Do scratch players see more than 20 handicaps?

[Jason Blasberg]

 I realize I started an entirely separate discussion with my scratch vs. 20 handicap example

Thus:

I'm a nine or ten handicap and not a 12, but I am going to learn way more out of a single round at a course than most scratch players.

TD,

Not exactly a fair comparison . . . what about what you get out of one round versus what either Ben Crenshaw or Jack Nicklaus get out of it?  Perhaps that's a more balanced question.  If the answer is about the same then we can say at the highest levels of GCA playing ability has little to do with first or likely subsequent perceptions.  

Why is this Board, as a whole, against acknowledging that better players on average have better golfing minds which often translates into more astute gca observations?  Especially in the first instance?  

I may be in the minority opinion on this one but I don't believe a 20+ handicap experiences the same golf course that I do.  And while I don't experience the same course that a tour player does I can at least in theory hit all the shots (within reason).  But, if you're a player that rarely breaks 90 and whose average round is 95 or so, how can you experience the shot making requirments of a great design?

For instance, being able to hit and hold the 7 and 17th par 5s at Prairie Dunes is absolutely required IMO to be able to fully appreciate their design because if going for them in 2 is not an option for you and you don't have that temptation to try it, there's no decision to make and it's just an average layup shot for both holes.  

IMO, the ability to hit heroic shots is absolutely required to be able to fully appreciate them.  Studying/critiquing golf course architecture is unique that way in that it is the study of an artform that creates the playing field for sport.  The ability to play the sport is directly related to one's experience while playing, and one's experience while playing is directly related to their observations about the field of study itself.

When we study a golf course we often play it, last time I checked I wasn't walking on the Mona Lisa, in the wind, up hill.

I'm not saying all scratch players know gca and not all 20 plus handicaps are incapable but I do believe there is a direct connection with one's ability to hit shots and one's ability to fully appreciate gca.

For instance, how can somebody that can't hit the ball more than 20 feet off the ground fully appreciate the options available when playing a Redan since they have only one option, run it up?

Go ahead everyone . . . let me have it!

[cary lichtenstein]

Answer this then:

Why are some of the best architects far from scratch?

[A.G._Crockett]

I would think that an architect would need to be a capable golfer to have a feel for how shots would impact various skill levels, but capable does NOT mean scratch.  

A 10-15 handicap would be enough, and I could even see how a scratch golfer would have the same problem identifying what would make a great golf course for ALL golfers that a great baseball or basketball or football player sometimes have with coaching lesser talents.  They just can't identify...

[Jim_Coleman]

   Jason, I agree with you 100 per cent.  I also suspect that most great architects were, at one time, single digit players.  I'm sure there are exceptions, but probably not too many.

[Jason Blasberg]

Cary:

Because they have wonderful minds and I'm sure are very artistic outside of their profession.  But the average person on this site is not a gca and not a low handicapper.  The question isin't why aren't great gca's better golfers . . . it's why aren't more gca critics better players?

I could be wrong and ability to play could have nothing to do with it but for me, gca is about playing the shots, or in theory playing the shots, as much as seeing the shots.  

[Jason Blasberg]

I would think that an architect would need to be a capable golfer to have a feel for how shots would impact various skill levels, but capable does NOT mean scratch.  

A 10-15 handicap would be enough, and I could even see how a scratch golfer would have the same problem identifying what would make a great golf course for ALL golfers that a great baseball or basketball or football player sometimes have with coaching lesser talents.  They just can't identify...

AG, some very good points and scratch or low single digit is not the ability I'm referring to, it's the basic physical ability to hit most shots in golf, which as you mention any solid 12 or so handicap surely has.  

[Ryan Farrow]

IMO what you shoot does not matter. I rarely break 90 but can play a round from the tips and experience many of the same shots and be challenged by the bunkers and features of the course. I happen to miss a ton of greens and give up just as many 3 putts. So in my case I don't miss much.

I agree that a 20 handicap who slaps the ball all over the course and is never reaching landing zones can't fully appreciate what the course is presenting until he gets around the greens.

[Adam Clayman]

Jason, I believe anyone who is a 15 and below can hit "the shots". What happens is that our percentages are not as good as someone who can repeatedly/consistently hit the shots. (Thats why we can't get below about a 10 handicap)

Appreciating the medium is not limited to better players.

It could be argued that a person who knows their limitations, plays within themselves, and, is denied a viable option, will see the flaws in a course faster than the guy who can reach anything from almost anywhere. Therefore seeing more.

[Matt_Sullivan]

"Why is this Board, as a whole, against acknowledging that better players on average have better golfing minds which often translates into more astute gca observations?  Especially in the first instance?  "

I agree that better players have better golfing minds -- on average. The posters on this board are not a collection of average golfers, though. And it is quite possible for golfers at different skill levels to have an intimate appreciation of golf course architecture as it pertains to their level of play. For example, my wife (a newly minted 12 hcp, but for most of her golfing life a bogey golfer) has an excellent understanding of what makes a good hole for a medium hitting lady who shoots in the 90s (including angles off the tee, hazard placement etc). She often comments on how this or that hole is good or bad from an architectural standpoint for ladies. However, most of her femal playing companions have little or no interest or understanding of this

In addition to skill level, good golfers (eg 5 hcp or less) tend to devote more time to the game:  talk about it, think about it, play more, play different/better courses -- on average. This also leads to a greater appreciation of gca, or at least more time to think and talk about it

The ability to hit the ball where you are looking most of the time is an advantage when it comes to considering GCA, but not a pre-requisite

[Doug Siebert]

Most golfers look at it from their own narrow perspective, it takes someone special to be able to see it how others see it.

A lot of scratch golfers are going to be good at looking at GCA from the perspective from other scratch golfers and can maybe extend themselves to +5 players who can handle the mini tours and down to the mid single digit range -- that's their range of experience, on a really good day they play like a +5, on a bad day they play like a 5 or 7.  But most of them don't have any more idea how a course's architecture works for a player with a 20 handicap than a 20 handicap has of how it works for a scratch.

My handicap has risen a bit to a 6 these days but I am certainly capable of playing any shot a course will require from the tips, unless you consider the "carry it 320 over this bunker like Tiger does" shot to be a requirement!  I can see what the architecture wants me to do, but I've got to modify that based on what my knowledge of my likely outcomes of a given shot are (I recently commented to a playing partner that I've got a higher standard deviation of shot quality than any single digit handicap I've ever seen)  If there's a hole with water down the left side but the left side of the fairway offers the best angle into the green, with my issues with going left unless I'm having a really good driving day I'm going to play it down the right side, architecture be damned.  Does that mean I can't appreciate the architecture because I'm not playing the course the way the architect intended a good player to play it?  Or that I can only do it half the time, when the architect wants a good player to play down the right side?

My dad's a 16 right now, but his good drives are over 100 yards shorter than my good drives.  He plays holes in a totally different manner than me, but I still see things he could/should be doing to take what the hole is giving him.  He's not telling me anything about my strategy with the hole itself, though he thinks I often try to do too much on some recovery shots (he thinks it is amazing I've never hit myself with my own golf ball with some of the narrow openings I'll play through)  But I'm only seeing stuff for my dad because I've played with him a lot, I don't know that it translates into any insight for another 16 who has different strengths and weaknesses.

An architect, on the other hand, has to see how the hole works from everyone from scratch golfers to high handicaps and women.  Sometimes they have to worry about tour players, though they probably worry about them too many times when it will never be an issue!

So I'd suggest that an architect that's kind of a middle of a road player like Tom Doak is probably ideal, because a scratch is too far removed from the 25-30 handicap to have any idea how the hole might play for them, and vice versa.

[Jim Nugent]

Most though not all great/inflential architects were real good players. Some that come to mind include Old Tom Morris, RTJ, Donald Ross, Stanley Thompson, Ben Crenshaw, James Braid, William Flynn, Jack Nicklaus, Colt, Allison, Tillie, C.B. MacDonald.

MacKenzie is one big exception to that.  Doak is what, a fair player?  

I suspect Jason is right, because he said "on average."  A question for the architects on the board here:  how good were you at your best?  How about the people who work with you, your associates, shapers, etc.?  

[Brad Klein]

Jason, I can assure you that for scratch+ golfers, the ability to see a course and its strategies depends on how they play their games. Crenshaw sees a lot more than does Nicklaus. Tiger sees a lot more than Calcavecchia.

My own experience on the ratings side is that for the most part, the best raters are in the 6-14 index range. Lower than that and they tend to try to play full bore aerial shots most of the time; above that (and that covers your 20) they are so caught up just trying to play and advance the ball that they have trouble assesing the full range of options and strategies. And of corse there are your 15-16 handicaps who only judge a golf course by ground game options and not aerial play because that's just about all they are capable of imagining.

Generalizing is difficult, because I can think of a few scratch players who are perceptive raters as well as some 25-30 handicaps, inc. women. But generally, it's the 6-14 rnage where they are actively considering different ways to play, even if they can't always execute the shot.

The ability to see a golf course out of one's skin, beyond how one plays, is what really separates the good rater from the passable one. That requires some self-awareness as well as a lot of empathy. I don't think, as a rule, that scratch golfers are all that good at being empathetic about how others play, and they rarely at a club will include in their own group the high-handicappers.

[Matt_Sullivan]

"I don't think, as a rule, that scratch golfers are all that good at being empathetic about how others play, and they rarely at a club will include in their own group the high-handicappers. "

Actually this is very true in my experience. I learned how women play the course from playing with my wife and listening to her comments on design and set up. Otherwise I would have no idea. I also rarely play with mid handicaps and higher. This is not because I don't like to but because all golfers (not just low handicap snobs!) tend to group themselves so that regular playing partners are of similar ability, unless they are really close friends outside of golf.

So I suppose it is true that "good" golfers look at the course on the basis of their own ability and tend to ignore how others play it. But I would say this is pretty much true for golfers of all skill levels. It is an unusual golfer who can truly assess a course for players of all skill levels

Brad, your 6-14 range for raters makes sense -- the 6 knows what it is like to shoot par and the 14 either used to know what that was like or remembers well what it is like to be a 25. It is perhaps no surprise that most of today's non-player architects fall in this range

[John Kavanaugh]

What is the average little league batting percentage of the best baseball writers...Is it possible that great writers just happen to have poor hand/eye coordination.  How many of the great sports writers ever were outstanding athletes...It doesn't follow.

[John Kavanaugh]

One other thing that is lost in this intelletual self justification...Just cause you can say it better doesn't mean you can see it better.

[Brad Klein]

John, how would anyone (else) know unless you can express yourself as well?

[Anthony Butler]

John, how would anyone (else) know unless you can express yourself as well?

Good point. When I was working as a music journalist in Australia before gettting into my current profession, I used to get all sorts of industry hangers-on trying to one-up me with the fact they saw every Rolling Stones show when they toured in '73 etc... My simple response was "Unfortunately, I was at school learning how to write a decent sentence... maybe you should have tried it."

To be a first-rate critic, first you have to be a professional communicator...

[John Kavanaugh]

John, how would anyone (else) know unless you can express yourself as well?

`

Brad,

Depends on the forum...You talked about who makes the best raters..How does the ability to express ones self play into the number you recieve at the end of the year.  We all know raterspeak...It proves nothing.

[JR Potts]

Jason, I can assure you that for scratch+ golfers, the ability to see a course and its strategies depends on how they play their games. Crenshaw sees a lot more than does Nicklaus. Tiger sees a lot more than Calcavecchia.

