[TEPaul]

"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.

[Colin Macqueen]

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

[TEPaul]

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.

[George Pazin]

"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.

[George Pazin]

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...

[Sean_A]

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 

[Bill_McBride]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()