Architect versus (?) Golfer

[Dan Kelly]

In a recent thread, Tom Doak wrote:

"In tennis, your opponent won't let you play around your backhand ... in golf, it's up to the architect to make you work a little bit."

Of the architects who post here, I'm wondering:

How often do you think of the player as your opponent -- habitually, regularly, occasionally, rarely, never?

Do you ever think of the player as your ... friend? Or your partner? Or, perhaps, as your disciple -- following your lead?

Of the architects who post here, and of everyone else, I'm wondering:

Do you think modern architects, as a rule, tend to think of players as their opponents too much of the time?

Do you think modern architects, as a rule, tend to make players work a little bit too hard too much of the time?

How do the attitudes of modern architects vis a vis the players for whom they are designing compare with the attitudes of past generations of architects?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly,

Doesn't the architect have to forge a disinterested challenge for every level of golfer ?

[RJ_Daley]

Dan, these are good questions and I hope the archies all chime in.  Your questions to we mere mortals about how we think architects view players and if they are our task masters ought to be fun to find out what we all perceive.

I think that historically, in general, the penal school tends to view players as opponents to be beaten into submission.  Probably, you can put Pete Dye in that school as well.  The Fownes family, were not architects, but their competitive business background probably gave them the mentality that anyone who played their course was their opponent.  

I think of MacKenzie or Ross as assuming the role of mentors to those who would play their courses rather than think of the players as opponents.  I think their desire was to provide mental stimulation to make them a better golfer and have a period of "pleasurable excitement" with healthful rewards.  They wanted to prop their player up and give them something to think about and a chance to be a hero.

Perhaps the CB-SR-Banks model was that of mentors-task masters based on teaching from a familiar field of repeated traditional shots and playing principles.

I think that the best designers today do not look at players as opponents or the enemy.  They generally want to provide tests of golf and stimulation and have the player want to embrace their work rather than think of them as someone whose work they don't want to endure again.  But, that does vary in some cases and when the client wants another Oakmont...

[david h. carroll]

I thought that a common theme among some designers was that they designed according to the way they played....ie Tille was a poor driver of the ball, hence the predominance of huge fairways and Fownes was a great amatuer who just liked it tough....their playing abilities and desires, much as our own, would lead to the eccentricities and common traits they'd put in their own designs much as we'd place in our designs, if we were archies.  Give me a 10" diameter cup!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

I remember the old Mad Magazine "Spy vs. Spy" series, which undoubtedly influenced this topic.

Anyway, I think there has been, especially starting with Jack Nicklaus and other pros in design, a move a way from the "defender of par" mentality in architects.  Jack says he would never do anything to purposely hurt the golfer in one of his designs.  In fact, the trend of Jack, and Fazio is to help the golfer, with target bunkers, containment, aligning targets with the wind, etc.

As a corrollary, many architects try to create situations favorable to many different shots, including draw, fade, run up, high spin, etc. but that school of thought is similar to the strategic in that it doesn't necessarily punish those who can't hit the "correct" shot, but rewards those who can with a birdie attempt, versus a "lowly" par!

The idea of meting out strict justice to those enemies of the course (ie players) seems to me to have gone out with Trent Jones Senior.  At least, he and RTJ II are the only ones who really wrote about design that way in their books.....

As RJ said, it can vary, as you experienced playing the Quarry and the Legend at Giant's Ridge.  At the Legend, the design theme is "hit it, find it, hit it again' and lets have fun.  The Quarry demands many more shot types, more precision on approaches to avoid undesireable shot types, and not coincidentally, more penalty for misses in many areas.

[tonyt]

I would have thought the architect would administer lessons, like a teacher may teach and develop the child.

I don't mean this in a negative way. If the archie was to view rounds played on their courses through a crystal ball, they would delight in a player being sucked into a wrong decision they orchestrated, and also be filled with warmth and glee when a player has gradually identified and utilised an avenue of access that has been deliberately designed to be learnt through experience by the clever golfer.

"Learn what I have left for you here, and you shall be a better man my son".

[Forrest Richardson]

It's a treasure hunt. We are laying the groundwork for chellange, problem solving, fun and all in a landscape that is engaging and interesting.

[iamafrog2]

First of all I think this is one of the best strings started in a long time.  I find that modern architects' courses tend to be very obvious in their punishing aspects.  The hazards and every other aspect of the course tend to be very apparent to the golfer playing the course.  I tend to dislike this because it evokes the feelign of "architect versus golfer" which, if anything, is tiresome to play.  
I find that older architects tend to incorporate the difficulty of a course in a more subtle way.  For example, they will have a 380 par four with a small green and a few bunkers none of which is overwhelming.  However, the fairway will be very hard to find a flat lie making players spray balls into the bunkers.  Then the green might be an upside down cone that makes every short sided chip and sand shot downhill.  The result is a seemingly easy hole that is actually fairly difficult.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm always shaking my head in confusion when a golfer(usually newer) is comparing their experience(score) to anyone else's in the group. Makes me think it is all ego, for most, and if the game is to have higher meaning in the future it needs to teach these neophites that what they want/expect is to be curtailed. Then maybe they will get who the real challenge is against, Themselves.

I wonder how much exposure working architects have with the "real" masses? Should an archie go out of his/her way to rub elbows with the newer golfer or the mainstream customer inorder to make sure they are not completly out of touch?

[Forrest Richardson]

My fondest rounds are played with Mr. and Mrs. "Average" golfer on vacation, etc.