply dramatically, of course, if you factor in the gamut of abilities and predilections of players.  If you know a hole which plays otherwise, please let us know.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

DMoriarty

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2003, 10:23:09 AM »
Tom,

I think you've misread slightly, not by any fault of your own, but by fault of Rich's compulsion with splitting semantic hairs regarding this issue.  Rich thinks that from the player's perspective strategy is all encompassing.  Everything the player could possibly decide to do is "strategic.  

But when it comes to strategic courses, his definition encompasses absolutely nothing.  For in Rich's world, strategy only applies to decision-making beings.  [While I am sure Rich means no insult, I am not sure he included architects as decision-making beings.]  

Therefore, to Rich, no course can strategic, so no course can be any more strategic than any other.

Rich,

I've seen you make this point on numerous occasions, and as far as I can tell it is purely semantics.  You can define strategy as you do but it really adds nothing to the conversation.  Perhaps we are all wrong with our understanding of strategy and perhaps we should quit saying "strategic course" and start saying "course where golfer has many options."  But I think I will stick with my understanding of strategic.  After all, isnt general acceptance of usage the better part of meaning?  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2003, 10:28:53 AM »
TomD;

Go easy on the man. Picking a club is hard enough for
Rich. Understanding that a golfer has a choice of picking a line too is sort of an unknown concept for a kindergarten existentialist.

And what I mean by kindergarten existentialist is Rich doesn't understand some things to do with architecture very well and so if someone tries to point them out to him he tends to dismiss them as absurd since he has no understanding of them.

And since he knows architects create architecture he thinks they must be absurd too. He doesn't look at golf architecture as an art form at all--he thinks it's too meaningless for that.

That's why Rich thinks only that a hole is a hole is a hole--no real distinctions at all! Some even say that golfers who notice nothing can actually play OK--up to a point that is!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

ForkaB

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2003, 03:21:21 PM »
Dave (and TomP)

You have me sussed.  Next year I'll make it a New Year's resolution to ignore any reference to "strategic" courses, rather than continuously charging at the perpetrators like a young bull in the streets of Pamplona.  Until then, however........

Calling a course "strategic" is an anthropomorphic fallacy.  You might just as well call a course "angry" or "maternal" or even "existentialist!"

If it suits you and others to perpetuate the fallacy, and you really think you know what you mean when you say that a course is or isn't "strategic," by all means go for it!  However, my non-semantic problem with this "issue" is that nobody on this site, or elsewhere, has ever been able to adequately explain what they mean by "strategic" in terms of golf courses or even golf holes.

I'm all for evolving language, just as much as I am for evolving bunkers.  But, only if it works for the better in either case.  In this case, it doesn't, IMHO.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2003, 03:43:58 PM »

Quote
Calling a course "strategic" is an anthropomorphic fallacy.  You might just as well call a course "angry" or "maternal" or even "existentialist!"

I played Mystic Rock (another in a long line of Pete Dye courses built under the marching orders of "Build me the toughest course around") & it was very angry - or at least it seemed that way to me.:)


Quote
I'm all for evolving language, just as much as I am for evolving bunkers.  But, only if it works for the better in either case.  In this case, it doesn't, IMHO.

How, in God's name, does this not constitute an opportunity to advance the language? Does simplifying the language from "the course as presented did not leave me many strategic considerations" to "it was not a strategic course" so seriously diminish the meaning of the word "strategy" that this is causing serious problems for word worshippers everywhere?

If so, perhaps each time you read one of us using this convenient method of shorthand, you could simply make the appropriate substitutions in your head & not waste any more time with this issue!! :)

P.S. Wittgenstein may have truly been a genius, but wasting one's time aruging semantics is truly a waste of one's time. And you can quote me on that. ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

ForkaB

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2003, 03:50:17 PM »
George

If you understand what is meant when someone says a golf course is "strategic" I am happy for you.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

DMoriarty

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #21 on: April 07, 2003, 05:53:40 PM »
Rich,

We are not trying to expand so much as you are trying to narrow the language.

I am not the person to ask to define terms, as I usually fall back on Justice Potter Stewart's definition of obscenity:  "I know it when I see it."  I havent yet read it, but I would guess you might be able to glean an understanding of the definition of a strategic golf course by looking at Geoff Shackelford's new book.  In the meantime, let me offer a few rudimentary definitions to get you pointed in the right direction.  

A strategic golf hole is one that presents the golfer with multiple options and avenues of play.  Ex. Number 16, Cypress Point.

A strategic golf course is one made up of a critical mass of strategic golf holes.  In other words, a golf course which consists of  a critical mass of golf holes which present the golfer with multiple options and avenues of play.  Ex.  Cypress Point.  

I am on a roll, so here is another one.  A strategic golf feature is one that presents the golfer with multiple options and avenues of play.  Ex. the Pacific Ocean at Number 16, Cypress Point.  

By the way Rich,  when you refer to "strategists" agreeing with your understanding of the use of the term "strategic," to whom do you refer?  I was under the impression that we are all "strategists," as we all make decisions on and off the golf course.  Perhaps you mean to say those that study and lecture about strategy?  You of all people should be more careful in your use the term.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2003, 06:12:26 PM »
Rich;

Aren't we just talking "personification" here?  

Can a course be charming?  Can a course have character?  Can a course be lame or weak?

What wording would you use to differentiate a course where there is wider room for multiple lines of play (presumably around hazards) on each hole than one where play seems strictly dictated along narrower lines of play, for instance?

That seems an awful lot of typing to express something that most of us seem to implicitly understand, don't you agree? ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeremy_Glenn.

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2003, 06:50:51 PM »
Rich,

Anthromopho....whatever falacy.

Whoa.... [insert smiley smooking weed here]

I've been saying for years that a golf course can't be "difficult".

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "course management" vs. "strategy"
« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2003, 07:07:25 PM »
"To me, strategy is the province of golfers.......The course is merely the venue for these choices."

Rich:

You've got it pal. That's pretty fundamental! A bit like saying golfers actually do have brains and they're capable and doing things like thinking and making choices for themselves and they do walk on the earth (venue) and can actually play golf on it too. I think that became apparent quite some time ago and then things evolved in the art of architecure from there a little bit!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »