Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: George Pazin on July 19, 2010, 12:21:07 PM
-
Thought about this quite a lot last night while watching the replay of round 4.
Most architecture nuts place a great deal of value on strategy. Thomas called it "the soul of golf".
Many believe TOC is one of the most strategic venues in the game, as well as arguably the most historic. Yet we also heard repeatedly how unique the course is and how no one would be crazy enough to build anything like it today (sure, we know that's not accurate, but let that go for a minute).
Now consider what many believe to be contrasting strategies for two other great historic venues, Augusta and Oakmont. Many seem to think Augusta is just whale away, no need to strategize, just free wheel it. Many also seem to think strategy is lacking at Oakmont - due to its design, there really isn't much to do except aim for the center of everything and execute to the best of your ability.
I think in many ways what separates all three of these venues, what really makes each special, is that the strategies tends to be more micro and less macro. Rather than standing on the tee and mapping out your strategy for the hole - or even doing it the night before, for the round - each offers strategic choices on almost every shot, regardless of where you end up from your previous shot. It might seem other courses do this as well, but I'd argue many or even most don't - your typical shot is yardage driven, there aren't many other factors.
Let's face it: while the strategic options mapped out by Thomas are beautiful in his books - and his courses sure are great - how often do you come close to executing your pre-planned strategy? The best golfers in the world hit maybe two-thirds of their fairways and greens. How often do you think they hit the side they mean, the specific area they intend? How often do you?
I think, generally speaking, golfers - even many of the deep thinkers on here - place too much emphasis on macro strategy - your plan for the hole - and not enough emphasis on micro strategy - your plan for the specific shot.
It took me a long time - several years, really, culminating with last night's revelation, watching Phil Mickelson standing amidst a bunch of nooks and crannies in front of one of the greens, then later noticing the dramatic terrain right in front of the 5th green when the leaders went through (boy, that's a tiny, Pebble-like green, no?) - but I think this concept is a big reason that subtle courses tend to get the short shrift from raters and golfers at large. It's easy to miss the little lurking problems unless you are specifically confronted with them, it's harder to miss the giant body of water sitting next to the 18th fairway at Sawgrass...
Go ahead, tell me I'm crazy.
Then share your thoughts and experiences.
-
If people executed their plan for attacking a hole regularly, the game would not be very interesting.
Golf is a game of misses. Calculating the likelihood of those misses based on your strengths, weaknesses and tendencies, the weather, the ground conditions and the costs of failure is one aspect of strategy. Performing after you make your choice is the second piece of the puzzle.
Great courses make both the choice of shot and the attempt to execute the shot interesting. They then present another interesting decision process regardless of how you do with the prior shot.
-
Broadly defined, strategy is simply a plan to win.
Every player needs a strategy for every course. What we think of as a "strategic" course simply means that the course does not force all players to wind up with very similar strategies.
Courses that we think of as more strategic do force more micro strategy, because even if you do not execute your shot the way you planned, you likely still have options from where you are. Courses that have forced strategies are more macro by default, because the options from hole to hole are going to be similar and probably limited. There is less of a need to create a unique strategy on a hole-by-hole or shot-by-shot basis.
-
Strategy vs. Tactics?, George.
To borrow upon terminology from military history, on the tee each player is confronted with a set piece battle. From then on out for most of us it's a series of meeting engagements replete with ambushes.
-
"What is strategy?"
George, on here Strategy is pretty much an argument waiting to happen! ;)
I realize Thomas called strategy "The sould of the game" but I tend to like Behr's virtual description better----eg "Freedom" or a golfer should be able to feel he is finding his OWN way!
Personally, I imagine strategy in golf via that old Scottish ballad----"You take the high road and I'll take the low road and I'll be in Scotland before Ye."
-
George:
You are right, in the sense that the pros do not really aim for a side very much. That's partly because they often encounter fairways so narrow and rough so deep that it makes no sense to aim for one side; but also partly because they trust their DISTANCE control much more than they trust their DIRECTIONAL control. So, if there is a bunker they cannot afford to be in, they don't play around it ... they lay up short of it unless they are sure they can get over it.
[One example from St. Andrews: no one was playing to the left of the Strath on the 11th hole ... but many played right over the top of it!]
One thing you are right about is that at St. Andrews, more than any other course, every shot requires a decision about the lesser of two evils. Think about Tiger's putt on the 2nd hole on Saturday ... he could have gone away from the hole, like Mickelson, to try and nestle it up close [and as the magic computerized putting line advised], but instead, he went straight at it, and hoped to hit the hole, even though he knew that would likely run by. You have to make that sort of decision on nearly every approach shot at The Old Course, except for maybe #9.
Augusta National forces similar decisions because of the severity of the greens. I am not sure Pebble Beach is in the same class.
-
What we think of as a "strategic" course simply means that the course does not force all players to wind up with very similar strategies.
Courses that we think of as more strategic do force more micro strategy, because even if you do not execute your shot the way you planned, you likely still have options from where you are. Courses that have forced strategies are more macro by default, because the options from hole to hole are going to be similar. There is less of a need to create a unique strategy on a hole-by-hole basis.
No fair making my points much clearer with far fewer words.
Steve, I thought about the strategy v. tactics thing, couldn't really figure out how to say it clearly.
Tom P, I agree, Behr's definition is much better. Personally, I favor Pat Brockwell's thoughts that have been my tagline for 6 years now.
Tom D, love the idea about every shot at TOC requiring a decision about the lesser of two evils.
-
It's all about the green.
If the green doesn't offer an advantage and/or a penalty for being in certain areas around the hole then it all falls apart. In my opinion...
-
George - lately I've been thinking about strategy not in terms of options, but more so in terms of the lowest possible/likely score, i.e. how can a golfer on a particular hole on a particular day get it in the hole in the fewest number of strokes, given his level of talent (or lack of same). If a golf hole gives that golfer even a chance to, say, lay up short of the green with his 2nd shot on a Par 4, then it is providing a venue/options for strategic thinking. That players so often fail to make the smart choice in pursuit of the lowest possible/likely score isn't the golf hole's fault.
Peter
-
Jim is right in part.
It is all about greens that are more likely to punish approaches (sometimes severely) from one direction or another. But the other and indispensible half of the equation is that fw's must offer the player some choice as the approach angles to be taken. Really good strategic courses make reaching favored approach angles more challenging than other fw positions.
Greens set up the line of charm. Strategy is to be found in first, seeing the line of charm and, second, having the guts to risk it. On good strategic holes.
Bob
-
I too think many people confuse strategy and tactics.
Playing hickory clubs helped me to see and understand the differences. The change in the equipment and the concepts about how the game is played have all but eliminated strategy from the game. How many people understand why you should be approaching a green from one side of a fairway or the other? The equipment has eliminated that necessity.
-
I too think many people confuse strategy and tactics.
Playing hickory clubs helped me to see and understand the differences. The change in the equipment and the concepts about how the game is played have all but eliminated strategy from the game. How many people understand why you should be approaching a green from one side of a fairway or the other? The equipment has eliminated that necessity.
Thanks for sharing this. While I wouldn't say equipment has eliminated much of the strategy, it certainly has lessened it.
Damn impressive scores on TOC with the hickories, btw.
-
Ralph,
Don't you think even the very best players still employ a significant amount of strategic thought as they go around the courses George referenced in the opening post. Sure it may be less than 50 years ago...but still very prevalent. Their margins of error are narrower but the penalties are there.
On a course with flat greens they really have no need to worry about anything because they can always pitch it inside 10 feet and make a hell of alot of the straight 10 footers...
For the rest of us, I'll guarantee you in any game among equals, the better thinker will win the money...
-
Thanks for the compliment.
With the modern ball and clubs allowing (better) players to hit high, carry shots with a boatload of spin, the need to place the ball to utilize contours on the approach shot are all but gone.
