[Jason Blasberg]

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.

Adam:

Your illustration is a valid example of a pro missing something critical, but I think what he missed is a course setup issue, much like Phil's example of the green speeds at WFW.

Now if you asked Mahaffey on the 18th tee, the first time he ever saw the hole, I'd have to think he'd more readily recognize, than a poor golfer, that OB right gets closer the further up the tees are due to the offset nature of the fairway angle.  

It seems to me that touring pros are all about routine, thus they seem to prefer predictable courses for tour events.  Mahaffey clearing was a victim of his routine in your example.  

Jason

[Adam Clayman]

Jason, Yes, but it isn't as though he plays there so much that it is routine. As I'm recalling it better, his drive didn't sail right, he played it right. And yes that was the courses setup. But if we are talking about the ability to see more, this fits perfectly and proves it really is an indivdual's talent, or awareness level. Regardless of how many strokes they take.

[Jason Blasberg]

Interesting thought, would the average 20 handicap have been able to hit it OB on the line JM hit it out?

If not, and I suspect not, then JM actually learned more about the design of the hole after his error in line than the average 20 handicap would and thus, while he missed it that time, he'll likely never miss that aspect of the hole again.

This is exactly the point that RMD made about scratch players hitting the ball in places that 20 handicaps can't and so they experience more aspects of the design.  

[Jason Blasberg]

There is almost a quantum leap for men to get below a good solid 3-4 and for ladies to break that 7-8 range. I had a great old teacher in San Francisco (Beat Harvey Ward in his prime one year for the Club Championship at the O) who talked about this.  He deemed that it would be very difficul for me to get beolw that 3 level and play consistently and he was right, but I can or could hit any shot a golfer could hit (before Tiger came along!).

Why is it that most of us plataeu and don't get better after that?

I've played since age 9 but only occassionally until age 19 when I started to play about 4 times a week.

From 19-22 I went from a 12 to a 6 to a 3 over three Summers (if I hadn't gone to law school that next year would I have gone down to a 1.5, I'll never know   )

In the last 11 years my index has never gone below 3.0 and never above 6.5 (or there about).

That is the truly frustrating part of this game that I vow to overcome and as of yet have not done so.

That being said I know a guy who was about a 3-5 until his early-mid 30s and has been a 0 for the last 10 or so years and competing sparingly at the National level (made match play in a Mid-Am).

And so hope springs eternal . . .

[Sean Leary]

There is almost a quantum leap for men to get below a good solid 3-4 and for ladies to break that 7-8 range. I had a great old teacher in San Francisco (Beat Harvey Ward in his prime one year for the Club Championship at the O) who talked about this.  He deemed that it would be very difficul for me to get beolw that 3 level and play consistently and he was right, but I can or could hit any shot a golfer could hit (before Tiger came along!).

Why is it that most of us plataeu and don't get better after that?

I've played since age 9 but only occassionally until age 19 when I started to play about 4 times a week.

From 19-22 I went from a 12 to a 6 to a 3 over three Summers (if I hadn't gone to law school that next year would I have gone down to a 1.5, I'll never know   )

In the last 11 years my index has never gone below 3.0 and never above 6.5 (or there about).

That is the truly frustrating part of this game that I vow to overcome and as of yet have not done so.

That being said I know a guy who was about a 3-5 until his early-mid 30s and has been a 0 for the last 10 or so years and competing sparingly at the National level (made match play in a Mid-Am).

And so hope springs eternal . . .

I think it is because you probably have some swing flaws that prevent you from getting any better.  My handicap has been exactly like yours for the last 8 years (3-6) and I think it is because I am getting the most out of my game when I am a 3 and not playing well when I am a six.  All depends on my timing due to a major flaw in my swing..

[Garland Bayley]

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.

Interesting. Did you ask the golfer if he was aiming at the flag? Or did you just look where he is aiming. My impression would be that most 20+ handicappers are thinking about making sure they carry the bunker even though it may take them to the back fringe or beyond. Therefore, they may appear to be aiming at the flag, when that is not really their consideration.