My own experience on the ratings side is that for the most part, the best raters are in the 6-14 index range. Lower than that and they tend to try to play full bore aerial shots most of the time; above that (and that covers your 20) they are so caught up just trying to play and advance the ball that they have trouble assesing the full range of options and strategies. And of corse there are your 15-16 handicaps who only judge a golf course by ground game options and not aerial play because that's just about all they are capable of imagining.

Generalizing is difficult, because I can think of a few scratch players who are perceptive raters as well as some 25-30 handicaps, inc. women. But generally, it's the 6-14 rnage where they are actively considering different ways to play, even if they can't always execute the shot.

The ability to see a golf course out of one's skin, beyond how one plays, is what really separates the good rater from the passable one. That requires some self-awareness as well as a lot of empathy. I don't think, as a rule, that scratch golfers are all that good at being empathetic about how others play, and they rarely at a club will include in their own group the high-handicappers.

Let me guess, your handicap is between 6 and 14.  

[Tom_Doak]

Ryan:  Good guess on Brad's handicap.

Jason:  Why is my handicap being nine now (it was about a four at my best) not a fair comparison?  Because some 12 handicaps can see a golf course pretty well?  Because there are exceptions to your rule?

This is a conversation I've had hundreds of times, and basically, every single time, it boils down to everyone arguing for their own point of view being superior.

Twenty handicap players are not very good at seeing a course in the scratch player's eyes, but, sadly, the opposite is equally true.

[Mike Hendren]

I'm not sure having all the shots is necessary to "getting it" to use a little gcaspeak.  

I cannot hit a high long iron.
Do not stand 20 yards behind the green when I try a flop shot.
I can drive the ball 260 yards occasionally, but can't carry it 230.
My short irons don't stick like a dropped cat.

For these reasons, I absolutely must "get" the architecture if I intend to turn my 88 into an 82.  That, and make a few putts.

For years I was a "4" and didn't need to see the architecture.  Outstanding players today might very well see the architecture well, but they have the (perhaps well-deserved) luxury of ignoring it.  

Mike

[Jason Blasberg]

Jason:  Why is my handicap being nine now (it was about a four at my best) not a fair comparison?  Because some 12 handicaps can see a golf course pretty well?  Because there are exceptions to your rule?

Tom:  

It's not fair to compare your ability to perceive gca vs. the average scratch player (or just about any player for that matter) because you're a +15 when it comes to GCA.  That's why I suggested the comparison to great playing, great architects, that's really the only fair way to know if they see more than you do b/c of their playing ability.

Jason

[Phil Benedict]

In most cases, high handicappers have one (or some combination) of the following weaknesses:

1.  Lack of power, turning many par 4's into three-shot holes.
2.  A predominent type of wild shot - usually a big slice.
3.  Dreadful short games, with numerous three-putts and chunked pitches and chips.

Players with weaknesses 2 and 3 fight their games so much that it's hard to imagine they have any insight into the architectural surroundings, at least as far as their own games are concerned. They may be smart, imaginative people who appreciate architecture, but that has nothing to do with the way they play golf.  For example, exploiting the right-to-left slope of a Redan green is pretty hard when you slice everything.

[John Kavanaugh]

The only thing this thread proves is that raters do not need to play courses to rate them...

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

The good thing about higher handicappers is that they don't all assume that everything should be designed around THEIR game, as low handicappers do.

For example, the high handicapper can't get up and down over a certain bunker.  But the low handicapper will complain that it's UNFAIR (and bad architecture!) if there is a downslope on the back side of the bunker, which prevents HIM from getting up and down with his superior skill.  [Even though, what he is really saying is that he does not want to be penalized for missing on the wrong side of the green with his approach.]

Jason:  I may or may not be a +15 GCA but I'm still a nine handicap golfer, that was my point.