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.
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).
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.
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'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.
Wow.... that escalated quickly!
Just because they're not looking or don't know what they're looking at doesn't mean its not there.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.
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.
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.
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.
I’d love to hear Dickie’s input on this subject.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)