Welcome to the ozgolf.net forums.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 315
  1. #101
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 19, 2015
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    5,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benno_r View Post
    But the option to take the hole on is still there. And if they can't see all the options, it's more a reflection of them not understanding strategic golf design, then a failure of strategic golf design.



    That's not the definition of strategic golf design - it has to be playable for all lengths of hitters. By definition a longer hitter will have more options, but the shorter hitter still has a fair chance to make par. Even by your reasoning, there are 3 viable options left.

    Using basic reasoning and understanding of strategic golf we can objectively say it's a strategic hole.
    So how many options does a hole have to have as a minimum to he strategic? 2, 3? 5? 10? What if options increase as you play a more forward tee or decrease as you go to a back tee?

  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 19, 2015
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    5,253

    Default

    BTW, I understand what you guys are saying about strategic design/strategy etc, I just don't agree with you. If a hole is wide it doesn't create options. It creates room to bomb and gouge.

  3. #103
    Member Trainee Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 26, 2013
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3puttpete View Post
    Is that not a forced carry on 12?
    Not unless you regard the rough in front of most tees as a forced carry.

  4. #104
    Senior Member Major Winner
    Join Date
    Mar 04, 2013
    Location
    Maryborough QLD
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz18 View Post
    So how many options does a hole have to have as a minimum to he strategic? 2, 3? 5? 10? What if options increase as you play a more forward tee or decrease as you go to a back tee?
    Minimum is 2. And it doesn't have to be 2 for everybody. It has to be 2 for the majority of golfers. Take Dotty for example - he probably just hit driver everywhere, so the strategic intent is lost on him. But as long as the hole is safely playable for a par for him, it can still remain strategic. Same for the long hitter - very few holes in golf will be truly strategic for Cameron Champ. Doesn't mean no hole is strategic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz18 View Post
    BTW, I understand what you guys are saying about strategic design/strategy etc, I just don't agree with you. If a hole is wide it doesn't create options. It creates room to bomb and gouge.
    Again, you focus on one small percentage and say "see, not strategic". Even using the term bomb and gouge - it doesnt make the course that much easier. One of the most strategic courses played on tour last year (Trinity Forest: -9.27) ended up with a scoring average similar only 3 shots easier over the entire event than one of most penal courses (TPC Sawgrass: -6.35).

  5. #105
    Member Trainee Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 26, 2013
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz18 View Post
    BTW, I understand what you guys are saying about strategic design/strategy etc, I just don't agree with you. If a hole is wide it doesn't create options. It creates room to bomb and gouge.
    I agree with you in as much as, width alone doesn't create options. However, increasing/varying the amount of trouble the longer and closer you are to the best playing line, in conjunction with some width, does create options, and give the course some variation (large multi tiered greens, with clever bunkering also help in this regard).

    The example of 12 at Houston, shows how different pin locations can alter the best line of attack. Something that becomes apparent when playing courses such as RM, St Andrews Beach, National Old or Moonah.

    Long, narrow and difficult is just boring and actually favours the bomber more than a wider course with increased variation would.

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 19, 2015
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    5,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benno_r View Post
    Minimum is 2. And it doesn't have to be 2 for everybody. It has to be 2 for the majority of golfers. Take Dotty for example - he probably just hit driver everywhere, so the strategic intent is lost on him. But as long as the hole is safely playable for a par for him, it can still remain strategic. Same for the long hitter - very few holes in golf will be truly strategic for Cameron Champ. Doesn't mean no hole is strategic.



    Again, you focus on one small percentage and say "see, not strategic". Even using the term bomb and gouge - it doesnt make the course that much easier. One of the most strategic courses played on tour last year (Trinity Forest: -9.27) ended up with a scoring average similar only 3 shots easier over the entire event than one of most penal courses (TPC Sawgrass: -6.35).
    No, I'm not saying designs can't be strategic or I don't understand what it means and I'm not trying to apply minority conditions to the discussion. You're original comments around strategic course design were based on LGN. You said strategic design was better and that LGN was penal. That's what I disagree with. If ur saying you only need 2 options for most to be strategic, then LGN would have those elements and I don't agree that strategic means better anyway. I'm not arguing the definition so much as the opinion.

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 19, 2015
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    5,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Springer View Post
    Long, narrow and difficult is just boring and actually favours the bomber more than a wider course with increased variation would.
    That wasn't the case at LGN for the Ryder Cup and that's how this discussion started in the first place.

  8. #108
    Senior Member Touring Pro (PGA)
    Join Date
    May 27, 2013
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    5,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz18 View Post
    I still reckon it's all subjective. There's no way a recreational or resort golf player for instance is looking at that Sweetens Cove hole and coming up with 5 options off the tee. They just don't want to hit it in the shit. For most players, 2 of the options aren't even there. Does that make it more or less strategic for long or short hitters? It's all subjective.
    I'll put it in another context...

    Just because I don't understand how to speak another language such as French does that mean that the French language is subjective? I can manipulate the words to fit what I want?