The hole where I am most often presented with this problem has a three tiered green with the tiers left, middle, and right. Although ocaissionally I do aim to play past the side of the bunker, I usually prefer playing long over the bunker to having to putt up and down tiers. I haven't practiced that enough and it is a 3 putt a high percentage of the time.

[Jason Blasberg]

PGA Tour Greens in reg stats:

#1) Guess who, Tiger is averaging 72.8 % =  13.1 greens per round, or missing 6(and leading money list);

and

#199) Aaron Baddeley is averaging 55.6% =  10.008 greens per round or missing 8! (yet he's 44th on money list);

Assuming Bads is about a +6-7 handicap (is that about right?), how can he do it by missing 8 greens per round?  Short Game!

When they hit greens they make putts and when they miss greens they make putts . . . it's that simple.  

Why didn't I realize that sooner, all this range time should be on the putting green and practice bunker!!!!!!!

Seriously, with a pga tour short game you could hit 5 greens in reg and be a +1.

[George Pazin]

So, Jason, if we accept your statement that, IN GENERAL, scratch players see more than 20 handicappers, what's the grand insight that this GENERALIZATION offers?

[Jim Nugent]

So, Jason, if we accept your statement that, IN GENERAL, scratch players see more than 20 handicappers, what's the grand insight that this GENERALIZATION offers?

George -- make the 20 handicappers take a GCA test before they are allowed to play courses with good or interesting architecture.  It's the only fair thing to do.  

[George Pazin]

 

I might as well turn in my clubs now....

[Jay Flemma]

Jason, I'm sorry but you are dead wrong about your "vision" argument.  Please go back and read Spirit of St. Andrews and you'll see Mackenzie's thoughts on the subject.  Still to this day touring pros...the best out there, have still not reached the heights of the best architects...Ben crenshaw is the notable exception.

What if a guy was handicapped?  Does that mean he doesn't stand a chance of understanding the principles and see how they work in practice?

What about all the people who started by studying landscape architecture?  Plenty of them are lousy golfers.  

Mackenzie was a dreadful golfer.  Reputedly, so was Raynor.  

As for writers, there is an old adage "He plays like a golf writer."  Even Brad Klien's handle was "I golf badly."

No, Jason, it does not necessarily follow.  Hence we see why Socratic method falls in and out of fashion:)

[Jim Nugent]

I might as well turn in my clubs now....

Nahhh, there's plenty of fun courses still to play out there.  Besides, with the education you've gotten here at GCA.com, I bet you ace the exam.

[Adam Clayman]

Interesting. Did you ask the golfer if he was aiming at the flag? Or did you just look where he is aiming.

Garland- It was fairly obvious where the man was aiming. Since in this situation, the 14th green at PB, is unique, and there is no backstop when aiming left. I might've still suggested it to a more accomplished player.

Jason,

Interesting thought, would the average 20 handicap have been able to hit it OB on the line JM hit it out?

JM was not very long. Maybe 240-250, but very consistent. So, I do hink the 20 would be able to hit it that far, just completely out of control.

 

[Steve Curry]

Jason,

I don't think the handicap has bearing or correlation to one's comprehension of the strategy or quality of a course.  I know many good golfers that are too biased by the desire for low scoring to see the architecture and conditioning objectively.


Steve

[Adam Clayman]

Steve, Your eloquent argument extends to  players in the under ten handicap category,. too. Why you ask?

The same bias. Personal preferences. Since most of the Baby Boomers have been exclusively exposed to modern designs, with modern maintenance presentations, a good portion of the average ones, have a game that is based on scrambling, solely with their lob wedge.  Take that away, and they hate the course. It boggles this mind that subjectivity is so rampant when a major spirit of the sport is consideration for others.

[ForkaB]

Adam

If you ever come across a 10 handicap who can play the lob wedge, keep your hand firmly on your wallet.

If you really believe that he baby boomers who grew up in the 50's and 60's learned how to play on "modern" courses, take a remedial course in maths.

