[John_Sheehan]

Mike O'Neil-
To my knowledge, the "Card and Pencil" mentality was first mentioned by Alister MacKenzie. Here is a quote of his regarding general principles of GCA and giving the player thrills:

"One of the objects in placing hazards is to give the players as much pleasurable excitement as possible. On many inland courses there is not a thrill on the whole round, and yet on some of the British Championship courses one rarely takes a club out of the bag without having an interesting shot to play..."

"There are some leading players who honestly dislike the dramatic element in golf. They hate anything which is likely to interfere with a constant succession of threes and fours. They look upon everything in the 'card and pencil spirit.' The average club member on the other hand is a keen sportsman who looks upon golf the 'spirit of adventure,' and that is why St. Andrews and courses modeled on similar ideals appeal to him."  ----Alister MacKenzie, "The Spirit of St. Andrews

This is only one reference to the "card and pencil" mentality. MacKezie refers to this many times in his writings. Here is another, regarding ideal holes and ideal courses:

"The real practical test is its popularity, but his brings us up against another difficulty.  Does the average player really know what he likes?  One often hears the same player expressing totally divergent opinions about the same hole.  When he plays it successfully, it is everything that is good, and when he is unsuccessful it is everything that is bad.  It frequently happens that the best holes give rise to the most bitter controversy.  It is largely a question of the spirit in which the problem is approached, depending upon the player.  Whether he looks upon it from the 'card and pencil' point of view and condems anything that disturbs his steady series of threes and fours, or whether he approaches it in the 'spirit of adventure' of the true sportsman.  There are well-known players who invariably condemn any hole for which they have taken over six, and if by chance they ever reach double figures, words fail them to describe in adequate language what they think of that particular hole." ---A.M.

[Mike O'Neill]

John,

Thanks for the great quotations. That's just what I was looking for and basically what I figured. The card and pencil golfer is that golfer who at a given moment forgets the spirit of adventure entailed in golf and focuses only on his/her score.

I doubt that for such a type of player (who among us hasn't been that type of player at some moment in time?) it matters whether he/she is involved in match play or medal play. It's just that in match play one can kid himself/herself into believing that lousy shotmaking on a given hole doesn't matter because your 7 beat the other player's 8. That's delusional because on the next hole the other player's 8 beats your 9 (you hit one out of bounds because the hole's not wide enough and find the only bunker on the hole, the one that lies in direct line to the cup leaving you "no choice") and you decide the course stinks.

The spirit of adventure can be found or found lacking in either medal or match play. IMHO

[John_Sheehan]

Mike-
I am probably not saying anything you don't already know; but here are some of my observations on this subject. One can see an inherent difference in the way a golfer approaches match vs. medal play in the games of golfers at all levels. I believe that the main difference is the way the player approaches true risk-reward strategic holes. Even at the professional level, this difference is clearly apparent, and is probably one of the many reasons why such formats as the Ryder, Presidents and Solheim Cups are all so popular.

In match play, one is much more likely to attempt the risk-laden shot because the score on that hole is only relevant on that hole. In medal play, at any level, one double, triple bogey or worse can spell the end of the golfer's real chance at winning. Consequently, in medal play, except when the tourament is on the line for a trailing golfer, the prudent play is almost always to play away from, or avoid the risk. Smart play, but not exactly thrilling. Other than recovery shots, which also provide thrills ,the most thrilling shots in most professional medal tournaments are those right before the cut on Friday, or in the final round. It is at this point that the reward justifies the risk.

In match play, the play of an opponent more often influences the shot selection. If an opponent cuts the corner on a risk-reward dog leg, the player is more likely to attempt to cut the corner also. Last year's President's cup was a good example. Very few players did NOT try to shorten the dog leg on the first hole. I can only guess, but I would bet that in medal play, the majority of players would have made the "sensible" decision and layed up.

From this perspective, those whose competition of choice is match play, are probably more likely to enjoy, appreciate, and take advantage of the risk-reward opportunities presented to them by the architect. I think this is why so many golfers prefer match play, both as participants, and as viewers. It does encourage the player to approach the risk-reward holes from the "spirt of adventure" more often than medal play does.

[Mike O'Neill]

John,

I suspect that you're correct to a degree. But then I think of how the pros play Augusta, a medal tournament, as an example. They all seem to go for the greens in two on 13 and 15. If one of them doesn't, he is losing a shot to the field, or so it goes.