-
George
I think of strategic courses as offering more than one or two options on each shot with the option making the next shot the easiest, the hardest choice of the moment. That is why I think Oakmont is essentially from the penal side of the continuum and TOC is on the strategic side of the continuum. Even now we see PROS choosing vastly different lines off tees at many holes on TOC. Jeepers, look at the first hole and how some guys went way left and some stuck to the centre. I find this amazing. Pros also were choosing aerial VS ground approaches and that was down to positioning from the previous shot. Bottom line, the more choices on offer, the more strategic the hole. That doesn't necessarily make it a better hole than a penal one, but it sure does make it easier for grandma to get round.
Ciao
-
For the rest of us, I'll guarantee you in any game among equals, the better thinker will win the money...
Truer words were never typed.
I actually think most people have some kind of strategy on the golf course-it's just bad strategy.Rather than "how best can I get my ball from here to there",it's "how can I make 4".The "how can I make 4" strategy doesn't always give you Options B or C if/when Option A fails.And,unless you're really good,Option A fails frequently.
-
George
I think of strategic courses as offering more than one or two options on each shot with the option making the next shot the easiest, the hardest choice of the moment. That is why I think Oakmont is essentially from the penal side of the continuum and TOC is on the strategic side of the continuum. Even now we see PROS choosing vastly different lines off tees at many holes on TOC. Jeepers, look at the first hole and how some guys went way left and some stuck to the centre. I find this amazing. Pros also were choosing aerial VS ground approaches and that was down to positioning from the previous shot. Bottom line, the more choices on offer, the more strategic the hole. That doesn't necessarily make it a better hole than a penal one, but it sure does make it easier for grandma to get round.
Ciao
I think you'd find the Oakmont is more penal on the tee shots, but after that, there are a lot of options of how to play - high, low, run it, fly it, etc. They're just all hard.
-
But for us mere mortals, a sensible strategy (if we want to win money, say) is to play for no worse than bogie on 6 or 8 of the hardest holes, and no better than par on many of the others. Sure, bail out room and options and the possibility of recovery all aid in that (modest) quest; but so does any green not fronted/surrounded by bunkers or water (if we only have eyes to see that and the courage to play the smart shot). And in this sense, I think "strategic" can be a pretty big net, and cast over a wide aray of seemingly different courses. But I may not be understanding George's question.
Peter
-
But for us mere mortals, a sensible strategy (if we want to win money, say) is to play for no worse than bogie on 6 or 8 of the hardest holes, and no better than par on many of the others. Sure, bail out room and options and the possibility of recovery all aid in that (modest) quest; but so does any green not fronted/surrounded by bunkers or water (if we only have eyes to see that and the courage to play the smart shot). And in this sense, I think "strategic" can be a pretty big net, and cast over a wide aray of seemingly different courses. But I may not be understanding George's question.
Peter
I think this misses George Pazin's original point--strategy is,or should be, more micro than macro.
IMO,if you tell yourself that you'll play the hardest holes in no worse than bogie,you're making a strategic mistake.Rather than start with a hoped-for outcome,shouldn't you try to hit the best/smartest shot each time?I think this approach would lead to a lower score.This presupposes that you're one of those misbegotten scorecard and pencil types.
BTW--didn't you used to be Franklin Pangbourn?
-
I think this misses George Pazin's original point--strategy is,or should be, more micro than macro.
IMO,if you tell yourself that you'll play the hardest holes in no worse than bogie,you're making a strategic mistake.Rather than start with a hoped-for outcome,shouldn't you try to hit the best/smartest shot each time?I think this approach would lead to a lower score.This presupposes that you're one of those misbegotten scorecard and pencil types.
BTW--didn't you used to be Franklin Pangbourn?
This is indeed closer to the point I was making. On the best courses - TOC, Augusta, Oakmont, etc - you will be challenged on every shot. There are small things you can do to play for bogey or whatever, but in general, I think you will be better served trying to minimize with each shot.
And the corollary is that design should focus on the micro, not the macro. I guess the short answer would be Jim's - if you can get the green complex design right, everything else tends to fall into place.
Gotta think a bit more about that.
-
Really interesting thread guys.
