Do scratch players see more than 20 handicaps?

[Jeff Fortson]

...
Scratch golfers, IN GENERAL and IMHO, are better at seeing a course.


Jeff F.

Since you are a scratch golfer, are you sure that's not an IMO instead of an IMHO?

Are you sure you aren't talking about seeing different rather than better? You look at an approach shot and you decide where to aim your shot with respect to the recovery demands on your game should you miss. The 20+ handicapper decides he would rather short side himself than be in the bunker, because of the recovery demands on his game. You look at his decision and don't think he saw the course right. He saw you miss and go in the bunker and thinks you didn't see the course right.

Garland,

Chances are the 20 handicap would hit it in the bunker he dreads of hitting it in anyway and I would hit the green.

I see your point but most 20 handicaps think that if I don't hit the green in regulation then I screwed up because I am a pro and I am supposed to hit every shot good.  What most don't look at is how better players FIND the best places to "miss" shots.  Why is that?  Is it skill level of their golf swing?  Maybe.  Could it also be bacause they have figured some things out that have helped them become scratch players?  Possibly.  Maybe they understand the nature of the game of golf better or the way the golf course plays better.  I am not saying this is fact it's more of a let's throw this comment out there and see the responses.  

What about the idea that a golfer struggling to just put a ball in play has little time to devote to wondering where to short-side him/her self?  I guess if the player lacked length (in significant proportions; i.e. an older player who used to be good but lost length due to losing physical strngth; or a player who never developed a powerful enough move to hit the ball further than 200 yards but became VERY good at what he can do with the ball) and bogey was a good score then the use of strategy and the comprehension of the course he/she is playing could be valuable.  Let's face it, MOST 20+ handicaps are not analyzing and strategizing a golf course and their way around it.

Like I said, I could be 100% wrong on all of this.  I just tend to see it this way.


Jeff F.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Like I said, I could be 100% wrong on all of this.  I just tend to see it this way.


Jeff F.

Now that sounds like an IMHO.  

[DMoriarty]

Can anyone give a single example of an architectural concept or principle that a higher handicapper is not capable of understanding?  

Lou,

I share Garland's views regarding your discussion of work.   I dont know many 20 handicap grinders.  

As for the rest, none of your post is at all related to my premise that golf talent does not equal design talent.

[JWL]

DM

Degree of difficulty.

Everything is difficult for a +20 handicapper, therefore, they have no concept of how difficult a shot may be or how easy it may be for the scratch player the majority of the time.

Example:   A 55 yd shot over a bunker to a shallow green is next to impossible for the +20 handicapper, whereas I have no problem with the shot whatsoever.

[Garland Bayley]

DM

Degree of difficulty.

Everything is difficult for a +20 handicapper, therefore, they have no concept of how difficult a shot may be or how easy it may be for the scratch player the majority of the time.

Example:   A 55 yd shot over a bunker to a shallow green is next to impossible for the +20 handicapper, whereas I have no problem with the shot whatsoever.

First off, a +20 handicapper should hole that shot about 10% of the time. As a 20+ handicapper, I make that shot all the time at #6 on my home course. It is a simple half swing with the sand wedge.

[JWL]

OK Garland, if you say so.

I didn't realize that +20 handicappers were quite that talented.

My position is obviously way off base.

[Garland Bayley]

OK Garland, if you say so.

I didn't realize that +20 handicappers were quite that talented.

My position is obviously way off base.

I don't follow this closely, but I think Tiger is perhaps a +7 and the rest of the tour perhaps a +6 or +5. There obviously has never been a +20 handicapper.

[David_Madison]

Here's an argument for the scratch player seeing more --
 
Give a scratch player a set of left-handed clubs (assuming he's a righty). With adequate practice he might very well become a 20 handicapper (and if that's unreasonable, change the "20" to a "36" for the rest of my argument). Now put that golfer and a typical 20 handicap player on a course that most on this site would find worthy, a challenging course that neither had seen before. I can't help but believe that the scratch/now 20 handicap player with limited ball striking ability would do a far better job of identifying the proper and improper routes of play given his limited ball striking ability than would the "natural" 20 handicap player and all things being equal would drub him.

