[Paul Payne]

I might agree with this in general but I don't think it is as simple as score=knowledge.

I am a 9 hanicap down from 27+ when I took up the game a little over ten years ago. I know that I see far more in a course than I did even four or five years ago. This is because the better I get, the more I care, the more I see.

I have played with golfers who are better then me on paper who play regularly at their own clubs. Sometimes these players are very poor at identifying what they see  when they step onto a new course. I witnessed this first hand on a group trip to Sand Hills last fall. I don't think this is just necessarily due to familiarity. I think it may have just as much to do with the kind of course they play on a regular basis.

I think if a person is a member at a club with a fairly penal course, then steps onto a course which is very strategic they may be at a disadvangtage. This would not be because they are not a good player but because they have never been offered mutliple choice shots before.

I am trying to say that this would be true all the time either, I am just stating that there is probablly more to all of this than just skill level.

[ForkaB]

All other things being equal, the better player will "see" "more" than the inferior player.  As great as Tom Doak is as an architect, he will never be able to "see" what a great player sees when standing over a shot.  He's not a good enough player.  What he can and does do is know what he is seeing, and how it relates to GCA, much better than even the much better than average player.

[Adam Clayman]

Phil, I disagree with most of what you say. To start, hitting a high soft fade is a fine way to play a redan green, idn't it?

Plus this discussion was about the ability to "see" more, not play better.

It doesn't take a special ability to see that you are being forced to hit a specific shot. Dictational architedture may be some people's definition of great architecture, it's just not mine. Nor, IMO, should it be anyones.

[wsmorrison]

When raters play courses, it is only beneficial to themeselves.  There should be no doubt of that.  If someone wants to really rate a golf course, they should walk it carefully without playing so as to study it in a comprehensive way.  No doubt raters justify their efforts for the good of the game.  That is a false pretense and they likely know it.  Benefits to raters often include one or more of the following:  they play for free, play at a reduced rate, play on private courses they would unlikely  have access to, and/or play with preferred tee times.

In my opinion, if raters are to play, they should never be allowed to play for free and at private clubs should only play with a member and pay their full freight.  There is too much opportunity for conflicts of interest; if not real, then perceived.  

You might say, who'd want to be a rater then?  Who cares?  It is a marketing strategy for magazines and a self-serving endeavor on behalf of the participants.  The really dedicated ones more than likely will continue with their endeavor.  It is too bad that resorts and public courses on one hand and second and third tier private clubs on the other enable this effort to go on.

[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

TD:

And I suspect the answer is that neither BC nor JN sees more than you so I want to reiterate my point that that proves only that at the highest levels of GCA observation playing ability is relatively irrelavent.

For the reasonably informed appreciator of GCA, however, I do think playing ability is a factor.  Just how much of a factor is the question and I would have to say a good playing 15 handicap that at one point in their golfing life could hit most of the shots in the game and has or at least had a deft short game is about the baseline requirement IMO.  

The other thing that I'll say about playing ability is that length is about the least important factor IMO.  I play regularly with folks that can't hit the ball much over 230 yards off the tee but have good wedge games and a good touch around the greens.  Often times they experience hazards that I don't such as anything in the line of play some 30-40 yards short of the hole.  

If people play the correct set of tees they will often experience the same heroic elements off the tee too, or at least they should in theory.  

One thing that I think people should do more of, and this includes games I play in, is play separate tees within the same group.  Just going to the back tees because someone in the group is a strong player is often a mistake.  Walking back with them to see the entire course is recommended but losing the ability to play heroic shots off the tee or losing strategic options because you're too far back to start with hinders one's gca experience.  

Some heroic options will be lost do due want of distance and there's not much that can be done about that but if the gca is strong the 3rd shot should be no cupcake and the layup should require a well struck play.

Jason

[John Kavanaugh]

We have all seen how peoples posts on this board change when they get their card...Seems the key to seeing is being told you are no longer blind.   Oh, and before any of my rater friends get pissed...you guys have told me about the worst offenders...remember..

I have actually heard of a onetime golfer now rater say.."It's all about the architecture." when trying to set up one more trip at the most exclusive clubs in the country...What a crock.

[George Pazin]

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.  

I disagree with just about everything you say on this thread, but this statement sums up the difference as well as any.

[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.  

I disagree with just about everything you say on this thread, but this statement sums up the difference as well as any.

George:

Please explain what it is that you disagree with?  Is playing ability completely independant of ability to appreciate GCA, in your opinion?  If so, why and what role does playing ability have, if any?  What beside playing ability is a core component of GCA observation/appreciation?


Jason

[Phil Benedict]

Phil, I disagree with most of what you say. To start, hitting a high soft fade is a fine way to play a redan green, idn't it?

