Does going low indicate failed architecture ?

[JESII]

Do low scores, repetitively low scores, like 7, 8, 9 and 10 under par per round indicate that the architecture has failed to perform one or more of its functions ?

Does it indicate that the golfer never properly interfaced with the architecture during the course of his round ?

YES

I say that only because I believe one of the functions of golf course architecture is to challenge all players. If a course does not stand the test of time, and is currently inadequate for challenging top players it is failing that function.

I certainly cannot see blaming an architect from the 1920's or '30's for a course losing its challenge, but one of the course's functions is certainly lacking if players are repetitively shooting 7-10 under par.


Does it make any sense to design, build, rate, judge or analyze golf courses with the very top players results as the criteria?

[Kirk Gill]

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the preoccupation with "scoring" on a golf course as a test of its validity is lame. Number one, not all golf courses are built to host tournament play. Personally, I'm saddened by the fact that no new courses seem to be built for those new to golf, or those who only have the opportunity to play an occasional round. Instead of playing on a course that would challenge their limited abilities, they have to clog up more difficult courses creating five-hour rounds for everyone. Secondly, medal play isn't the only way to have a round of golf. Lastly, there is no shortage of courses that are long, hard to play, hard to score on, and are also boring, limited, and lacking in the subtlety that makes you want to play the course again and again. In this case, the architecture has surely failed, even if the scores don't indicate it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shivas,

When - 6 is the cut, what high scores are you talking about ?

JeffWarne,

I think you understand the gist of the thread, that repetitively low scoring usually indicates that the golfer is failing to encounter or interface with the architecture, as intended.

And while it's easy to point to a group of fellows as a valid but extreme example, other hackers such as myself have been able to avoid the intended architecture vis a vis high tech equipment and greater distance off the tee and with irons.

Years ago, when I was younger, the centerline bunker complex at # 8 at NGLA presented a real challenge, strategically and from a playability point of view.

When I obtained my Biggest Big Bertha, that bunker complex was reduced to an attractive nuisance, in all but a good, or heavy head wind.

So, it's not just the elite who benefit.

And, don't Shivas and Matt Ward, mid to high handicaps claim to be Looonnnggg ball hitters.  Could they have carried that complex with a shallow faced Power Bilt or Wilson Strata Bloc  driver and an nice Titleist or Dunlop ball ?  

I'll almost guarantee that they couldn't, hence that bunker complex, an integral part of the holes architecture served its function, whereas today, it's more of an ornament.

When pros consistently shoot low numbers chances are that few if any of the architectural features are interfacing with their games.

When amateurs don't encounter architectural features meant to interface with their games, then one can only conclude that the architecture is no longer fully functional.

Kirk Gill,

Scoring low is a result of the golfer's ability to avoid the architectural features meant to interface with his game.
In the past, that was primarily done with precise execution, today, it's done by flying over the Maginot line, and being armed with three (3) wedges.

[tonyt]

Yes.
The only way someone goes 10 under consistently is if they somehow render the course defenseless. If the course is defenseless, the architecture has failed.

-Ted

A course where a player shoots 63 is no easier than a course where the same player shoots 68. The question is what did that player do to compile his 63 that made him stand out from the couple of guys behind him who shot 65. So there might be a few consecutive birdie chance holes. That means a top player has to take those chances. Whereas on a tougher course, a player might be able to make a bunch of pars and not lose ground to anyone.

If you played Augusta only using #2, #3, #7, #8, #13, #15 on a 6 hole rotation three times to make 18 holes, you'd get a very low winning score. But the difficulty for that winner in beating the rest of the field (as opposed to Old Man Par) would be no easy task. Same could be done at TOC or Royal Melbourne.

The score doesn't determine if the course is defenseless. What is required for a player to beat his opponent(s) does.

The original question didn't say a thing about "beating anyone". If 10 guys play and 9 shoot 63 and 1 shoots 62 does that mean that the course played tough because the guy who shot 62 only won by 1. . .I fail to see the logic in that arguement.