[DMoriarty]

I asked for a single example of an architectural concept or principle that a higher handicapper is not capable of understanding . . .

Your answer was "degree of difficulty."  Do you really think that a high handicapper is somehow unable to understand that he may not be able to consistently hit shots that other better players will be able to hit?  

Take your example:  Do you really think a higher handicapper would not be able to figure out how to put a bunker next to a shallow green that was near impossible for him but easy for a better golfer?   Do you really think it is beyond his comprehension level to understand the potential importance or use of such a feature?

And why doesnt the same apply in reverse?  For example, what if you asked:  

Can anyone give a single example of an architectural concept or principle that a lower handicapper is not capable of understanding?

And suppose my answer was:

Degree of Difficulty.

Everything is easy for a -6 handicapper (+6 index), therefore, they have no concept of how difficult a shot may be or how hard it may be for the higher handicap player the majority of the time.

Example:   A 55 yd shot over a bunker to a shallow green is no problem whatsoever for a -6 handicapper, whereas for a +20 handicapper it is next to impossible.

Why isnt this answer equally or more valid than yours?   Are higher handicappers mentally challenged or something?  Can they not understand concepts which they have not completely experienced, personally?  

Just what is it about low handicap players that makes them so much better at abstract thinking and empathy for those with a different skill set?  

[Jason Blasberg]

Mike met him on the course one day while he was practicing and Tiger asked him, "When is the USGA going to speed these up?"

Mike asked him "What would you say they are right now?"

Tiger answered that he thought they were "running at about 9.5."

Mike then told him that, with the exception of the first hole where it needed to be slower than the others because of the severity of the undulations that they were "averaging between 11.8 and 12.4," a number that they would maintain throughout the championship.

So I ask... how well did the greatest player in the world, the man some consider the most accomplished of all time, "see" those greens in comparison to Mike, a good, but decidedly less talented player?

A scratch player has advantages, but a student of golf course architecture is measured by his understanding and not by his score.

Phil:

With all due respect your example is literally absurd!

First, Mike knew the green speeds while he "asked" Tiger what they were so there was no "seeing" involved, the deck was loaded so to speak.

Second, those greens were way slower than I thought they were and I could tell that on Thursday morning from Hewlett, NY.  Everything was short the first day . . . or more . . . so the USGA is blowing some smoke if they think those things were at averaging 12 when Tiger thought they were 9.5, no way.  

Third, what is more likely to error . . . the speed your friend Mike is told the greens are running based upon someone elses reading, or, even if based upon his reading vs. the touch and feel of Tiger Woods?  Especially after watching player after player leave everything short on Thursday and Friday I just don't buy the story.

BTW, even if it is dead on it has nothing to do with perceiving gca, he might have well said the rough was 3.5 inches when it was actually 5 inches.  

That's not exactly the type of "vision" I'm interested in.

[DMoriarty]

Jason, I guess I am curious as to just exactly "the type of 'vision' [you're] interested in."

So how about you tell me a single example of an architectural concept or principle that a higher handicapper is not capable (or even less capable) of understanding?

[Jason Blasberg]

Jason, I guess I am curious as to just exactly "the type of 'vision' [you're] interested in."

So how about you tell me a single example of an architectural concept or principle that a higher handicapper is not capable (or even less capable) of understanding?

Dave:

I believe golf is likely the most tactilely overwhelming sport there is in that while one plays for an ultimate score they are constantly bombarded with immediate physiological feedback about both their shots and the playing field.  This bombardment lasts far longer and plays far more in the althletes mind than virtually any other sport.  Thus, while most players don't even realize it they are constantly experiencing and therefore observing game conditions such as the wind speed, wind direction, ground conditions, softness, firmness, lie angle based on one's feet position, etc..

