[Jim_Kennedy]

Make Rich happy. From now on we should say "TOC is a stratagemical golf course".

[CHrisB]

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

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Just think of a golf course you know that offers a golfer a whole lot of interesting risk/reward choices to make (strategic) and then think of one that doesn't do that at all (not strategic). The way you've been carrying on recently it sounds like you're saying those two golf courses, one with multi options and available choices (strategies) and the other without are only in the golfer's mind--that they aren't really there! Do you think maybe we could agree they really are there?

[DMoriarty]

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.  

[ForkaB]

Dave

I'm firmly on what is probably your side re: the gun control issue, but I think the NRA is right on that catchphrase.  It's simplistic, but true, and very hard for opponents to refute in that people do kill people even when there are no guns available.  Remember the opening scene to "2001"?

To bring this back to our topic, if someone (e.g. Rees?) were to wave his magic wand and remove all of the "strategic" golf courses, holes and features from the world, what would be left:

a.  no golf courses
b.  Orange County
c.  .......

I can't think of another viable alternative.

[George Pazin]

I still don't understand your intransigence.

If someone were say instead, " if someone (e.g. Rees?) were to wave his magic wand and remove all of the golf courses where the architect chose to present the golfer with a multitude of options, all holes where the architect chose to present the golfer with a multitude of options and features which golf architects chose to leave in or out, in an effort to present the golfer with more choices, from the world, what would be left:

a.  no golf courses
b.  Orange County
c.  ......."

You honestly feel that is a better way of asking the same question?

[ForkaB]

Geroge

My point is that strategy is in the eye of the beholder.  To remove all "strategic" holes you would have to either remove all golf holes or none of them.  There is no middle ground.

Intransigently yours

Rich

[DMoriarty]

My point is that strategy is in the eye of the beholder.  

Interesting.  But I have always heard it as beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  So I guess the same thing applies to beautiful courses (or beautiful women, art, cars, or anything else for that matter.)

To remove all beautiful holes you would have to either remove all golf holes or none of them?  There is no middle ground?  

I dont buy this, Rich.  Do you?  

What about relatively beautiful holes, compared to others?  Couldnt they exist?  Or couldn't the almighty convention decide that certain holes are more beautiful than others?  If so, why cant the same thing apply to strategic holes and courses?  


  

[ForkaB]

Dave

I have a good friend from Ireland who plays the 14th at Dornoch (Foxy) as a bear of a par 5.  Because he can't carry his drives more than 170 or so, he has to aim far right off the tee, then tack back towards the center, then try to hit the green with his fairway wood, and then (most often) try to pitch up for a shot at "par.".  I try to bomb it down the narrow turbo-boost slot to the left.  If I succeed, I then face the conundrum of what club to hit and how to hit it, even--particularly--if I am only 130 yards or so from the green.  If I don't succeed with my drive I face the same problem, but with a significantly less lofted set of club options.  Then I have to think about about my 3rd and 4th shots.  It is a par 5 for me, too.

My friend and I would have similar alternative "strategies" in dealing with even "simple" holes such as the 1st at TOC, the 9th at CPC, the 17th at TPC-Sawgrass, etc.

If you do not believe that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" you are not being observant.  There are a lot of coyote ugly women and men out there who have children......

My point, Dave, is that all holes are "strategic" by the GCA conventional wisdom definition, just as all men and women are beautiful.  Of course, there are gradations and horses for courses.  I am arguing against the Manichean point of view that a course or a hole or a feature is either "strategic" or "beautiful" or "penal" or whatever, or not.  Life is not so simple, and golf is even less so.

I think we are in agreement.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
Earlier you asked who was the better strategist, player or architect. Are you saying that an architect isn't or cannot be a strategist?
Isn't an architect the defense planner while the player leads the offense? Both have formulated a plan, the task of a strategist. Both are using stratagem, each in their different ways.

[ForkaB]

Jim

Very good point.  Yes, the architect is a "strategist" (in two senses, in fact--firstly as a business person who devises a strategy to get the business, do it properly and within budget and get paid' secondly, as a craftsman who creates defenses and lines of opportunity within which golfers can devise and execute strategies).

My use of the word "better" was probably just a predilection.  I believe that "offensive" strategy (i.e. the golfer) is a richer, more dynamic and more interesting issue than "defensive" strategy (i.e the architect).  Should you study von Schliefen or Maginot?  Probably both, of course, but I'm sure that we on this site have very differing views as to which is the most interesting.

[TEPaul]

I believe Rich Goodale may have graduated to upper middle school existentialism--but perhaps not.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
I would agree that the offense is obviously more dynamic than the defense but richer and more interesting? I think not, especially considering the limitations they face.
They must create a "battlefield" that is known to the enemy and that can withstand the repeated onslaughts by these numerous generations of antagonists.  
They cannot deviate too much from normal stratagem or the enemy won't even show up and if they do they cry "foul".
They must create a static field that is perceived as having dynamic properties or they risk boring the enemy to death.  They have only one category of dynamic components to do this with, the elements.

The offense on the other hand can use their imaginations to tailor new battle plans for each and every confrontation.
They have the knowledge of preceding generations of attackers, have become stronger physically and enjoy the tipping of the technological scale in their favor.
They have the luxury of failure.
They have many generals.

Toss up?  

[ForkaB]

"Toss up?"  Not yet.......