    NO.

    I can still go to France and have a good time i just wont understand a damn thing.

  9. #109
    Senior Member Touring Pro (PGA)
    Join Date
    May 27, 2013
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    5,898

    Default

    So tiresome.



  10. #110
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 19, 2015
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    5,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BUSHY View Post
    So tiresome.


    Don't condescend to me. Just because I don't agree with what you guys are saying about strategic design, doesn't give you the right to be a prick about it.

  11. #111
    Senior Member Touring Pro (PGA)
    Join Date
    May 27, 2013
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    5,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz18 View Post
    Don't condescend to me. Just because I don't agree with what you guys are saying about strategic design, doesn't give you the right to be a prick about it.
    Wow.... that escalated quickly!


    There's no way a recreational or resort golf player for instance is looking at that Sweetens Cove hole and coming up with 5 options off the tee.
    Just because they're not looking or don't know what they're looking at doesn't mean its not there.

  12. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 19, 2015
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    5,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BUSHY View Post
    Wow.... that escalated quickly!
    You wouldn't say something like that to someone's face would you? Perhaps you would. Did you expect me to ignore it?

    It was a civil, normal, interesting discussion till you posted that.

  13. #113
    Member Trainee Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 26, 2013
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz18 View Post
    That wasn't the case at LGN for the Ryder Cup and that's how this discussion started in the first place.
    These guys are the ultra elite of golf, so i'm not sure that they make for a useful example compared to 99% of the world.

    Personally, I'm a fan of courses that provide an interesting challenge, and long and narrow is hardly interesting but i suppose it is a challenge.

  14. #114
    Senior Member Major Winner
    Join Date
    Mar 04, 2013
    Location
    Maryborough QLD
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz18 View Post
    No, I'm not saying designs can't be strategic or I don't understand what it means and I'm not trying to apply minority conditions to the discussion. You're original comments around strategic course design were based on LGN. You said strategic design was better and that LGN was penal. That's what I disagree with. If ur saying you only need 2 options for most to be strategic, then LGN would have those elements and I don't agree that strategic means better anyway. I'm not arguing the definition so much as the opinion.
    I am not saying you only need 2 options to be strategic. I am saying you need:
    1. 2 or more options for the majority of players
    2. a moderately bad shot doesn't result in a lost ball, or your only option being a hack out with a wedge.
    3. all players can play it for a fair chance at par.

    LGN might have a handful for holes that meet this requirement. (Ignoring par 3's)
    #1 does not - it fails on point 1 (all players laid up to same area), and #3 - Dotty would struggle to get the green in 2
    #3 does not - it fails on point 1 - if you choose not to hit driver off the tee, it's because you are a poor driver, not because it's a sensible strategic option
    #4 does not - as above
    #5/6/7/9. I didnt see these, but the holes appear to be basically the same as #3 and #4 (but that is only assumption until I watch more footage)

    #15 you could argue is strategic, though taking on the water doesn't really offer any benefit when you can smash it long left.
    #17 - does not - as per hole 3
    #18 - does not - it is purely heroic design. Would Dotty get there in 2?

    So that's my reasoning why it's fundamentally a penal course. I never said it was bad, I said I wouldn't play it because in generally I don't enjoy that style of course. I also never said strategic was better for everyone, I said it was better for me. I am arguing purely on whether a course falls under the categories or strategic or penal.

    Is a course strategic or penal - hardly subjective.
    Is strategic or penal better - very subjective.

    I'd argue for professional tours that penal is better as it rewards better ball striking, but it doesn't always make for exciting golf watching everyone do the same thing. IMO of course.

  15. #115
    Senior Member Touring Pro (PGA)
    Join Date
    May 27, 2013
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    5,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz18 View Post
    You wouldn't say something like that to someone's face would you? Perhaps you would. Did you expect me to ignore it?

    It was a civil, normal, interesting discussion till you posted that.
    Fair enough.

    “Flogging a dead horse” is a common phrase used to describe wasting effort on something that has no chance of success.

    I would think the amount of explanation and attempted education and discussion in this thread would make a perfect example of that.

    It’s fine that you think it’s subjective but so are old English sayings.

  16. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 19, 2015
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    5,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benno_r View Post
    I am not saying you only need 2 options to be strategic. I am saying you need:
    1. 2 or more options for the majority of players
    2. a moderately bad shot doesn't result in a lost ball, or your only option being a hack out with a wedge.
    3. all players can play it for a fair chance at par.

    LGN might have a handful for holes that meet this requirement. (Ignoring par 3's)
    #1 does not - it fails on point 1 (all players laid up to same area), and #3 - Dotty would struggle to get the green in 2
    #3 does not - it fails on point 1 - if you choose not to hit driver off the tee, it's because you are a poor driver, not because it's a sensible strategic option
    #4 does not - as above
    #5/6/7/9. I didnt see these, but the holes appear to be basically the same as #3 and #4 (but that is only assumption until I watch more footage)

    #15 you could argue is strategic, though taking on the water doesn't really offer any benefit when you can smash it long left.
    #17 - does not - as per hole 3
    #18 - does not - it is purely heroic design. Would Dotty get there in 2?

