Is it possible for the hack to appreciate GCA without rankings?

[Adam_F_Collins]

I started playing golf in the spring of '99. Coming from an art and design background, I was immediately drawn to the design side of golf. However, I came to the realization was that I had no idea what made a golf course, "good" in terms of architecture.

I read articles in magazines and whatnot - but (as I explained in the Golf Tips thread) I could find little that explained the 'why' in useful ways such as the one on Riviera, presented by Mr. Fortson.

But I wonder, could a true hack - someone really new to the game - really appreciate the architecture anyway? I'm starting to think not. It seems to me that a person really needs to develop a game Not necessarily a great one, but I think you need to get to the point of using some sense of strategy before anything about architecture is going to mean much.

Let's go a level beyond that. What about people who can hit the ball, but really don't pay much attention to strategy? Let's say the many players who play a handful of times a year and shoot a career best, 89? Is it possible that they don't think deeply enough about the game to ever see much difference beyond the aesthetic qualities, services, conditions, price and amenities?

That's the one thing I can say which I believe was really helpful about golf course rankings - at least to me:

They told me that golf courses are not all created equal - and when I couldn't see the difference right away myself, they suggested to me that there was a language there that I couldn't understand - and that got me to searching. It was the rankings that led me to buying my first books about GCA (Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Doak) And they were hard to come by. It was the rankings and a desire to understand what separated number 1 from number 59, that led me to finding this website.

Still, so much of what many of you gurus here say is a mystery to me - Like a kid reading "grown up books", I'm reading "up" much of the time when I sit here.

You've taught me that all ranking are not created equal - that the rankings are worthy of debate, scrutiny and that they certainly don't represent any absolutes. But I must at least credit them for feeding my early sparks of interest.

Is this blasphemy? Should I feel dirty?

[Mike Hendren]

Adam,

Do you every aim away from trouble?  If so, you "get it."

Mike

[Adam_F_Collins]

Actually - there's a lot to "get" that can only be "got" from experience. Those who have played a lot of the 'great' courses have experiences which can lead them to understandings which I am forced to accept second-hand.

That is unavoidable. But I'm happy to have so many 'firsts' still ahead of me.

[A_Clay_Man]

Adam, My take is a bit different. It wasn't the rankings that got me to appreciate architecture, it was actually the disfigurement of a place, I had grown to know and love, that opened my eyes. That eye opening didn't materialize until later, and in retrospect, after reading this website and being exposed to differeing opinions. Other memories from long ago, of holes that constantly challenged my game, have done well to confirm the design principles, I now regard as neccessary elements to a quality golf hole/course. But as I have learned, there's no hard rules, and for the semi firm rules out there, they do need to be broken, every once in awhile.

[Tom_Doak]

My first exposure to golf architecture was at age ten when my family visited Harbour Town.  The fact that the course was two years old, and rated by GOLF DIGEST as one of the top ten courses in America, piqued my curiosity.  But the fact that they had a yardage book written by Charles Price taught me more about golf architecture than the ranking.

[Michael Dugger]

Alistair Mackenzie was a hack.  

[Jari Rasinkangas]

On my opinion it has nothing to do with your playing capability how you appreciate GCA.  A good player can go through a course by just avoiding all hazards but has no idea about the architectural finesse on the course.

Unfortunately for most of the players the course is good if it had good greens and you did not lose many balls on your round.  

Because good GCA is a great mix of engineering, strategy and art you have to have very broad approach to understand GCA.  You just have to have an open mind and start the path of constant learning.  How many players do want to learn about the engineering and maintenance side of architecture?

Jari