I have a problem with the implied concept that the architect and the golfer are in mortal combat, and it is somehow the job of the architect to thwart or foozle the golfer.  I rather see the architect as someone who (ideally) forms a strategic alliance with the golfer--providing him (or her) with a venue within which their talents, creativity and aesthetic senses can be expressed.  Sure, the architect can throw in some camouflage or whatever to add variety to the golfer's experience, but these sorts of strategems should be designed to enhance the golfer's ability to express him or herself, rather than to try to fool or defeat them.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
The word strategy is largely defined in military terms, therefore I stayed within that context to illustrate my points.
We were discussing the question of who is the "better" strategist, architect or golfer, and it seemed perfectly natural to follow along that line, especially seeing as how you referenced von Schliefin/Maginot who weren't pop psychologists.

If you now wish to add symbiosis to the list of definers then the match is halved. I think it will only take you a few seconds to realize this.  

[ForkaB]

Jim

It takes me 5 seocnds just to get up out of the hell-hole I call a study to get to my dictionaries, plus additional time to walk there and then thumb through to the "S" (for "symbiosis") sections which, as you may know, are at the back of the books.  So, it has taken a bit longer than you estimated.

Let me try one more time.....

I think that a great golf strategist (e.g. Hogan, Nicklaus, Woods) could find all sorts of ways to play even the dullest of courses (no names, please...).  On the other hand, a great course designer would find it impossible to create a course that would inspire a dull golfer to play strategically.  Putting this another way, the "strategies" of any golf course are almost by definition infinite, due to the nature of the game and the fallibilities of the players (even Hogan didn't hit out of his divot marks on every hole).  Nevertheless, the Maginot's are always going to be outsmarted by the von Schliefen's

I think that Flynn had it right when he said that every course should be redesigned once you see how it actually plays.  It is not for nothing that a high proportion of the greatest of courses are those that have been given a lot of TLC, over a long period time, by talented players.

I'm not sure what I am saying, but I'm upset at hearing that Rodney Dangerfield is not well.  Take my argument, please!

[George Pazin]

I think that Flynn had it right when he said that every course should be redesigned once you see how it actually plays.  It is not for nothing that a high proportion of the greatest of courses are those that have been given a lot of TLC, over a long period time, by talented players.

Why bother redesigning if any golfer can find strategy on any shot/hole/course? Why bother even thinking about design at all?

18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon would even seem to be too much effort for a designer/architect to put forth, under your notion of strategy.

I'd like to know how you define TLC.

[ForkaB]

Great idea, George!

No architect = no fee = no cart paths = no Victoria's Secret bunkers = affordable golf for all!  Just get a good super who knows how to play golf and take care of the grass and we have a win-win situation if I ever heard of one!

[DMoriarty]

I think that a great golf strategist (e.g. Hogan, Nicklaus, Woods) could find all sorts of ways to play even the dullest of courses (no names, please...).  On the other hand, a great course designer would find it impossible to create a course that would inspire a dull golfer to play strategically.  Putting this another way, the "strategies" of any golf course are almost by definition infinite, due to the nature of the game and the fallibilities of the players (even Hogan didn't hit out of his divot marks on every hole).  

Rich, I find it incongruous that you are willing to distingish between degrees and qualities of strategy and strategists ("great strategists") yet you refuse to do the same for golf holes and courses.   Certain holes and courses present a larger number of well-trodden/commonplace/conventional options and avenues of play than others.  

Why are you so afraid to call these courses more "strategic" than others?

Golf strategies are potentially almost infinite, but this truism has much to do with the nature of subjectivity and little to do with the range of commonplace strategies presented with a particular golf hole--   One could try to play  a hole to the west by starting east, but it would take a lot longer, and probably be pretty inconsistent with the strategic norms presented by the golf hole.  

I am a little surprised that you are falling into such a simplistic anti-foundationalist trap.   Sure, choices are unique to the chooser, but that doesnt mean that we cannot judge-rate-compare-contemplate-criticize-order-distinguish-label avenues of choices that various choosers have made and may make in the future.  

[ForkaB]

Professor Moriarty!

I thought I had killed you at Reichenbach Falls (you know, that little Ted Robinson gem out in the Valley....).

The point you are missing is that in the present tense people are dynamic whilst golf courses are largely immobile.

Amuse me by trying to explain why Cypress Point, for example, is more strategic (or less so, if you want to be daring!) than, say Barona Creek (both of which we have each played).  I'll be interested in hearing your arguments, Counsel.

[DMoriarty]

The point you are missing is that in the present tense people are dynamic whilst golf courses are largely immobile.

I did miss this point and still do.

Take Cypress Point Number 16, and in order to make your pronouncement more correct, lets make constant the physical variables such as wind and weather which actually change the hole from moment to moment.  There are two distinct avenues of play off the tee, each with potential advantages and disadvantages.  To over-simplify, the left/safe lay-up route offers a much easier tee shot, a relatively easy bogey but a much more difficult par, and takes birdie out of play.  The direct/dangerous route is fraught with a potential disaster, but if pulled off also provides the potential for a birdie or easy par.  Now what does the supposed dynamism of people have to do with these straight forward strategic options?

Amuse me by trying to explain why Cypress Point, for example, is more strategic (or less so, if you want to be daring!) than, say Barona Creek (both of which we have each played).  I'll be interested in hearing your arguments, Counsel.

Not really the point Rich because these two courses both present the golfer with numerous options on most of the holes.   Hard to illustrate a continuum by examining relatively adjacent points within a wide range.  

A better comparison might be Cypress and Olympic Lake.  As described above, Cypress presents distinct avenues of play, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages.  While options exist at Olympic Lake, its tee shots generally test the golfer's ability to hit a particular shot, with a particular ball flight, on a particular line.  There is an distinct advantage to playing this particular shot, and a distinct disadvantage to doing anything else.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()