Golf course architecture, and it's appreciation, however, is also something everyone experiences while playing but in varying degrees.  Just as I believe a scratch player will better "see" the wind conditions, ground conditions, etc., I question whether they will also better "see" golf course architecture.  

It's not the type of GCA vision that one discusses over a pint such as "can you believe the size of the kick plate on that Redan?" it's far more inate, as if a sense of playing itself.  

Ultimately, I believe that visual gca observation blends with one's tactile experience over time and so I believe that you don't truly "see" a great Redan if you can't both chase the ball up the front of the green and also take your chances and challenge the left pin with a heroic carry.  You also can't "see" most heroic shots if you're incapable of feeling the rush of adrenaline when you pull it off.  That's a very long winded answer to your request for one gca element that 20s don't see.  

Essentially, the "vision" I'm looking for is the crossroads of armchair gca discussions and the inate physical experience one has while playing a great design.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Jason, you wrote, "With all due respect your example is literally absurd!

First, Mike knew the green speeds while he "asked" Tiger what they were so there was no "seeing" involved, the deck was loaded so to speak.

Second, those greens were way slower than I thought they were and I could tell that on Thursday morning from Hewlett, NY.  Everything was short the first day . . . or more . . . so the USGA is blowing some smoke if they think those things were at averaging 12 when Tiger thought they were 9.5, no way.  

Third, what is more likely to error . . . the speed your friend Mike is told the greens are running based upon someone elses reading, or, even if based upon his reading vs. the touch and feel of Tiger Woods?  Especially after watching player after player leave everything short on Thursday and Friday I just don't buy the story."

First of all, Mike is the person responsible for course set-up, hole locations and green speed at the U.S. Open. He is the Director of Competition. This is not the case of someone "telling him" a figure that he puts out there... he was there for these measurements and was taking great pains to make certain that the speed was fair and consistent for the severity of the greens.

What I didn't relate was the rest of their conversation in which they discussed why the speed was proper and fair and very quick despite Tiger's first impressions. He ended up agreeing with how they were set-up as a result of this conversation.

Sexcondly, the fact that Mike knew what the green speed was has prior to speaking with Tiger has nothing to do with the validity of the illustration. It was Tiger who asked him why the greens were slow when, in fact, they weren't. He perceived them as being slow. That is why the illustration is so decisive to me in answering the question posed - Do scratch players SEE MORE than 20 handicappers?

Again, here is one of the great palyer's mind and it is 20% off in what it SEES as a very important factor in a golf course. It's obvious that many others saw it that way as well as so many came up short in their putting. Even the least of the competitors have to be a far more than adequate putter who is used to judging green speed vs. strength of ball strike, yet they mostly all failed on the greens.

Again, I am not comparing what Mike "saw" but rather what the players, and in this case Tiger, "saw" in comparison to what was the actual state of the golf course.

I am NOT implying that a 20-handicapper would have done better or even as well in his reads, rather I am just agreeing with Mr. Mucci when he states that the ability to see the finer subtleties of a golf course are not the provenance of the accomplished player, rather it belongs to the accomplished mind.

[Adam Clayman]

Jason, I guess I am curious as to just exactly "the type of 'vision' [you're] interested in."

So how about you tell me a single example of an architectural concept or principle that a higher handicapper is not capable (or even less capable) of understanding?

David, I'm not sure this is the answer you wanted, but,,,
Having caddied for people who were likely way higher than 20 handicaps, the aspect that they never saw, was the option to avoid the hazard. i.e. A player is playing #14 at pebble, they are short of the left front bunker, call it the 55 yards example. The pin is tucked left behind the fronting bunker. The 20 something player is so focused on the flag, instinctively they never think about taking the bunker out of play, by aiming right, with a chance to two putt. That is, not  until I suggest the alternate route. It's their option and the resulting decision, speaks volumes as to their personal mindset.
Now, this might be more of an indictment of the overall sport and the affects television and the pro game has had on people.