-Ted

Ted,

I am not prioritising if the course played tough. I am prioritising my view that a course is not "defenseless" nor has the architecture failed simply as a result of low scores, even multiple ones.

If a par 4 averages 3.4 or 4.4, at 3.4 it is not tough. But the difference between 3 and 4 is as significant for that hole as the difference between 4 and 5 is for the tougher one. Thus, it is quite possible for each of these holes to have similar values in so far as good architecture helping to determine the one shot difference.

I would take Royal Melbourne's architecture on a day when 15 players shoot 68 or better with the leader on 61-62, than the architecture on a poorly designed bland and unimaginitive course where two guys break 70. The supreme danger to us all is when intelligent men use scores to determine the quality of the architecture.

Patrick,

I don't believe that low scoring needs to automatically indicate that the golfer is failing to encounter or interface with the architecture as intended. In instances where the artchitecture is structured on a hole to defy the player an easy par without expert execution of shots, then a tonne of birdies does mean it isn't working. But if the architecture can equally differentiate between the top execution and not, and the success results in birdie with perhaps an eagle chance whilst the failure results in a tough birdie or easier par, then the architecture has achieved the same aims as a tough hole sets out to even though the end result is one shot less.

I look at the great threads on here around holes such as #10 Riviera and discussion around the two back nine par 5s at Augusta. These holes average under par in a way that if 10 holes did so, the scores would all be very low. But the architecture is clever, extremely relevant and brilliant.

My concession would be that if a 7400 yard tour course with only one sub 380 yard par 4 and one easily reachable par 5 yielded a 26 under par winner and a few other guys banked up closely behind, the architecture possibly sucks.

[Ted Kramer]

Yes.
The only way someone goes 10 under consistently is if they somehow render the course defenseless. If the course is defenseless, the architecture has failed.

-Ted

A course where a player shoots 63 is no easier than a course where the same player shoots 68. The question is what did that player do to compile his 63 that made him stand out from the couple of guys behind him who shot 65. So there might be a few consecutive birdie chance holes. That means a top player has to take those chances. Whereas on a tougher course, a player might be able to make a bunch of pars and not lose ground to anyone.

If you played Augusta only using #2, #3, #7, #8, #13, #15 on a 6 hole rotation three times to make 18 holes, you'd get a very low winning score. But the difficulty for that winner in beating the rest of the field (as opposed to Old Man Par) would be no easy task. Same could be done at TOC or Royal Melbourne.

The score doesn't determine if the course is defenseless. What is required for a player to beat his opponent(s) does.

The original question didn't say a thing about "beating anyone". If 10 guys play and 9 shoot 63 and 1 shoots 62 does that mean that the course played tough because the guy who shot 62 only won by 1. . .I fail to see the logic in that arguement.

-Ted

Ted,

I am not prioritising if the course played tough. I am prioritising my view that a course is not "defenseless" nor has the architecture failed simply as a result of low scores, even multiple ones.

If a par 4 averages 3.4 or 4.4, at 3.4 it is not tough. But the difference between 3 and 4 is as significant for that hole as the difference between 4 and 5 is for the tougher one. Thus, it is quite possible for each of these holes to have similar values in so far as good architecture helping to determine the one shot difference.

I would take Royal Melbourne's architecture on a day when 15 players shoot 68 or better with the leader on 61-62, than the architecture on a poorly designed bland and unimaginitive course where two guys break 70. The supreme danger to us all is when intelligent men use scores to determine the quality of the architecture.

Patrick,

I don't believe that low scoring needs to automatically indicate that the golfer is failing to encounter or interface with the architecture as intended. In instances where the artchitecture is structured on a hole to defy the player an easy par without expert execution of shots, then a tonne of birdies does mean it isn't working. But if the architecture can equally differentiate between the top execution and not, and the success results in birdie with perhaps an eagle chance whilst the failure results in a tough birdie or easier par, then the architecture has achieved the same aims as a tough hole sets out to even though the end result is one shot less.