    So that's my reasoning why it's fundamentally a penal course. I never said it was bad, I said I wouldn't play it because in generally I don't enjoy that style of course. I also never said strategic was better for everyone, I said it was better for me. I am arguing purely on whether a course falls under the categories or strategic or penal.

    Is a course strategic or penal - hardly subjective.
    Is strategic or penal better - very subjective.

    I'd argue for professional tours that penal is better as it rewards better ball striking, but it doesn't always make for exciting golf watching everyone do the same thing. IMO of course.
    I hear what your saying Benno but I don't agree that it's as black and white as ur saying. The definitions of golf design as you've described them are not what I would define as "fact" so they are open to interpretation.

    BTW, are you paying Dotty a retainer?

  17. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 19, 2015
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    5,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BUSHY View Post
    Fair enough.

    “Flogging a dead horse” is a common phrase used to describe wasting effort on something that has no chance of success.

    I would think the amount of explanation and attempted education and discussion in this thread would make a perfect example of that.

    It’s fine that you think it’s subjective but so are old English sayings.
    Haha! Attempted education? I guess we're back to condescension.

  18. #118
    Senior Member Multiple Major Winner
    Join Date
    Dec 08, 2011
    Location
    Reaching for my Laser cos I'm a few paces off the green... :)
    Posts
    19,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz18 View Post
    Haha! Attempted education? I guess we're back to condescension.
    I think this is factual and not condescending....

  19. #119
    Senior Member Major Winner
    Join Date
    Mar 04, 2013
    Location
    Maryborough QLD
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz18 View Post
    I hear what your saying Benno but I don't agree that it's as black and white as ur saying. The definitions of golf design as you've described them are not what I would define as "fact" so they are open to interpretation.

    BTW, are you paying Dotty a retainer?
    That's why I am not trying to argue the definitions of what each design is. This has been set up by people with 1000's of collective years architecture experience - I am simply trying to apply their concepts to what I see in front of me.

    If you can show me how LGN is strategic, and the terms of what you define strategic as, I am all ears.

  20. #120
    Senior Member Touring Pro (European Tour)
    Join Date
    Nov 29, 2007
    Posts
    4,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benno_r View Post
    That's why I am not trying to argue the definitions of what each design is. This has been set up by people with 1000's of collective years architecture experience - I am simply trying to apply their concepts to what I see in front of me.If you can show me how LGN is strategic, and the terms of what you define strategic as, I am all ears.
    But you need a strategy to play a non-strategic golf course... 😏

  21. #121
    Senior Member Major Winner
    Join Date
    Mar 04, 2013
    Location
    Maryborough QLD
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sydney Hacker View Post
    But you need a strategy to play a non-strategic golf course... 
    oohhhhh, I see what you did there.

    So you shouldn't receive penalties on a non-penal golf course?

  22. #122
    Senior Member Touring Pro (European Tour)
    Join Date
    Nov 29, 2007
    Posts
    4,482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benno_r View Post
    oohhhhh, I see what you did there.So you shouldn't receive penalties on a non-penal golf course?
    Agreed! Now if we could only settle on a definition of what is a penal course or not I could tear out half the pages of my rule book...

  23. #123
    Senior Member Order of Merit winner
    Join Date
    Sep 04, 2004
    Posts
    9,979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazz18 View Post
    I still reckon it's all subjective. There's no way a recreational or resort golf player for instance is looking at that Sweetens Cove hole and coming up with 5 options off the tee. They just don't want to hit it in the shit. For most players, 2 of the options aren't even there. Does that make it more or less strategic for long or short hitters? It's all subjective.
    Well argued Jazz18. What handicap do you play off?

  24. #124
    Senior Member Golf Hall of Fame Inductee
    Join Date
    May 03, 2004
    Location
    Pin high, in the lake
    Posts
    25,285

    Default

    I’d love to hear Dickie’s input on this subject.
    Handic(r)ap | 2024 Eclectic | WITB | GolfMap

    10 glorious tours of the Uncivil War

  25. #125
    Senior Member Major Winner
    Join Date
    Mar 04, 2013
    Location
    Maryborough QLD
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Courty View Post
    I’d love to hear Dickie’s input on this subject.
    Agreed. I am certainly open to him cleaning up my position.


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Breaking Par Strategy.
    By Richo1 in forum Golf Matters
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 28th December 2015, 09:13 AM
  2. 4 man ambrose strategy
    By WBennett in forum Golf Matters
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 19th February 2012, 06:16 PM
  3. Understanding shafts
    By jbhayman in forum Equip Me
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 17th April 2009, 09:07 AM
  4. Par 5 strategy
    By Scottt in forum Golf Matters
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 20th August 2008, 10:37 PM
  5. Ambrose strategy?
    By goughy in forum Golf Matters
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 29th October 2007, 01:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Back to top