It would appear that our individuality shines through in the decisions we make on a medium that offers multiple routes to the same goal.

So the answer to Jason's original posit is...Depends on the individual.
Mostly on how, and why, that person masquerading as a golfer is a 20+ capper. Sandbagger, novice, or just plain un-coordinated. We won't mention the dummies, as not to offend anyone.

[Mike_Young]

While the scratch player may not see more than the 20 ...I do think he has a better chance to relate to the strategic situations the architect has incorporated.....EX:  if a chipping area is closely cut and allows for a chip, a flop, or a putt......the 20 may know this but he cannot relate...JMO
Mike

[Mike McGuire]

I would back any 20, that has 250 posts on GCA.com, against any scratch who has never had to debate course architecture.

EDIT

how would it be decided?

[Jason Blasberg]

Again, I am not comparing what Mike "saw" but rather what the players, and in this case Tiger, "saw" in comparison to what was the actual state of the golf course.

I am NOT implying that a 20-handicapper would have done better or even as well in his reads, rather I am just agreeing with Mr. Mucci when he states that the ability to see the finer subtleties of a golf course are not the provenance of the accomplished player, rather it belongs to the accomplished mind.

Phil:

I again have to mention that Mike "saw" nothing at all when he discussed the set up with Tiger, he and his committee set the course up as they deemed appropriate but the fact that Tiger was off on stimp speed by 2 pts (if true) is irrelevant to everything beside grade school nose thumbing . . . and the absurd thing is that you know that . . .

Please take some time to think about the intersection between intellectual gca appreciation and the tactile experience of executing shots, i.e., playing quality golf.

I've tried to explain this in my recent post above and the reason why I didn't lead with that idea is b/c I wanted the discussion to develop but nobody that I've read has analyzed or even acknowledged that appreciating a.k.a "seeing" golf course architecture evolves with, and in some direct relation to, one's tactile ability and experience while playing.

{RMD's post touches on the idea but doesn't explore it and I'd very much like to hear if he's noticed a physical connection between his playing and his growing appreciation for GCA.  (Rob, help please the natives are getting restless . . .)}.

This connectivity between the physical and the intellectual is the sense of gca "vision" that I'm driving at and I've yet to read anyone say anything that didn't confirm my supposition that LOUSY GOLFERS MAKE THE LOUDEST GCA CRITICS.

(For those English Lit. Phd's out there the use of emphasis was my attempt at Irony . . . but as I'm still working out the distinction between the ironic and symbolic with my PHD sister-in-law I'm not yet sure if it worked).

Jason

[Phil_the_Author]

Jason, your supposition may be that, "This connectivity between the physical and the intellectual is the sense of gca "vision" that I'm driving at and I've yet to read anyone say anything that didn't confirm my supposition that lousy golfers make the loudest GCA critics." But your question wasn't 'Do lousy golfers make the loudest GCA critics?'

You asked, "Do scratch golfers see more than 20 handicappers?" My illustration was simply to state that even the best players can miss what is right in front of them.

The ability to "see" a golf course and its subtleties are not bound to how well a player may strike a golf ball and the score that he averages, rather it is tied into his ability to recognize why an architect designed what lay on the ground in front of him.

Using an ability is one thing; taking advantage of what your ability can accomplish in a given situation is another. Tiegr at Hoylake.

Not a single person who competed in the Open was a 20 handicapper. Why then, with the obvious design characteristic of the course laid bare for all of them to read, did only one "see" it properly?

[Jason Blasberg]

Phil:

You've still not answered my deep down secretly supposed question . . . is there a physical connection between analyzing GCA and playing experience, be it good, bad or indifferent?

Jason

   

[Phil_the_Author]

Jason,

So don't ask the question in secret!  

My answer is that there CAN be it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be.

Put it this way, it doesn't hurt a person's ability to understand gca if they are a good player, whereas being a poor player doesn't help one's understanding of it either.

That's as good of a non-answer as I can muster! Still, its the only way I feel it can be answered.

