Do scratch players see more than 20 handicaps?

[DMoriarty]

Lou,  I dont get the relevance of your questions to my post.

I dont think it matters if high handicappers have tunnel vision or not.  High handicappers generally dont go around touting themselves as having superior ability to design courses based solely on their golfing skill.   That conceit seems reserved for the better golfers.

But since you asked . . . I'll bet  poor golfers generally spend much more time contemplating the options faced by better golfers than visa versa.   When is the last time you watched a bunch of 20 handicappers golf, on t.v. or not?   How often does a scratch player seriously consider the possibility of blading the ball into the bunker less than 100 yards away?  

As for your request for examples, how about the many dozens of dark age courses which have since been built over or plowed under?  Were all those courses a product of high handicappers or hired-gun professionals?   Or how about some of our modern player designers?   Nicklaus' early stuff?  Norman's stuff that has since been plowed under?  Why didnt their superior playing ability allow them to understand that their courses werent going to work for a large segment of golfers?   Or how about the negative changes which are taking place at our great courses?   Are they being driven by the concerns of high handicappers?

By the way, your description of "how much harder" a 20 handicapper has to work just to get around the course is the kind of inaccurate presumption that better golfers often make about worse golfers.  

[JESII]

David Moriarty,

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

I think a reality that needs to be presented in this thread is the imbalance of work better players get in the GCA field. Why did Old Tom get the work he did? Why does Phil Mickleson get the work he gets? And every high level player in between?

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

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty,

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

If better players are at a disadvantage it has nothing directly to do with their golfing ability, but rather stems from their belief that their golfing skill necessarily translates into design skill.  In other words, their disadvantage is that they think they have an advantage.  If they can escape this conceit then they might just make for good designers, provided they study the great courses, get good land, and have talent.  Design talent.

I think a reality that needs to be presented in this thread is the imbalance of work better players get in the GCA field. Why did Old Tom get the work he did? Why does Phil Mickleson get the work he gets? And every high level player in between?

The design "work" that Phil Mickelson gets sure isn't because of his superior qualifications as a golf designer   Pros get the jobs because of name recognition and because many people mistakenly assume that golfing skill = design skill.   History shows that this is not the case.

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

It may be common perception, but it is wrong. It is thinking like this that brought about the "dark ages" of golf design.

[Thomas_Brown]

To keep this in perspective, 2 different players I know on the PGA Tour have told me in all seriousness that my game is much closer to a 20 handicap than to their game.

If a successful tour pro handicap is a +6 or +7, and I shoot around 80 with rough and hole locations on the edge of greens, than this statement isn't far off.

Klein's remarks on game being more aerial the better you are is very true.  I tried to "caddy" 2 young tour players around Riv on Tuesday of tournament week a few years ago.  Hole locations that I would recommend aiming 30 feet left of and using feeder slopes were ignored.  Everything high and straight at the flag - no such thing as George Thomas strategy, no fade/draw on the ball in the air.  The year after that Tom Kite played in our Tuesday practice round - he needs the strategy still - he hits the ball so low w/ so little spin I can't believe he could compete at all.

BTW - If Blasberg's handicap is north of 2 right now, then he's winning far more than his share!

[David_Madison]

Could it maybe be that on average, better golfers with a greater variety of shots at their disposal and likely more experience at successfully handling the challenges that architects throw at them have the potential to see more? Sure there are going to be younger, stronger players who play a simpler  "dumb" game, and it doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of players in both camps who over or under-perform in their understanding of what's there.  Just seems that there's a certain threshhold of ability, even if "former ability" that one needs to see the options and nuances in place. I'd liken it to having the ability of one player to hit the ball much longer than another - - doesn't mean all longer hitters shoots lower scores, but on average they have more potential to do so.  