Outside of tournaments, when golfers are just competing against themselves, their worst tendencies to slice or three-putt for example, they still attempt shots that will bring them rewards do they not? I played a really short, tree-lined course this weekend and hit my three-iron off the tee on hole after hole. Everyone else hit driver as far as I could see. Driver was unnecessary much of the time and yet the thrill of hitting that club and coming up with a half wedge to the green must have been too much to ignore. I suspect those golfers were pretty much playing medal play. Either way, I also suspect the golfers were having a good time. It was a beautiful day on the course!

[John_Sheehan]

Mike-
(My apologies for the rambling nature of this post. I have been interrupted exactly three thousand times while trying to finish this.)  
I think it is perfect that you have selected in your example two holes on a course that the good doctor designed. IMO, he was a master of enticing the golfer to gamble on a true risk/reward hole. The lure of attempting to reach those two holes in less than regulation is almost unbearable. People talk of how good Pete Dye is at getting inside the heads of good golfers - and he is - but MacKenzie was terrific at it too.

The temptation is impossible to ignore. As you point out, on those two holes the peer pressure is enourmous. Standing on the tee, the player knows he must perform on the first shot, to have the opportunity of an eagle or birdie. (As an aside, this is where the abominable addition of rough to ANGC has had what I consider a terribly negative influence on shot selection. If you notice, with the addition of rough, players who mis-hit their first shot on these holes are no longer even TEMPTED to take the risk. Like any good little disciplinarian master, the course set up makes the decision a non-decision. Before the rough was grown, the peer pressure was so enormous, the enticement so great, many players would still make the decision to go-for-the-green. This made for thrilling golf that has been lacking IMO since the changes.)

Those two you cited are excellent examples of good design that helps blur the line between the approach of match play versus medal. By making the reward attainable by so many, the high risk is hard to avoid. My guess is even those who don't know GCA,  could explain some of the less obvious design characteristics of those two holes: shaping the shots, why a layup is still no bargain, how the contours influence the movement of the ball, etc. In fact, one of the other reasons why those holes are so enticing is the relative danger still present in the layups and subsequent approach shots.

Regarding your observations about golfers outside of tournaments and the decisions they make, I often notice golfers confusing the distinction between strategic design and strategic course management. Whereas the observant golfer will make course management decisions based upon the option presented by, and the risk/reward offered by strategic design features of the course, by its nature strategic design welcomes poor decision making (course management). Free will reigns.

I have heard some of my playing partners refer to certain holes as "strategic designs" when in fact the playing of the hole is not really strategic at all. One hole in particular is a par 4, forced layup, approach shot across a small pond. I think in their minds strategic design is any par 4 or 5 hole that forces them to play their tee shot with any club other than the driver.

On the recent telecast, Curtis Strange made some comment about a new bunker at Westchester being more of a directional bunker "telling the golfer where NOT to go." I found that line confusing at best. Is this the role of bunkers in strategic design? This bunker sounds like it would fit more easily into Penal Architecture from a philosophical perspective.  In strategic design the hazard should play the role of Siren, hynotically tempting the player, not dictating a course of action that must be obeyed.

I guess this is a rather lengthy way of saying that the golfers you observed were making decisions (course management), that were risky, because they were seeking the thrill, and approaching the holes from the "spirit of adventure" without regard to the consequences.  Since I don't know this course, I can only make a guess. From your description, it sounds like it was lacking in the srategic design features that provide a thrill. I guess my question would be, having taken the smart approach the course dictated, was it a thrilling round for you? I think the need for excitement, and sporting adventure is deeply rooted part of most golfer's nature.  If we can't find it, we'll manufacture it. And this probably applies equally, whether the round is one of match play or medal.

[Mike O'Neill]

John,

It was a thrill in fact. I hadn't played golf yet this year so I was having a great time. I hit my three iron fairly straight and that's always a thrill for me!

[THuckaby2]

Just wanted to chime in here and say thanks one and all for the wisdom re PD and BD.  It will be put to use most definitely in my August trip.

And George Pazin, you sure hit the nail on the head - I do need to stop worrying!

I can't see how my friends could come away disappointed from PD or BD.  They may like each for different reasons than I do, but that's fair enough.

One thing's for damn sure, we're gonna do some match play, foursome, two-man scramble, other formats!

TH

[Mike Erdmann]

Opening day at Pacific Dunes is Sunday, and I've got mid-morning opening day tee times for myself and 7 friends.  Besides the anticipation of playing the whole course (have only played 11 holes so far), I look forward to seeing the reaction of the group.  Of the 8 going down, one is a pro, 4 are sub-5 handicaps and three are between 10 and 20.  Only one of the others has a real appreciation for course architecture.  Will report back on Monday.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()