1 The basic philosophy of strategic golf design – challenge a hazard to get an easier next shot – has existed as long as the profession of golf course architecture. For sure, architects have not always adhered to it: though a lot of their work is rigorously strategic, it’s hard to think of Pete Dye without thinking of island greens, which are pretty much the definition of penal design. And Robert Trent Jones referenced another school of design, the heroic, defined by its carries (which may be considered penal by the likes of John Low). But strategic design has remained, at least in principle, the guiding light of golf architecture. Now, it is under pressure in a way it has never been before. The availability of detailed statistics on how people choose to play holes, and how they score as a result, has led thinkers like Mark Broadie and Scott Fawcett to conclude that challenging hazards is in fact not the way to achieve the best score. Instead, players should be aware of the scale of their likely misses and aim far enough away from challenging hazards to ensure they stay clear. On the face of it, this seems the death knell of strategic design. If playing close to, but not in, a hazard is not the best way to tackle a hole, where is the strategy? But, as our lead feature in this issue discusses, architects can place hazards and lay out their holes in such a way as to guide players to think their way round the course to best effect. It might not be strategy in its classical form, but it is still there. The new orthodoxy WELCOME ADAM LAWRENCE
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NzQ1NTk=