[Patrick_Mucci]

With hard balls that go a mile and stop on a dime, and equipment that has made playing out of normal rough far easier, has strategy become obsolete ?

When one visits NGLA there is a large schematic of the golf course which immediately conveys to most the different methods of play available on each hole.

But, off the drawing boards, and on the golf course, hasn't technology and the aerial game combined to diminish the need for strategy ?

The PGA Tour Pros, the best players in the world, seem to figure out the ideal play of a hole, and then execute their plan.   When Tiger Woods hits a six iron out of a bunker, 218 yards over water to a pin tucked on a sliver of a green, doesn't strategy go up in smoke ?

At ANGC many bemoan the advent of rough in narrowing the golf course.  Does it really make any difference to these guys ?  Through the green it's soaking wet and the golf course is longer, yet, it doesn't seem to matter to these guys.

Since many on this site champion wide fairways for strategy and options, tell me, on a hole by hole basis, how it makes a difference in the play of the holes ?  You can skip the par 3's because narrow fairways don't apply on those holes, but on the remaining 14 holes, for the PGA Tour Pros, the best players in the world, were there really any options other than their ideal method of playing every hole ?

P.S.  A reminder, you only know what I write, not what I think.

[ForkaB]

Pat

I generally agree with the premise, as I tried to articulate on my recent "width" thread.  I would add that the skill of today's elite goflers, along with technology, also makes 2nd shots far less "strategic."  For example, after watching 95% of the field trying some sort of ground game or indirect option on the 14th yesterday, I was stunned to watch Olazabal fly his approach straight at the pin and stick it.  These guys are not only good, they are on another planet.  So, should we design or them, or for us mortals?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

I think the GAP between the PGA Tour Pros, the best players in the world, and the rest of the golfing population is widening to the degree that the concept of having distinctly different golf courses may be valid.

Since they make up such a narrow spectrum of the golfing world, I would design the great majority of the golf courses for us mortals, leaving special venues (a PGA concept) for the Touring Pros.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat or Rich,
Why can't a course be both? Recognize the aerial approach as the preferred method of attack for the Pros and create stratagems for the rest of us and some of them. I would hazard a guess that many of the world's best courses successfully employ this dualism and isn't Rich's observation of the varying styles of approach used on world-class Augusta's 14th evidence of this?

I saw a lot of shots from the rough during this year's tournament. Were they all misses or were some misses-by-rote?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

I suspect that geographic and geologic forces have a greater impact on the ability to accomodate the ground game.

As an example, I can't visualize a ground game in Florida in the summer.

The conditions at ANGC this last week didn't seem conducive to the ground game.

I think a golf course needs the unique combination of soil qualities, temperature, weather, etc., etc., if it was to be able to accomodate both all of the time.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
My reply was to Rich's question: "So, should we design (courses) for them, or for us mortals?"  and to your reply: "I would design the great majority of the golf courses for us mortals, leaving special venues (a PGA concept) for the Touring Pros." I don't remember geography or geology being on the test but even if we consider them are not varying conditions at varying times at various locales just one more justification for the obvious benefits of designing with dualism?It's dry and firm in Florida at times just as it's wet and soft in the desert, it's firm and fast in NE in the summer and soft in the spring, etc.. Dualism makes for better players as they get to see how the other half lives when they need to step out of one type of game in favor of the other due to the conditions.

[Mark_F]

Patrick Mucci:

Does that mean, then, that when courses like Augusta are changed in an attempt to toughen them up that length and bunkers are the incorrect option?

Shouldn't greens be made smaller and contoured differently so that approaches from the incorrect place of the fairway must land on a penny or be penalized? ( and I'm assuming that a penny is smaller than a dime.  Sorry, but I can't remember whether they are!)

Also, doesn't Toger Woods' ability to hit the aforementioned 200-odd yard bunker shot over water only show itself on marshmallow conditioned courses?  if he was in a bunker at Pine Valley, say, is it a shot he could pull off?