If you take any of this seriously, get yet another sense of humour transplant, and hope that this one takes...

Rich

[Bill Brightly]

It's not how much game you have, but rather, how much thought you bring with you when you play and look at golf courses. A 20 handicap who loves the game can surely study how great players hit the ball and observe how they attack a golf course. This can be learned, even if you can't do it yourself.

On the other hand, there are tons of great golfers who couldn't give a rats *** about course design. They play with blinders on, decide where they want to hit the ball, and more times than not, they do.

I recently played a practice round with an excellent college golfer (and a nephew of one of the more prolific posters on this site...) who actually told me he did not want to know about golf architecture, even the history of his home course! He said it was too much information, he is just trying to get the ball in the hole. No doubt, this focus works for him and produces great scores. I think he's missing out on a lot of the golf experience, but that's his choice...

A scratch golfer who CHOOSES to study course design can very easliy expand his vision to contemplate how a 20+ handicapper will be able to play a hole. So too can a 20+ handicap envision how a scratch golfer will play a hole. If a hole location requires a 170 yard shot that stops near its pitch mark, a 20 handicapper can understand that, even if he can't hit the shot.

I'm a 3, but it wasn't until I got hooked on the history of golf course architecture (and this website) that I started to learn a little about design. It hasn't helped my game, but it sure makes it a lot more fun!

[Lou_Duran]

"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."  Jason Blasberg

Take a random sampling of both groups from the general population of golfers that is statistically significant, and I have no doubt that the results would show Jason to be 100% correct.  Without a doubt, people from both groups with whom I've played bear this out.

Within participants on this site, the results of a similar sampling may not be as clear.  There are folks here who can't or don't strive to score well, and no doubt see more features than some of our best sticks.

I took that in Jason's context, appreciation means a bit more than just seeing a bunker, a knoll, or a change in the slope of a green.  It includes the experience of hitting the shot from an uneven lie in the bunker over a hazard, the use of that knoll to develop the image of the shot (whether it is to hit the ball over it, as a bank to slow down a ground approach, or curve the shot around it), and the recognition of the subtle changes in the green visually and tactilely.

Yes, the 20 handicapper can wedge back to the fairway and see the same features.  Being that many suffer on the greens as much or more than with their long games, they may have the ability to see the subtle changes without being of much use to them.  But does he really appreciate the features as fully?  I think not.

     

[Adam Clayman]

Rihc- So, baby boomers haven't had crap GCA shoved down their throats for 40 years? Name your favorite Modern American course? Is the rough grown to within a pace of the greens surface? Does rough surround the bunkers? Is it south of San Jose?

As for seriousness, I'm a bit passionate, I know, but...When a 7 handicap turned to me to tell me he thinks Wild Horse sucks, I was in shock. His persistance got me to inquiring further. I foundout that this gentleman has a game that is mostly dependant on his ability to scramble using non other than his lob wedge. I've come to the conclusion that his disregard for the right side of his brain, to be the justification for making such a bold and obtuse claim.

I feel when one's playing ability is the basis for evaluating GCA, lower handicapers  may have the right to like being dictated to (and Afterall, the set-ups are geared for their game) but reserve the right to call bull-shee on their evaluations based solely on their subjectivity.

[Tom Huckaby]

This is a strange thread.

Examples of lack of architectural appreciation are produced on each side, with each side seeming to want this to prove their point.  Of course logically "one" doesn't equal "all", but both sides keep wanting it to do so.  

I really don't think that one CAN generalize.  There are 20 handicappers who are incredibly architecturally astute, as there are low handicappers.  The same goes in reverse.  What's the point?

Strangely enough, I think Mucci nailed this very early on....

 

But anyway, my interest here is pretty much just regarding Adam's last post.

Do you mean Cinnabar Hills?  I know Rich does love the place...

If so, I don't think the rough is ever cut to within a pace of the green surface there... nor does it surround bunkers... the ground game is alive and well at that course... in fact more than most around here...