[DMoriarty]

Could it maybe be that on average, better golfers with a greater variety of shots at their disposal and likely more experience at successfully handling the challenges that architects throw at them have the potential to see more? Sure there are going to be younger, stronger players who play a simpler  "dumb" game, and it doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of players in both camps who over or under-perform in their understanding of what's there.  Just seems that there's a certain threshhold of ability, even if "former ability" that one needs to see the options and nuances in place. I'd liken it to having the ability of one player to hit the ball much longer than another - - doesn't mean all longer hitters shoots lower scores, but on average they have more potential to do so.  

Could be, but I dont think so.   I dont get the rationale that the more shots one has at one's disposal, the more they will understand about design.  Whether or not the better player has more (intentional) shots doesnt matter much, if at all.  

The reality is that better players have a much narrower spectrum of possible outcomes in just about every situation.  Many of the things that concern higher handicap players are entirely irrelevant to better players' games-- they arent even in the range of realistic outcomes.  

The converse is often true with higher handicap players.  If a design feature is an issue for a better player, it is likely many times more an issue for a higher handicap player.  

In either case, designer's success depends upon his ability to escape his own game and consider games with which he is practically inexperienced.  

[Jason Blasberg]

BTW - If Blasberg's handicap is north of 2 right now, then he's winning far more than his share!

Tom:

You're being more than kind . . . as RMD can attest I'm scratch on the lesson tee and let's just say not scratch on the golf course.  

I'm packing a 5.1 index (6 course handicap) for our member guest in a couple of weeks.  If I don't take my standard 36 putts we should clean up.  

BTW, I see much less architectually this month than I did in May . . . it's uncanny

Ring when you're in NYC . . .  

 

[Doug Siebert]

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

Well, ignoring for a moment why you would want to throw a baseball from home plate over the fence  Why couldn't you imagine it, if you either stood at a home plate on a smaller field with a fence 220 feet out, or stood halfway between the plate and the pitcher's mound to get the same distance?

If I'm playing with Tiger and he aces a hole with an 8 iron, and I use a 7 or 6 iron and ace it on top of his ball, do I not have the same experience because I used a longer club?  If we're playing a cape hole and I take a line that requires a 270 yard carry and he takes a line that requires a 310 yard carry, does that mean I cannot see the options he has or appreciate what it is like to hit it on his line because I have to take a slightly less aggressive line?

The fact I'd have to give Tiger a stroke a hole in a match doesn't mean he's in a different world than me in imagining shots, its the difference in our ability to CONSISTENTLY execute what we imagine that puts us in different worlds.  Simply put, he's not better than me because he hits the ball marginally longer and higher, he's better than me because he hits the ball unimaginably more consistently.

If he's in a bunker 220 yards from a par 5 island green, he can think about playing it out of the bunker at that green and has demonstrated his ability to hit that shot in winning a tournament.  I suppose I could theoretically hit that shot (with a couple clubs more than he'd use) given several buckets of balls and adequate daylight, but he having a high percentage of success and me having a much less than 1% chance of success means its off the table for me unless its a last ditch 'need it to tie the hole' situation.

Seems to me that if I was just a little bit longer and a LOT more consistent that the option would be a feasible one to consider under normal play.  I see options all the time that I dismiss due to a low percentage of success but that a pro or Tiger might take on.  Sometimes I'll try them anyway if I decide the penalty for failure isn't that bad.  There's actually a course I play fairly often where I've been in a bunker about 220 out from a par 5 green 3 or 4 times and I've tried to put it on the green every time (and failed every time, maybe I should buy a utility wood)  But the green is pretty much undefended and hitting the shot fat puts me in the fairway and counts as an unintentional layup, so why not try it?

I'm not suggesting there aren't shots Tiger will see and try that I'd never see, like slicing a 3W out of the rough 60 yards right and 220 yards out, that's just insane!

[DMoriarty]

Come on Doug, dont you know that home run hitters are naturally better qualified to design baseball parks because only they know what it feels like to hit lots of home runs?  

Or is it that only players who can throw the ball over the fence from home plate should be allowed to design the parks?

One way or another, there must be a link between the quality of the baseball skills and the ability to design a great baseball park.  

Come to think of it, why dont we let the Nascar drivers design our freeways?  There would be a lot more left turns, that's for sure.  