[JESII]

David Moriarty,

Are you suggesting that better players are at a disadvantage to successful golf course architecture?

In this day and age they might be.

Superior players may try to impose their playing style into their architecture.   Wasn't this a criticism of Nicklaus's early designs, that he designed the golf courses for "HIS" game ?[/color]

I think a reality that needs to be presented in this thread is the imbalance of work better players get in the GCA field.


Name recognition and marketing ability based on playing ability shouldn't be confused with the ability to be a talented golf course architect.

Many PGA Tour Pros paired with established architects so that they could get work based on their "Brand Name" with the established architect doing the work.[/color]

Why did Old Tom get the work he did ?

That was a different era with different dynamics.[/color]

Why does Phil Mickleson get the work he gets ?
And every high level player in between ?

It's branding, not talent.[/color]

Assuming all other variables are equal, it is a common perception that better players would make better golf holes.


I think that's a misconception.[/color]

I think quality of play has very little to do with it.

I do think quality of play is a side effect of the things I that do make a good GCA. [size=8x]

?

[/color][/size]

Pat,

If you read my post again you will see that I am suggesting that better players automatically have an advantage designing golf courses. I said Olt Tom and Phil Mickleson and everyone in between got the business they got because of their abilities as a player. Branding is a big part of that, you are correct. You can see this in my second to last paragraph.

Your gigantic question mark was obviously directed at my somewhat less than lucid writing in that last paragraph. What I was trying to say is that the ingredients that make up a good golf course architect frequently make up a good player as well, but they are not interrelated (eg: passion, understanding, creativity, imagination etc...).

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

In the ultimate, it's the inherent talent of the individual.

As to career paths, I'd prefer an individual who studied the practice/art in school and then apprenticed at a recognized production mill, before going out on his own, as opposed to an individual who played on the PGA Tour, who decided that as his Tour career was in its twilight, that he'd venture into a related field where he could trade on his name.

When I think of great or admired architects I don't think of great players, I think of great architects, but, that's just me.

[JESII]

agree 100%.

[Adam Clayman]

Here's an example where the Pro was caught unawares as to an aspect of the gca, or course set-up.

It was a tournament at Pebble, not the At&T, the Callaway. Which is held every Fall.

John Mahaffey was teeing off on the 18th at Pebble, he failed to notice the blocks were some 30-40 yards forward of where he probably remembers playing the hole. His drive sails right, and O.B. He doesn't even notice that it went OB. I had to advise him to hit a provisional ball. And that's when he looked around and realized the OB was much closer than he normally would've played.

One aspect no one else has mentioned about the Pro's is their caddies. A pro need not think too much about GCA because he has a caddy who has likely already walked and stepped off the course. It appears to me that the Caddy is more responsible for being aware of the GCA and therefore, course management.

[Jason Blasberg]

Jason,

So don't ask the question in secret!  

My answer is that there CAN be it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be.

Put it this way, it doesn't hurt a person's ability to understand gca if they are a good player, whereas being a poor player doesn't help one's understanding of it either.

That's as good of a non-answer as I can muster! Still, its the only way I feel it can be answered.

The secret thing is just the Socratic method ingrained in me.

I think you must have watched the film "Proof" recently (if not it's definitely worth renting) in that while not proving my hypothesis as it's likely not provable  , you seem to be proving the opposite with " it doesn't hurt a person's ability to understand gca if they are a good player, whereas being a poor player doesn't help one's understanding of it either."

If I'm right, however, and there is an evolution of one's gca mind based upon one's sense experiences while playing, including the tactile experience of hitting quality shots, than I think it necessarily follows that hitting more quality shots better develops one's gca appreciation.

From this it does not follow that all great golfers have good gca minds nor does it follow that all poor golfers have poor gca minds.  

What does follow is that great golfers with good gca minds are likely to have more evolved gca minds than poor golfers with good gca minds.

And, in this sense of "vision" the better golfer does see more than the poor one.