TH

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, See smiley.

Jousting with rihc is not my forte, but if he thinks this is silly, I beg to differ.

There's been a lot of politicing ever since Medinah, that lower cappers have an inherent ability to know what contitutes great gca. It's just plain hogwash.

[Bill Brightly]

"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."  Jason Blasberg

"Take a random sampling of both groups from the general population of golfers that is statistically significant, and I have no doubt that the results would show Jason to be 100% correct.  Without a doubt, people from both groups with whom I've played bear this out." Lou Doran


You and Jason are coming to the right conclusion, but for the wrong reason.

Great golfing ability does NOT allow you to see more on the golf course. "Love of the game" does that, just as it makes you want to practice more. A guy who is willing to spend 15-20 hours per week on his game to get to scratch is more LIKELY to become the guy who is fascinated by design, because he's probably a golf addict.

Someone who is satisfied staying at a 25 handicap probably doesn't practice and is probably unlikely to care as much about design. (I'm not talking about seniors who can't hit it as far...) I think any healthy middle-aged guy who wants to can get his hadicap down to the mid-teens with lessons and practice. If a guy stays at 25, the odds are this guy is a casual player but not in love with the game.

Lou and Jason, attitudes like yours are what make high handicappers dislike us...  

[Tom Huckaby]

Adam - gotcha.

I'd say it is hogwash that ALL low handicappers have an inherent ability to know what consitutes great gca.  The instances of those who are clueless are many.

But then again the same can be said for higher handicappers...

God I hate to give Mucci credit, but he did nail this way back on page 1 or 2.

So maybe Rich too is correct, if he means that continued debate on this is silly?  I'd agree with that....

TH

[Lou_Duran]

Huck,

What the hell, let's just talk about college football instead.  Who do you like this weekend, Ohio State or Texas?  Opinions in this arena are certainly more jocular and jovial.  Go Buckeyes!

Inherent in Jason's argument, I think, and certainly in mine, is that golf is more fully appreciated and understood the more tools one has at his disposal.  As a participatory sport, the ability to hit the shots would seem to have a special bearing.

Similar to the controversial Survivor program that's coming up matching groups based on race, perhaps this is one of those subjects that should not be discussed in polite company.  However, if this is the case, perhaps the frequent griping about tour players designing courses should also be off-limits.

Mr. Brightly,

I am neither a scratch player nor prejudiced against high handicappers.  A far higher number of my friends and acquaintances are duffers than experts.  It is not an attitude that I have as you have attributed.  I have not questioned the love of the high handicapper for golf, his commitment to the game, or even his ability to process information from the sources available to him as might be insinuated from your comments.

BTW, I know a few guys with handicaps in the 15 - 20+ range for many years who love the game just as much if not more than I do, take lessons somewhat frequently, practice and play more often, and spend great amounts of money on equipment, yet their handicaps stay about the same.  Golf is a very hard game for most of us and harder still for some.  I marvel that some people still go out there after failing to improve for so many years, and wish I could adopt their attitude as I fight a losing battle with my own game.    

I leave this subject with one more thought.  Guys like Nicklaus have been criticized for building difficult courses from their frame of reference to suit their games.  Is it then consistent to assume that courses designed by poor golfers are likewise built to accomodate a more limited repertoire?  Or is there some virtue in being a poor golfer, perhaps that of compassion borne of hardship, which opens up his eyes to see more architecture and build the course from a more inclusive, diverse perspective?

[Tom Huckaby]

Lou:

I'd say there are far more sensitive subjects than this one.

And to me the answers all seem obvious... thus my comment that to me it appears silly to debate them.  But perhaps I sold it all short... Because I would say that "golf" in terms of how shots are played are better understood by better players (for the simple reason that they have more experience with great shots), but I'm not sure that means that "golf course architecture" is necessarily better understood by these players...

But I gather you and Jason and others do.  That's cool.  So my silly comment was silly.  I guess this is worth discussing and debating.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()