[ForkaB]

Well, ignoring for a moment why you would want to throw a baseball from home plate over the fence  Why couldn't you imagine it, if you either stood at a home plate on a smaller field with a fence 220 feet out, or stood halfway between the plate and the pitcher's mound to get the same distance?

Doug

1.  Because it was there.....

2.  Imagining ain't the same as doing

3.  This does not mean in any way that those that can't do can't imagine (as the evil Dr. Moriarty seems to imply in the reductio ad absurdum "logic" that is his specialite).

All it means is that (all other things being equal), those who can "do" have a leg up on those who have to rely only on their imagination.  Of course, it is entirely possible that inability to "do" might just stimulate one's imaginative capabilities.........

[JESII]

All it means is that (all other things being equal), those who can "do" have a leg up on those who have to rely only on their imagination.  Of course, it is entirely possible that inability to "do" might just stimulate one's imaginative capabilities.........

But do you not feel that these imaginative capabilities are by far the most important characteristic in this process?

[Phil_the_Author]

I've been following along with this discussion and not commenting as I have been unable to make up my mind as to an answer because there are very good and valid points to each side.

And then I had a wonderful conversation with Mike Davis (USGA) yesterday that clarified it for me. He told me an anecdote about Tiger at Winged Foot the week before the Open.

Not a single person alive (or not) would argue that Tiger is the most superior of players alive and that his ability to see things about a course is also a step above the other great players of the world (see 2006 Open). Yet he was unable to guess the green speeds at Winged Foot missing the correct answer by more than 2!

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.

[Adam Clayman]

Philip- Somehow there is something wrong in that stimpmeter analogy.

The ball creep at WF resembled the ball creep seen on television on wet poa, ala the at&t.

Tiger can tell the difference in weight almost to a gram. There's no way he would be that far off on greens speeds. Maybe it was a function of WF's greens?

Are there any flat areas on those greens?

One needs a flat area to acurately determine stimp speeds. Don't they?

I suspect your Tiger example illustrates either a flaw in the stimp science, or proof the USGA is all about corporate image.

[Jerry Kluger]

It would seem to me that if I were a golf course designer, that you guys are insulting me by minimizing what is required of someone in my profession. This thread has centered around the issue of whether a 20 handicap can do as good a job as a much better player in designing a hole, right up to the question of whether you have to be a touring professional to design a hole which is up to challenging a player of that level.  From my very limited knowledge, it seems that golf course architecture cannot and should not be seen from such a limited perspective.  

Design of a hole comes about as a result of so many factors that simply limiting it to how it plays is operating in a vacum.  Sure, there is an ideal piece of property to design to a golf course such as was the case at Sand Hills, but short of that,  there really is so much to be considered that is not part of this discussion.  We all know that every feature and characteristic of the property goes into routing the course and determining what type of holes and grasses can be used on the property.  It is my understanding that designing the holes is far into the process.  As to the original question, can a 20 handicapper design a hole which is challenging to players at all levels - I would think so.  You can compose a great song even though you can't sing a lick or play an instrument worth a crap - so long as you hear how it is supposed to sound.

[Phil_the_Author]

Philip- Somehow there is something wrong in that stimpmeter analogy.

The ball creep at WF resembled the ball creep seen on television on wet poa, ala the at&t.

Adam, you stated, "Tiger can tell the difference in weight almost to a gram. There's no way he would be that far off on greens speeds. Maybe it was a function of WF's greens?"

No way or not, he WAS that far off on the speed of the greens. In talking with Mike about it he mentioned how so many of the green surfaces on the PGA tour are relatively flat and run at 12-13 and so the perception of speed can become skewed for many top players.


"Are there any flat areas on those greens? One needs a flat area to acurately determine stimp speeds. Don't they? "

Like all green surfaces, the ones at WFW have some areas that are flat; just not as many as will be found on other courses. Why would that matter? As you stated, the stimp reading was taken on the flat areas whereas the pins happened to be put in much tougher positions. If anything, the undulations of the greens should have magnified the impression of speed rather than the opposite.