A leader I admire once pointed out to me that strategy is "what you don't do". I think there is a lot of strategy that we all have learned as we've grown in the game (don't aim for sucker pins in stroke play).
So my question is this - is a course more strategic or less strategic if it lets golfers avoid shots they don't like (e.g. a high draw, or flop shots, etc.)? And if you don't want to have to hit a specific shot, what price should you be prepared to pay to avoid it?
-
IMO,if you tell yourself that you'll play the hardest holes in no worse than bogie,you're making a strategic mistake.Rather than start with a hoped-for outcome,shouldn't you try to hit the best/smartest shot each time?I think this approach would lead to a lower score.This presupposes that you're one of those misbegotten scorecard and pencil types. ;)
Well first of all isn't there a distinction between obsession with ones score for the round and paying attention to ones score for a hole (at least as regards the 'scorecard and pencil' comment). Since doesn't the whole notion of 'best/smartest shot' really a require a notion of the coring goal for that hole--that the best/smartest shot sometimes means accepting the likelihood of an extra stroke (a bogey if one wants a word for it) rather than a the probability of two (or more). Ia really don't see how you can have the best/smartest shot concept without some concept of the getting the ball in the hole with fewer strokes.
-
According to French philosopher Michel de Certeau, a strategy is, "the calculation (or manipulation) of power relationships that becomes possible as soon as a subject with will and power (a business, an army, a city, a scientific institution) can be isolated." A strategy is its own locus. The physical golf course, having been isolated and pre-supposing the player, is in itself the strategy. Using this definition, only the designer can utilize strategies (and even this may not even really be the case if we look deeper into what de Certeau is saying).
Conversely, de Certeau defines a tactic as, "a calculated action determined by the absence of a proper power locus....It must play on and with a terrain imposed on it and organized by the law of a foreign power." A player, then, can only utilize tactics; the golf course is already there before he got there (it is the "foreign power"), he is powerless to change it, and so all he can do is act in response to it.
-
JM - my thinking is that, with fairly realistic expectations (like trying to play the hard holes in no worse than bogie), I'm more likely to make the smartest choices (for me) that I can. Again, I may be misunderstanding George, but I'm not a good enough golfer to think about micro strategies.
"BTW--didn't you used to be Franklin Pangbourn?"
I was once, friend, I was once.
-
When discussing Strategy in golf it's never singular...singular means penal. Strategies is more correct.
-
"I think, generally speaking, golfers - even many of the deep thinkers on here - place too much emphasis on macro strategy - your plan for the hole - and not enough emphasis on micro strategy - your plan for the specific shot."
George:
I think most golfers think pretty much the reverse of what you said above; at least that has been my observation over the years. I think most golfers think only in single shot increments---what you seem to call micro strategy. I haven't seen all that many think in what Behr called whole hole strategic "unity." But then there certainly are an awful lot of golf holes that really don't even inspire them to do that anyway.
The type of hole that have inspired particularly good golfers to think in real whole hole strategic "unity" seem to be the best of the short par 4 type, like PV's #8 and #12, Oakmont's #17, Riviera's #10, Philly CC's #1, Cypress's #9, Maidstone's #17, NGLA's #1 and my new favorite, Myopia's #1. When I see a good player get really aggressive off the tee with those holes I know he is thinking in real whole hole strategic unity, and not just single shot increments.
There are some good par 5 examples like the par 4s mentioned above such as ANGC's #13 or even the 7th at my club, GMGC, which is a conceptual copy of ANGC's #13, and even some par 3 examples which are quite rare; the best example of the latter probably being Cypress's famous #16.
-
This thread has been very informative for me as it is providing a framework for something I have struggled with for a long time. I suspect that medium handicapped golfers such as myself ( drifting between 11-15 over the last five years) are hardput to play golf courses in a strategic manner. My golf is just that bit too erratic to allow me to plot out the route. I may intend to play to a portion of the hole which would be strategically sensible but the plan is invariably derailed due to inherent ineptness and from there on in, on many holes, I have to become tactical. My round of golf quickly becomes a series of (clever?) thought-out manoeuvres, tactics, or micro-strategies if you like within an overall strategy.