[Steve_L.]

Nahhhhh, strategy is alive and well - it's just expressed differently on different courses and in different climates and conditions...

Example - you are 40 yards short of a green with a fairly firm tight lie on a par 5 in two shots (or three or four - doesn't matter) with the pin cut close to the front and bunkers to the side of the green...  How do you chose to play the shot???  Strategic options include:

1.  Bump and run with a mid/short iron
2.  Pitch a shot just short of the green and let it release to the hole.
3.  Play a lofted wedge and try to flop it close to the hole...

No matter where - these choices exist (this one did for me today).  

It's not just about the route to the green (still requires execution to achieve the route) but viable options of how to play it along the way...

[danielfaleman]

I know: have the green tilt towards the back.




Understand?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

I think these are two seperate issues.

More and more I feel that to present a test for the PGA Tour player, a different golf course must be offered, then the one us mortals play.

Mark Fine,

You could go the route you suggest for the PGA TOUR players, but, what about the members for the weeks of the year that the PGA Tour players aren't on property ?
That's why I think, more and more, that seperate venues are the prefered alternative.

It's difficult to impossible to cater to both elements on the same golf course, while presenting a complete test for the PGA Tour players.

Steve L,

Strategy may be alive and well, but it's been reduced and narrowed down a great deal for the PGA Tour pro.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I'll agree to the premise that Touring Pros have to deal less with stratagems than the rest of us but I haven't heard any reasons from you that effectively dispute what I've asked- why must a course be one or the other? If you feel that there is such a need for a different "test"  than please provide an explanation or some examples.
 
Saying that these are two different issues doesn't offer anything to dissuade me from my position, not that you are trying. It is obvious that different areas of the country, different soils and differing weather conditions have an effect on how a course will play but very few areas do not experience factors that change periodically. I still can't see how one type of play needs to be sacrificed for the other and how these could possibly be two separate issues. Once again, please show me.

Additionally, you've said: "I would design the great majority of the golf courses for us mortals, leaving special venues (a PGA concept) for the Touring Pros." How do you reconcile this position with, once again, the obvious physical differences that are area specific? Do we relegate the stratagem-eliminating game of the Tour Pro to fla. because he only needs the air to play in? Do we not create dualism in Fla. because it's too wet in the summer?
 
There just isn't that much of a difference in the Pro hitting an aerial approach shot of 100 yds than the 10 or even the 20 handicapper. The 10 or 20 might be hitting this shot for his third while the Pro is hitting it for his second but so what, it's still the same shot. There is little difference in the Pro knocking down a short iron to run one on than there is for the 10 or 20 trying that same shot with his mid iron, only the results in both these cases might be different.

There is no need to segregate the pro and the amateur by course types. Design with stratagems from the two schools, air and ground, and you've got the best of both worlds to tap, even if one form or the other takes precedence due to ever changing conditions.

[Jim Thompson]

Jim,

I believe Pat's answer lies in the laws of scalability.  I'll explain...

As a given shape, say a triangle is stretched from two points (a & c) the relative angle to the third point (b) decreases.

                             b
                             x-feature
                a                     c

                                                                   b
                                                                   x
a                                                                           c

Thereby minimizing the initial effect / relationship of the strategic features.

Mathematically, we would say that, at some factor, J & S curves approach near linear slopes ergo as clubs and skill allow players to hit the ball further, directional / route stratagems are essentially eliminated as the preferred line of play a-b-c approaches the natural line of a-c.  This is what is happening as we continue to lengthen originally strategic designs.  The only solution is to increase the scale and overall width of the all features to maintain the strategic relationship between features for those playing the pro tees.  In essence, that would leave us mortals playing in the valley of the giants.  I used to think my wife was phobic of fairway bunkers when she'd say that they were sooo big, I realize now that, relative to her game, a fairway bunker is exponentially larger to the scale of her game.