Plus this discussion was about the ability to "see" more, not play better.

It doesn't take a special ability to see that you are being forced to hit a specific shot. Dictational architedture may be some people's definition of great architecture, it's just not mine. Nor, IMO, should it be anyones.

Adam,

I think the shot I described was a slice, not a high soft fade which few 20-handicappers have in their arsenal.  

I thought this discussion was about the interaction between how you play and how you see.  And I think a 20-handicapper can have an interesting perspective on GCA, but it has nothing to do with their own game, which is mostly a matter of coping from shot-to-shot.

I played at Yale a few weeks ago with a scratch player who recently qualified for the Senior Am.  We shared a cart so I got to hear what he was thinking about on a number of shots.  His game allowed him to consider the options that the architecture offered.  He shot a 73.  He could "see" shots because the quality of his play opened him up to every option.  His approach to the course was quite different from mine, even though I am in Brad Klein's sweet spot as far as handicap is concerned.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Appreciation of gca is a function of intelligence plus interest in and passion for the game.  (I don't think you can be dumb and truly understand architecture.)  A lower handicap player is more likely (but not necessarily) more passionate.  I'm sure there are some bright, passionate, interested 20 handicappers out there who "get it."

[Bob_Huntley]

Could Seth Raynor even play the game?

Bob

[Adam Clayman]

Phil, In my defense, back almost twenty years ago, when I played Lawsonia, I had that slice. Playing the fourth hole there, was difficult. And I would think about the challenge before ever arriving to the fourth. Similar to what others have said about the 17th at Sawgrass. It's is inspiring.

Yet today, I look back on the hole as one of the few truely great Redan par 3's I have ever played, and appreciate it for it's concept, it's ability to vex my mind, and, yes, it's difficulty.

[Tim Pitner]

Jason,

I don't doubt that playing ability can help one appreciate certain aspects of architecture.  For example, most players can't or don't attempt to shape their shots very often.  A weaker player may not appreciate a course that requires shaping the ball off the tee or into the greens as much as a stronger player.  

But, as a 9 handicap who plays both with low single digit players and people in the 15+ handicap range, I'd say that, by observing them, I have a fairly good idea how a course plays for players better and worse than me.  Why can't an observant 20 handicap player do the same?  The answer is that of course he can.  

[George Pazin]

Please explain what it is that you disagree with? Like I said, pretty much everything.

Is playing ability completely independant of ability to appreciate GCA, in your opinion? Yes, BillV summed it up rather nicely with the Venn diagrm commment, and Tom D summed it up nicely with his posts.

If so, why and what role does playing ability have, if any? Little

What beside playing ability is a core component of GCA observation/appreciation? Thinking, observing, analysing, imagining, etc.

I dsiagree with Rich's comment as well (there's a shock! ) I don't think a reasonably intelligent person would have trouble envisioning a Tiger like shot, especially if he had seen it a couple times in person.

[cary lichtenstein]

I have played regularly with scratch to 18 handicaps all my life. All of these guys belong to the country clubs I have been a member of and all of these guys are successful, some off the charts sucessful.

I can tell you there is no corellation between the smarts and success of these individuals and their ability to understand the game nor the architecture.

I found it hard to believe that a guy could be so bright at one thing and dumb,  disinterested and  uneducated at something else.

The scratch players however do understand their games, their ability, how to hit most shots and risk reward, but how they manage their game is another thing.

But I find no correlation between their ability, and their interest in golf course architecture, nor their understanding of it.

Some of these guys are only interested in the competition, or the gambling aspect of the game. Others just want to grind out a score, and never even look around. And they are not interested in going out of their way at all to play other courses.

Just as some people have great card sense, I think others have architectural sense and others have architectural appreciation and many of us here are in awe of great courses in different ways.

[John Kavanaugh]

You may not realize this but the lead in Sideways played a fool...It could have been any one of you talking about architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

The high handicappers will claim that they see more.

The Low handicappers will claim that they see more.

In application, each tend to view and influence architecture in the context of their own game.

Handicap has nothing to do with one's powers of observation and architectural eye.

They are seperate disciplines and shouldn't be confused or blended to gain credibility.