"I suspect your Tiger example illustrates either a flaw in the stimp science, or proof the USGA is all about corporate image."

Why do you conclude this? What is so impossible about Tiger having a problem guaging green speeds on a particular course during a particular championship? Is it possible that his failure to make the cut may have had a bit more to do with finding a set of greens that, evidently for the first time, was unable to handle for whatever reason?

How could this anecdote illustrate any "proof the USGA is all about corporate image?"  



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Philip- Somehow there is something wrong in that stimpmeter analogy.

The ball creep at WF resembled the ball creep seen on television on wet poa, ala the at&t.

Tiger can tell the difference in weight almost to a gram.

I don't believe that.[/color]

There's no way he would be that far off on greens speeds. Maybe it was a function of WF's greens?

Are there any flat areas on those greens?

Yes.[/color]

One needs a flat area to acurately determine stimp speeds. Don't they?

NO, you don't need a flat area to accurately determine stimp speeds, since the readings in both directions will average out.  Gravity's effect is universal.[/color]

I suspect your Tiger example illustrates either a flaw in the stimp science, or proof the USGA is all about corporate image.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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]

[CHrisB]

In theory, the superior player should have an advantage over higher handicapper in understanding design, because the superior player would, over the course of his life, have played the game at all handicap levels, and would presumably be able to recall how the game is played at each level.

Remember, all great players were higher handicappers when they first played the game--even Tiger.

In theory...

[Lou_Duran]

David,

Be nice now!

If it is relevant in this thread for you to assign tunnel vision to one group without providing the foundation, my question about the other must be equally as relevant.

The question as to who sees more or the assertions that one's level of play has nothing to do with knowing or understanding gca appear to be coming as much from the not-so-good players as those with the low handicaps.  Outside of this website, the issue is largely moot.

I am trying to think of how many Nicklaus courses have been plowed under, and I can't think of any.  Can others pipe-in on this one?

I think that Norman has had one that was substantially changed, and another that had a hole replaced and couple others altered to accomodate the new one.  I am unaware of other courses, but would like to learn of them if someone has that information.

As to the comment regarding about who works harder, the guy shooting 100 or the one shooting 80, this could be easily demonstrated scientifically.  However, my assertion is based primarily on my many rounds playing with both, low and high handicap golfers.  With relatively few exceptions, remarks about the level or quality of play centered around how easily it appeared to be for the 70 shooter, and how hard it was for the guy trying to break 100.  While I've heard some comments from golfers shooting in the 70s that they really had to grind out the score, I've never been in the presence of a happy high handicapper when he volunteered that he shot the easiest 100 ever (or how he utilized his special insight of skulling an iron into a bunker 100 yards out to his advantage).

Chris Brauner makes a great point.  I would add that the ability to hit the shots is also an advantage to the shapers, particularly those who work on green complexes.

BTW, I am a democrat when it comes to building golf courses, fully supporting the notion of pleasing the most of its customers without great concern for the individual.  However, I don't believe that this results in the best architecture.

[Jeff Fortson]

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.

Tom,

A scratch player has been a 20 handicap before.  Not many 20 handicaps were ever scratch nor will most ever become scratch.  

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


Jeff F.

[ForkaB]

All it means is that (all other things being equal), those who can "do" have a leg up on those who have to rely only on their imagination.  Of course, it is entirely possible that inability to "do" might just stimulate one's imaginative capabilities.........

But do you not feel that these imaginative capabilities are by far the most important characteristic in this process?

Not sure, Jim.  Nor am I sure that poorer players can somehow compensate through increased creativity.  I'm still thinking about these issues.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

A scratch player has been a 20 handicap before.  Not many 20 handicaps were ever scratch nor will most ever become scratch.  

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


Jeff F.

Jeff,

How long were you a 20 handicap...a week...one round...how hard was it to learn how to make a bogey...guarantee it was before puberty.  Your argument sounds like saying everyone was illiterate at one point in their life so it is easy to learn how to read.  Most 20 handicaps who profess themselves as golf experts are doofus stumblebums who have no business on a course let alone evaluating one.  Think about it...have you ever overheard a 20 handicap expert opinions in the bar after a round...Always on point.