We mortals think that hitting the ball longer into an area of equal size is more difficult than hitting a shorter shot into that given area.  I think many of the gods would disagree suggesting that as the angular aspect of a line of play is reduced, made less steep, the shot actually becomes easier as the far side "of the dogleg" has been reduced relative to its influence on play.  Furthermore the gods have the additional benefit of lying back 20 - 30 yards from where we mortals would play and having the same club into the green.

If your postulate that, a hundred shot is the same hundred yard shot to all is correct.  Then you must accept the corollary that the 200-yard shot is the same 200 yard shot to all is correct.  Now I'm no expert and I've never seen you play, but I don't think you'd be willing to play those who hit easy 6 irons into two hundred yard par threes even up.


I'm also fairly confident that you can't spin the ball like the gods can and throw darts like they do.


Steve L,

When did method of shot become strategy?  Tactical and Strategic planning are two very different things in my book.  Tactics are things one deals with in the moment, I'm 40 out what are my available methods / means of attack.  Strategic planning is more long range; I'm on the tee how do I want to orientate myself for the pending attack.  Do I want to be 40 out, do I want to be left or right etc...


Sorry if I turned into an analytical bean counter, but it is tax season.

Cheers!

JT

Oh, to answer the original question; "Is Strategy becoming obsolete?"  As courses and back players become longer, revamped courses will become more strategic for us mortals and significantly less strategic for the gods based solely on the relationship created by the resulting scale of those features modified to keep up with the equipment and skills of the back players.

[T_MacWood]

Pat and Rich discussing the demise of strategy is like a couple of athiests agreeing that God is dead.

[ForkaB]

Have faith, Brother Tom.  One of these days the creator is going to reach up and touch you and give you enlightenment, and only then will you finally understand how futile your resistance to the Truth has been.  Until that time, however, feel free to continue with your vaccuous commentary.  It amuses some people on this site, at least.

[T_MacWood]

I'm sure my commentary amuses you and the other guy who didn't have to turn to their dictionary to look up the meaning of vaccuous.

Since when did the Man Upstairs have to reach UP to touch me or anyone else...are you sure we are talking about the same entity.

[ForkaB]

Tom

How do you know that the creator is a man and that he or she lives "upstairs?"  Let us know.

PS-- I looked up "vaccous" after I wrote it, just to make sure, and can you believe it, I spelt it wrong?  (it's "vacuous" to all you out there who are not Dan Kelly).

[BCrosby]

Seems to me that there is not much doubt that strategy is irrelevant for the best players in the world.

The next era in archtitecture will belong to those who build build championship venues for play at that level.

These will not be courses you or I will want to play on a regular basis. More importantly, these courses will result in the bifurcation of the game by other means.

Bob

Bob  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Let's bifurcate the issue between existing courses and new courses.

On existing courses I think that you'd concede that some don't have the land to lengthen some or any of their holes,

With many existing courses designed with their bunkers strategically placed at 230 or 250 yards from the back tee I think you can see the immediate impact of drives that carry
260 to 300 yards for the pros.  The super length of those players renders the features creating the strategy from the tee obsolete.

Some architects design holes backwards, for the shot to the green back to the fairway.  If the intent was to incorporate the bunkers off the tee, placing them to create the strategy into the green, flying those bunkers by considerable distances then undermines or destroys the remaining strategy of the hole.

John Daly recently played one of the four Boca West golf courses.  On the first hole he drove the par 4 green of 325+ yards.  Tell me about the strategy of the bunkers off the tee for him, Tell me about the strategy for his now theoretical second shot into the green, (which was vaporized by his driving the green)

So, here we have a hole that presents plenty of challenge and strategy for the members, and none for John Daly.

For those of you thinking that chipping, pitching and hitting greenside bunker shots is strategy, on approaching the green in regulation, there is no hope.

