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.