GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
The Time Between Shot And Result Is The Key
James Bennett:
Ted
I think you have just merged John's time issue with that of the heroic carry. We can all hit a great shot down the middle, and bend over to pick up the tee. But who remembers that? Whereas the full shot, taking on a hazard at the edge of our capability (accuracy or length) engages us for some time - much more memorable, even when we fail.
Ditto for the firm and fast, and undulating greens. Our greens get very fast (up to 13 feet, but not through choice) in August (our winter) through minimal growth, but somehow run true. I still recall the downhill 30 foot putt last year that took forever to get to the hole, but I thought was in with 20 feet to go. Oh, the delirious joy from watching the oppositions' pain for such an extended period. :) Makes me look forward to the middle of winter coming soon.
Doug Siebert:
Nice find, Sean! I was the one who brought this up recently, because I've been thinking about it ever since and I become ever more convinced of its infallibility.
I'd have to say this thread of John's was the most thought provoking thing I've ever read on RSG, so right now I'd nominate it for "post of the millenium" on RSG. Even though I only joined in fall 2002, so if something more insightful was written before that, please point me at it :)
Scott Witter:
John & Doug:
I don't remember ever seeing this post, though I am now fortunate to have stumbled across it, but without question, John's original post is certainly an engaging statement and one of the more thought provoking written here. Hopefully, all those lurking and interested in architecture will gain from this. It truly says a lot for the experience, the game and the subtle, but very satisfying enjoyment we can all extract from watching this little white ball roll across the landscape.
Thanks for this profound thought John K.
Bill_Yates:
This post is brilliant! It brings all of us to the heart of the game - when we play, we want our emotions to be engaged. We are discovering that it is the course and its design, and the way that design engages our emotions, that we love.
When a ball is in the air, lands and sticks like a dart in a dartboard, we don't have the same attachment to the course (either physical or psychological) that we do when the ball is running along the ground. When conditions are firm and fast and we can play shots on the ground, the very course itself (credit the architect) literally becomes an ingredient of our game, our success and our emotions. In trying to find the slopes and angles that will help us to get the ball close to the hole, we also discover that we are either as clever as the architect or not. And watching the ball follow the course we set it on, keeps us participating intellectually and emotionally even after the stroke has been made.
I believe like many of you that it is the creativitiy that is required and the serendipity that results from playing courses that have fairways and greens with what we call "character", that makes some courses great and truly "fun" to play.
Tom_Doak:
I don't know if I can find an exception for Cypress Point within this theory, but I believe Pine Valley fits it well.
The truth about Pine Valley is that you don't REALLY know the result of your last shot until you get up to your ball and see what the lie is. You can slice into a bunker and be okay, or you can miss a green by two feet and have absolutely no play.
This is also true of St. Andrews ... often you can't see exactly where your drive has gone and even then you may have to be standing over it before you understand how your last shot has really affected your next one.
I know that's not what John was talking about with his original statement but I think he will find it's true of other courses he enjoys, too.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version