Seth Raynor was without a doubt a great architect (from a dues paying member of the Seth Raynor Society) but where is the evidence of his critical ability...If every architect was a great critic there would be no bad architects and we already know that being a great critic does not make you an architect.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I've never been in the presence of a happy high handicapper when he volunteered that he shot the easiest 100 ever (or how he utilized his special insight of skulling an iron into a bunker 100 yards out to his advantage).
...

Somehow you think these are things we would actually say out loud
To a scratch player  

Your discussion of work makes no sense at all. The only sense it can make is if you are counting the work from swinging more times and walking more steps which are inconsequential to the discussion at hand.

IMO  most people would think about working in grinding out a score. I worked hard to produce my lowest score ever. I was in a tournament flight championship match, and I was in total concentration. My next two lowest scores were in causal rounds with friends. I didn't really work at it, but relaxed and enjoyed the company. IMO all golfers work harder in some rounds versus other rounds.

[Jeff Fortson]

Tom,

A scratch player has been a 20 handicap before.  Not many 20 handicaps were ever scratch nor will most ever become scratch.  

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


Jeff F.

Jeff,

How long were you a 20 handicap...a week...one round...how hard was it to learn how to make a bogey...guarantee it was before puberty.  Your argument sounds like saying everyone was illiterate at one point in their life so it is easy to learn how to read.  Most 20 handicaps who profess themselves as golf experts are doofus stumblebums who have no business on a course let alone evaluating one.  Think about it...have you ever overheard a 20 handicap expert opinions in the bar after a round...Always on point.

Seth Raynor was without a doubt a great architect (from a dues paying member of the Seth Raynor Society) but where is the evidence of his critical ability...If every architect was a great critic there would be no bad architects and we already know that being a great critic does not make you an architect.

John,

First of all, I am not advocating that anyone with a 20 handicap has no chance when it comes to "seeing" a golf course.  My point, which was capitalized, said that "IN GENERAL" I felt that scratch golfers "see" more of a golf course.  

Let's be honest, MOST 20 handicappers are weekend warrior types who don't devote mind-blowing hours of study to the golf course they are playing.  Yet, almost every scratch or near scratch player I play with is looking for the proper angle or where not to hit it.  Once again, this opinion is one that is very GENERAL in its nature.

Second, I started playing golf on a regular basis around the age of 9.  I could't break 90 until I was 14.  So, for 5 or 6 years I was a 20+ handicap.  Sure, I was a kid but I have a vivid memory of the hardships of course management and certain "hazards" or things of a similar nature that plagued me at my home course.  Yet, during that time I had no comprehension of what other players that were better were having to deal with.  I am sure that has much to do with the fact that I was still a child.  However, my point is that if one doesn't devote special energy to the subject of golf course management (playing wise) or the strategy of golf course design then a 20+ handicap may never "see" or understand what better players face.  Whereas, MOST good players, as "oblivious" as some here make them out to be, notice the stuff they were once affected by or would have been affected by when they were 20+ handicaps.

Third,  Seth Raynor obviously had talent as an architect and I have enjoyed many of his courses.  He may be a rare bird that could make golf courses challenging for all without ever really playing the sport at any level.  Many of the great architects were not elite amateurs or pros.  Unfortunately, the question the thread asks is...

"Do scratch players see more than 20 handicaps?"

It doesn't ask...

"Do 20 handicaps have the ability to see a golf course"


My simple answer to the question this thread poses is, IN GENERAL, I believe the answer is that scratch players "see" more.  I am not saying that you or anybody here that isn't a scratch player has no business commenting on strategy or the like.  I simply think that if you took a body of 100 scratch golfers and 100 20+ handicaps from all over the age, gender, and professional spectrum that you would probably find that the scrath players "see" more.

Obviously, this is all speculation and I could be 100% wrong.


Jeff F.

[Garland Bayley]

...
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.