rollin
"Just playin golf pally"
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 12,640
- Reaction score
- 1,119
- Location
- planet earth, milky way galaxy
- Handicap
- 15.7
We often discuss risk/reward but its often on a larger scale than this. However as we play its also imo about the small and more subtle types of game managing decisions that we face. Things that don't seem like much of a big deal that we probably come across more often than we think in our every day play that makes a difference in our final scores.
Here is a shorter or medium length par 4 with a hard dogleg. The yellow shot is 220 with 90 left for an approach while the red shot is 240 with 55 left for the approach. Most people (probably 90%) will try to play over the bunker or a heavy fade/slice just to get about 30 yrds closer vs what imo is already a pretty short approach anyway. And honestly, more often then not it fails for them. They hit the bunker or the trees. fwiw under those trees is a stream and weeds where a ball has about 40% chance of being unplayable or even lost not to mention the trees themselves often in the way of a would be approach.
Imo this is not a giant "risk/reward" shot. The reward imo is very minimal vs whats being gained. Is the red shot worth it for you here just to have about a55 yrd approach vs a 90 yrd approach? I can hit over that trap but for me and my logic its play to the 220 at the turn and even if am less than good I still have a very makeable approach. I just see too many people fail at trying to gain the extra 35 yrds and I always question in my mind - But why and for what? what was the big gain?
So what do you think about this smaller risk for not so big reward shot? Imo its interesting how (even on a shorter hole) people still tend to lose strokes for what imo is not that big a deal to just play what the hole is giving us. Its a easy par with a possible birdie look often enough anyway. Or at least when ones shots are executed within reason. But perhaps (as many seem to do on this hole) you don't agree with my logic.
Here is a shorter or medium length par 4 with a hard dogleg. The yellow shot is 220 with 90 left for an approach while the red shot is 240 with 55 left for the approach. Most people (probably 90%) will try to play over the bunker or a heavy fade/slice just to get about 30 yrds closer vs what imo is already a pretty short approach anyway. And honestly, more often then not it fails for them. They hit the bunker or the trees. fwiw under those trees is a stream and weeds where a ball has about 40% chance of being unplayable or even lost not to mention the trees themselves often in the way of a would be approach.
Imo this is not a giant "risk/reward" shot. The reward imo is very minimal vs whats being gained. Is the red shot worth it for you here just to have about a55 yrd approach vs a 90 yrd approach? I can hit over that trap but for me and my logic its play to the 220 at the turn and even if am less than good I still have a very makeable approach. I just see too many people fail at trying to gain the extra 35 yrds and I always question in my mind - But why and for what? what was the big gain?
So what do you think about this smaller risk for not so big reward shot? Imo its interesting how (even on a shorter hole) people still tend to lose strokes for what imo is not that big a deal to just play what the hole is giving us. Its a easy par with a possible birdie look often enough anyway. Or at least when ones shots are executed within reason. But perhaps (as many seem to do on this hole) you don't agree with my logic.