[JWL]

I am not sure where to start on this one, but I'll give my .02 for what it is worth.
The 20+ handicappers that I know generally have one thing on their mind, making contact with the ball.   Flight trajectory, flight pattern, carry distances, firmness of the ground, etc, etc. really have little bearing on him before a shot.   He just wants to hit the ball solid hopefully aiming toward his target.   That is a good shot in his repertoire of shots.
The difference with a scratch player or better is that their repertoire of shots is soooooooo much greater.   They may not always execute the shot correctly, but they generally know and attempt the proper shot for most situations whereas the 20+ handicappers is just back there trying to make contact with ball.
Thus, the scratch player wants to "have a shot", at least some shot, under almost all circumstances.   Of course, that isn't going to happen and they have to "take their medicine for a bad shot" and just play to make a bogey, rather than a par.   The same situation for a 20+ handicapper generally creates a situation where they can't even finish the hole a lot of the time.    Not enough "repertoire" of shots for tough situations.
Scratch play GCA's have a much better comprehension of what the ball does when it comes in contact with the ground, and what the 'possibilities" of success are with any given shot.   The 20+ handicapper gca, is just back there hoping to hit the ball on the green somewhere, anywhere.   So when it comes to design, they can't have the same ability to design "degree of difficulty" to shots, because they are all difficult to the 20+ handicapper.
Therefore, I have no idea how a 20+ handicapper can realistically have any comprehension of the rating category "resistance to scoring".  I think that is why you often find 20+ gca's either designing course much too difficult or much too easy.   They don't get it, because they have never experienced it.   They can excel in every other category, and often make up for their lack of understanding in the RTS category, by excelling in the other categories.  
I have no problem with that approach, but in this particular thread, there is a differentiation, imho.

[Garland Bayley]

The worst thing about being a high handicapper is that you can see the shot or shots that is/are required and know you can do nothing about it.

For example, Phil's redan slicer! Many of the high handicappers in the intersection of the venn diagrams know perfectly well what is required, but are helpless to perform it so they just make do with what they have.

The best thing about being a high handicapper is that when you try to make a shot that you know is required, but you know is far from your normal capablilities and you pull it off! That speaks to the golf hat I once saw that said,

I hate golf!
I hate golf!
Great shot!!
I love golf!

[Phil Benedict]

Jason,

Handicap has nothing to do with one's powers of observation and architectural eye.

They are seperate disciplines and shouldn't be confused or blended to gain credibility.

It's hard to argue with what Patrick has to say here other than to repeat the point made elsewhere on this thread that playing ability may be correlated with interest level as well as the point that strong players can consider playing options in a way that a weak player cannot, simply due to the limitations of their own game.

My guess is that what is common to golfers of all skill levels is an appreciation of what Ran calls the 'wow factor."

[Jay Flemma]

Alistair Mackenzie was such a terrible golfer (over 18) that one of his friends told him when he went to australia "dont ever let them see you play, you'll never work again."

[ForkaB]

I dsiagree with Rich's comment as well (there's a shock! ) I don't think a reasonably intelligent person would have trouble envisioning a Tiger like shot, especially if he had seen it a couple times in person.

Shock, Horror!

George

When I was at my peak, I could throw a baseball maybe 220-230 feet.  If you put me at home plate in front of a fence 250 feet away, I could have envisioned a Willie Mays (say) throwing it over the fence, but I wouldn't have had a clue as to how he would have felt doing it.

That's what I was trying to say.

Rich

[George Pazin]

Jason, here's an analogy for you:

I played violin for 10 years growing up, because my dad loves classical music and he never had the chance to play. I can probably appreciate the difficulty of what Itzhak Perlman plays better than my dad, but in no way do I understand classical music better, or appreciate it more, than my dad.

You may not realize this but the lead in Sideways played a fool...It could have been any one of you talking about architecture.

It could have been any one of us...but it was probably you.

Rich -

That makes sense, and I agree with it!

 

[Lou_Duran]

Bob Huntley,

Raynor is in a rather small minority in his field.  He is also atypical because he primarily applied/copied a relatively few design themes throughout his shortened career.  Arguably, he took and put on the ground what he learned from a very good player, Macdonald (who himself relied heavily on what had been done and modified by the best players in the UK for his own "original" work).  From what I've been able to gather, Raynor had superior technical engineering and surveying skills which allowed him to work in his niche at a very high level.  He also had some excellent sites to work on.

This is a subject matter that is of great interest to me.  Based on what I've read and my own conversations with a number of designers, architects, and consultants, I think that being able to play at a high level provides very useful insights to these folks.  It doesn't mean that the bogie man can't appreciate fine architecture, nor necessarily that the club champion can design a great course.

I am curious, are there any great music composers who are tone deaf and can't play an instrument?  

[JWL]

George
You may be right and that is why I put the + in front of the 20.  However, I think you would agree with me that no 20+ handicapper on the planet has/envisions the same "repertoire" of shots that a scratch or better player has.   No one will ever convince me of that.   40+ handicappers are actually surprised when the ball gets airborne, from my experience.   Strategy is not something they give any thought to.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()