I look at the great threads on here around holes such as #10 Riviera and discussion around the two back nine par 5s at Augusta. These holes average under par in a way that if 10 holes did so, the scores would all be very low. But the architecture is clever, extremely relevant and brilliant.

My concession would be that if a 7400 yard tour course with only one sub 380 yard par 4 and one easily reachable par 5 yielded a 26 under par winner and a few other guys banked up closely behind, the architecture possibly sucks.

Interesting points Tony.
I'm just not so sure that you can hang your hat on one's ability to  "interface with the GCA" as being the reason for a lot of easy birdies.

Sure, 3 is better than 4 on an easy par 4, but I'm not so sure that making that birdie has to have anything at all to do with "interfacing with the architecture".

Missing 6 foot putts for birdie doesn't exactly fit the bill of someone losing a stroke due to good GCA.

The question is about "interfacing with the architecture". I think that a great number of scores in the -7 to -10 range has a lot more to do with rendering the GCA meanigless, than it does "succesful interfacing" with said GCA.

-Ted

[Nate Mady]

No, but golfers consistently going HIGH just might!!

[Rick Shefchik]

...while it's easy to point to a group of fellows as a valid but extreme example, other hackers such as myself have been able to avoid the intended architecture vis a vis high tech equipment and greater distance off the tee and with irons.

Years ago, when I was younger, the centerline bunker complex at # 8 at NGLA presented a real challenge, strategically and from a playability point of view.

When I obtained my Biggest Big Bertha, that bunker complex was reduced to an attractive nuisance, in all but a good, or heavy head wind.

So, it's not just the elite who benefit.

Don't sell yourself short, Patrick. You're no hacker (or slouch, as far as I know).

I just don't see the problem here. If you're hitting it 30 yards farther than you used to, it might well be the modern equipment, but it's also your ability to use the modern equipment. I'm 52, using a 2-year-old Callaway driver, probably playing as well as I ever have (handicap continues to bounce around 5 and 6) and my best drives only go about 250, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Every element of the architecture that you're no longer interfacing with, I'm still interfacing with.

Dan Kelly and I played a strong Bobby Weed course this morning from the 7000-yard tips in a 25-30 mph wind, and I didn't break 90. (Hey, it's early here in Minnesota; by June, I'm sure I'd have been able to get it around in 82). We're both taking advantage of modern COR limits and ball technology, but a good, tough course remains a good, tough course for us and more than 90 percent of the other players on the planet.

Bobby Weed didn't fail this morning. I did.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony Titheridge,

You're forgetting that ANGC lengthened # 13 and # 15 because players were hitting 3-wood off the tee, over the trees on the left and hitting 8 irons into the green.

ANGC bought adjacent land and lengthened # 13.

# 15 was likewise altered because players were hitting 9-irons and wedges into the green.

Shivas,

25 years ago Nicklaus didn't carry it 245.
And, mis-hits with the shallow faced Power Bilt didn't fly straight, hence, golfers tended to swing more within themselves, whereas today, slashing as hard as you can doesn't result in the eratic shot pattern of yesteryear.

Rich Shefchik,

25-30 mph winds on a 7,000 yard golf course hardly qualifies as norman conditions.
Absent the wind I would imagine your score would have been much lower.   What is your handicap ?

The point you missed, is that in one day, through one single act, the purchasing of a Biggest Big Bertha, my driving game made a quantum leap that obsoleted the architecture.

And, I wasn't alone, the other two fellows in my foursome also went out and bought the same club with the same general results.  One was a 4 handicap, the other a 12.

When I see golfers swing as hard as they can, with little fear of missing the ball, or mis-hitting the shot, the skill of striking the ball properly has been compromised by the equipment.  And, even mis-hit shots fly almost as far and straight as well hit shots, minimizing skill.

An Orangutan can use the modern equipment, it takes less talent, not more.  Just look at TEPaul.