I think of the overall strategy simply being to try and get around the 18 holes in as few shots as possible for the round. I think of the tactics, played out on each hole, as being the approaches I take as I survey each shot on that hole prior to execution.
So, sadly for me, highly strategic courses are not appreciated for what they are worth as I simply cannot navigate my way around them in a predictable fashion. I will still find them enjoyable but not able to do them justice.
Do other mid-handicappers feel somewhat helpless in this way?
Colin
-
Colin Macqueen:
There were a few very significant architects and architectural philosophers back in that day who actually articulated what you just said in your post above. They said things like----one should not really "design" to challenge (or substitute "penalize") the not-good golfer under the theory that his own game was challenge (penalty) enough. This was one of the architectural/philosophic theories of Max Behr.
He actually wrote that it is not the job of the golf architect to remind or inform the not good golfer of his short-comings; that was the job of the golf professional.
-
"I think, generally speaking, golfers - even many of the deep thinkers on here - place too much emphasis on macro strategy - your plan for the hole - and not enough emphasis on micro strategy - your plan for the specific shot."
George:
I think most golfers think pretty much the reverse of what you said above; at least that has been my observation over the years. I think most golfers think only in single shot increments---what you seem to call micro strategy. I haven't seen all that many think in what Behr called whole hole strategic "unity." But then there certainly are an awful lot of golf holes that really don't even inspire them to do that anyway.
I wasn't clear in my original post, despite it's length.
I agree that most golfers tend to think of each individual shot as they play them, planning accordingly. Where I think most golfers err is when thinking about the course - is it good? great? why? why not? does it offer strategic options? why or why not? - basically, in evaluating a course. That's where I think people tend to get overly focused on the macro strategies and not the micro strategies. It's this sort of thinking, in other words, that yields the opinions like those who think the short par 4 12th (?) at Rustic Canyon lacks strategic options. They see a wide open field and don't see the options.
That's why I love the definition of strategy that you said Behr offers: Freedom. I think most people look at the freedom at Augusta or TOC and see it as a lack of strategy, just swing away and go find it, no thought required.
I do think most golfers play shot by shot, they just don't think shot by shot when it comes to course evaluation.
I also think that's why I prefer a course that provides shot interest, as opposed to what most refer to as strategic options.
-
Just saw the awesome photo in Noel's thread on Fisher's Island. That thread perfectly illustrates my point, I think. I think most golfers would look at the opening photo and say, where is the strategy? Just let it rip! And, if anything, they'd want the bunker that was there before. I think most, when evaluating a golf course, don't look at the specific shot and whether or not it holds interest, and whether ensuing shots are likely to be interesting.
Just mho...
-
George
"Freedom" is the Mawhellian way of saying options. Its just fancy talk for giving the golfer more choices than REQUIRED shots which are essentially between or over hazards. Where I think most golfers get confused (even many on this site) is confusing harsh (ie penal) hazards with penal architecture. Essentially, for a shot to be strategic architecture it must offer more than one or two choices.
1 Choice - very penal
2 Choices - somewhat penal
3 Choices - somewhat strategic (read diaginal hazards extending from the rough without a corresponding hazard on the far side of the fairway)
4 Choices - strategic (read centre-line hazards)
More than 4 choices - very strategic (read diagonal hazards centreline hazards)
Of course this rough chart relies on reasonably well thought out greens to enhance or highlight the strategies involved and width. If the greens aren't designed to cooperate with the tee shots and/or second shots all the talk of strategy is worth nada. I would also say that a course of 18 very strategic holes would be a bit boring. All courses need holes which REQUIRE certain shots at times.
Ciao
-
George, very good thoughts in your original post.
There is a firm maxim in military planning that applies to your concept: "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy!"
In other words, in war and golf, strategy gets you to the conflict, not through it. Which it usually won't unless you are either very skillful or very lucky. After that you improvise with the weapons/strategy at your command. And hope for the best.