Trip Kuehne averaged 325.8 off the tee at last weeks tournament.  Tell me how you can present a challenge to him on an old golf course designed when drives of 225 were the norm ?  I say that you can't do it, unless you substantially alter the golf course at the 300-350 zone, and then, you'll unnecessarily penalize the higher handicap by adding additional hazards that the lower handicap won't face.

On a brand new course, it would have to be designed in the
7,500+ range for the PGA Tour Pros in order to provide a complete test, and at shorter distances for the rest of the golfing world.
1 that costs more money, making it less affordable
2 Maintainance costs would also be higher
3 It remains questionable whether golf course architecture
   can reasonably satisfy distinctly multiple masters

Rich Goodale,

You have to remember, Tom MacWood knows far more about strategy then both of us combined, with all of our friends thrown in as well, because, we... we know nothing.  
Just ask him, he's the expert, especially on strategy, but his real expertise lies in evaluating strategy and/on golf courses that he's never played or set foot on.

Rich, what's wrong with you, don't you get it ?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I tend to agree with Pat in general. However, I saw time and time again at ANGC example after example of how it is in play. #3 as Shivas noted grabbed several players and especially Tiger by the ..... yesterday. I saw time and time poorly thought shots out around the greens bc players were only using sand and 60% wedges. Where were the 6, 7 and 8 irons running the ball? The man who was straight off the tee and had the more effective and creative short game won. Weir only hit half the greens and still made par. Weir would lay up to play his shot and make birdie. He played his game and stayed within himself. I was very impressed.

[Steve_L.]

Jim Thompson,

My example of strategy would not have been possible if the green was fronted with a bunker - and to get 40 yards from the green it took an aggressive play over severe grassy hollows, otherwise (less aggressive line) it would've been an ordinary sand or pitching wedge over the corner of a greenside bunker...  

Pat,

Your point is well taken - it's much harder to find viable different lines of play for the PGA Tour player.  I think this was well put awhile back in the "non option hole" discussion at Riviera.  

[Jim Thompson]

Steve,

I failed to find the information regarding those grassy hollows in your first post.  The injection of those hollows required you to make one of four strategic choices (all I would assume made relative to pin location):

1.  Hit short of hollows
2.  Hit left of hollows
3.  Hit right of hollows
4.  Hit over hollows

At this point you made a strategic decision by choosing number 4.  Had you failed to execute that choice short you would have been left with a one-dimensional non-choice of hacking out of those hollows?  Similarly if you had pulled or blocked your shot, assuming center pin, you would have been left to lob in with your 60 over those bunkers.    If the pin were tucked behind that left bunker, would you have considered hitting right of the hollow to open the approach to the green or still bombed away for those forty-yard touch shots?  Why did you choose to hit and leave yourself a forty-yard shot? Why not a full wedge?  Did you miss the second short and leave yourself in this predicament, fortunate enough to be left with choices?  I can only assume you have a great short game of which I would be very envious.


Strategy is planning, strategy is routing and can be both linear (a series of distance plans) and /or directional, the successful completion of which is dependent on executing the shot(s) incorporated in your plan.  Maybe better said, Great Strategy is the development of a plan, which, when executed, gives the player the most viable options relative to method of attack and his skills.  Hitting your shot forty-yards short and leaving those options is an excellent strategy for a player skilled at forty-yard shots.  If we were talking about military campaigns, we would say MacArthur’s “Island Hopping”, Napoleon’s “Three pronged attack”, and Sherman’s “March to the sea” were all viable strategies.  The choice of which type of aircraft and ordinance used to soften the islands, whether to use 12 or 8 pound cannon or Grenadier’s to engage Wellington, or whether to use a torch or a match to burn crops are akin to your options at forty yards to an open green dependent upon elevation, windage, and skill.

Would you want an attorney to represent you from given argumentative positions –strategy - or use only the options as they are presented to him during the case - tactics?

Cheers!

JT

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
You wrote:

"Let's bifurcate the issue between existing courses and new courses."

Who was talking about old courses vs. new? You surely weren't when you said:

I think the GAP between the PGA Tour Pros, the best players in the world, and the rest of the golfing population is widening to the degree that the concept of having distinctly different golf courses may be valid. Since they make up such a narrow spectrum of the golfing world, I WOULD DESIGN THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE GOLF COURSES FOR US MORTALS, leaving special venues (a PGA concept) for the Touring Pros."

That response has nothing to do with old courses, only new.
You are changing the parameters of a discussion to make yourself look correct and quite frankly it doesn't wash.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

You're incorrect, it does wash.

What I'm saying is that you can't design for two radically different games, while presenting a complete challenge to the PGA Tour Pro, so you should forget about it, design for the rest of the mortals, and let them design special courses for the PGA Tour Pros.

With respect to old ones, I'm saying that you can't alter them to offer a complete challenge for the PGA Tour player without penalizing the rest of us mortals.

It all makes perfect sense and washes quite well.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim Thompson,

If you understood my meaning about the shots not being that much different than you would see that it was unnecessary for you to try and explain it to me. It had nothing to do with tee shots, doglegs or the length that individual players hit it and everything to do with the fact that once you get past the issue of length the shot is the same for everyone. Only the outcome will vary.

I am fairly confident that your reading and comprehension skills were unused before you posted your response.


Patrick,
I believe that it is possible to design for radically different levels and the proof already exists in the Tour level courses that the general golfing public plays every day.

[Jim Thompson]

Jim Kennedy,

My explanation was intended to answer your question to Pat:

"...I haven't heard any reasons from you that effectively dispute what I've asked- why must a course be one or the other? If you feel that there is such a need for a different "test" than please provide an explanation or some examples."

If I failed you, please accept my apology for wasting your time.  As for my inability to comprehend what you had previously posted you are absolutely correct!  I find the inference that a shot of any given distance is for you, as it is for me, as it is for a touring pro essentially equal incomprehensible.  Quite frankly, I just plain don't agree with your conclusion.  In one breath you say "There is little difference in the Pro knocking down a short iron to run one on than there is for the 10 or 20 trying that same shot with his mid iron..." yet you conclude the same line with "only the results in both these cases might be different."  That's like wearing a belt and suspenders.  Is the difference significant?  If the consequences are significantly different than strategy must be affected.  If it is the strategy was certainly impacted.  In the case of the 20 handicapper, I would be willing to bet survival was more important than strategy.  The twenty's goal was fairway, the ten's was right half, and the pro was mid-right half 95-100 out.  I can only assume you believe courses should be designed to create landing areas for all players in a common 10 yard radius.  Are you suggesting it is equitable for me to play a hole driver wedge from my tees while my father plays driver five iron from his?   After all, we’ve both got 155 to the pin after our tee shots.

So here's your challenge... convince me you right and I'm wrong.  That's what discussion groups are for, right?  To facilitate the exchange ideas?  I've been reading you guys for over a year now; at its best this group does an excellent job of trading positions while at its worst you revert to the “liar liar pants on fire defense”.  Please don't question a participant’s intelligence.  Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t make him or her of inherently inferior intelligence.  The “lazy and stupid” aren’t here.  If we weren't reading and seeking to understand other’s positions most members probably wouldn't be here.  If I failed to understand your position you might just possibly, and I'm sure this is a stretch and not at all the case, have fallen short of presenting a convincing argument.  If you had said you didn’t understand, I would have tried again.  If you had said you still didn’t get it, I might eventually just “agree to disagree.”  I hope you have spent as much time trying to understand what I have written as I have trying to understand your position(s).

I will stipulate that a course can be strategic for all players, just not that the level or impact of the strategic features is equally born by all players.  That’s why US Opens have become tests of skill and nerve rather than tests of strategy.

I await you wisdom in the hope of seeing your light.  I could be wrong.  You could be right.  If you are right, think of the pure joy you will feel after my conversion.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jim Thompson

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()