[Tim Bert]

I'm convinced it's true.  I've been thinking about this for some time now, but I'm really just pulling the theory together.

I've been playing golf for about 14 years now.  It seems like only yesterday that I was excusing my bad scores by saying, "I've only been playing for a couple of year now."  92 used to sound good when I only started 2 years ago.

I really only started planning regular golf-focused trips about 5 years ago.  By no coincidence, that is also when I started paying a little closer attention to the courses and design features.  I'm also beginning to think that the fact that it has been 5 years since I broke 80 is no coincidence.

At my best, I made it to an 11 handicap.  I've always been one to throw away a few strokes per round due to a lack of focus.  Currently, I play to a 15, but I rarely break 90.  My adjusted score always supports the 15, but I post too many 7s and 8s to shoot consistently in the 80s.  I just bought Dave Pelz's Damage Control, so maybe that will all change!

Here's my theory:
As a golfer that has always struggled with focus during a round, my attention to the course details gives me even more excuse not to focus on my game.

As a mid-handicapper that can hit great shots, but can't execute on demand, trying to incorporate strategy into my game (aiming for certain parts of fairways or greens based on design features) puts me in a worse position that simply aiming down the middle of the fairway and green since the variance associated with my shots is too great to count on hitting it where I want.

I started testing this out last weekend.  I played a course I've played before, so I committed myself to not really thinking about the course.  I just played golf, and I aimed for the middle on every hole.  My score wasn't great, but on the back nine I hit 5 of 6 fairways and 6 greens in regulation.  By the end of the round, my swing felt as confident as it has in years.  It probably helped that I played only, and I played 18 holes in under 2 hours.

I think I'm on to something.  Now I just have to decide whether my interst in GCA wins out against my desire to improve my game!

Have any other mid or high handicappers ever noticed a similar trend?  I'm sure that attention to detail would actually help a low handicapper, since they can usually execute.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tim well said. I love taking it ALL in when I'm on a Golf course, not just the Architecture. If I see a Deer when playing the Addington with Chris Kane, well that makes the day even more special.

So am I just making excuses for my lack of progress and high handicap?

[JSlonis]

I actually have the opposite point of view.  I think as my interest in GCA grew, I began looking at courses a bit differently, and it has actually helped my golf game.  My course management has improved by understanding the golf course architecture better.

In practice rounds, I think I see more than I used to, which helps my score in the long run.  In a practice round or just a casual round, I look for a lot more things architecturally than I ever did before.  I think this gives me a better understanding of what the architect either wants to give or take away from the player and it also helps me to see how each individual hole needs to be attacked.

During competitive rounds I'm able to to focus on what I need to do to score, but I can still take time to appreciate the features of each hole.  I can't possibly grind for 4 hours straight, so the time where I can look at different features between shots is a nice break from the action.

[cary lichtenstein]

My experience is the same as Redanman.

[Tim Bert]

I probbly expanded a little more than I intended, which took the emphasis off my main point.

If I limit myself to looking and playing, I think I'd be better off.  Where I think I've deteriorated is by trying to look and incorporate what I see into my strategy.  While understanding strategy as it relates to design is nice, if you can't consistently execute on that strategy, then you might as well aim for your shot to land in the middle thereby giving yourself the maximum area to miss and still remain safe.

Sure, if there is out of bounds left, then aim right, but that's not really the strategy I'm talking about.  I'm talking more about aiming to a specific portion of the green because you want to be below the hole, or aiming at a specific part of the fairway to improve your angle of attack.  I think these are the things I've become more aware of with my interest in GCA, and I think trying to act on this has hindered my game rather than helped it simply because I'm not good enough to consistently execute.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim:

You've figured out a very important part of this whole architecture v. game issue - one that many do seem to miss.

And it's exactly as you've stated:  it's all well and good to see a side of the green that will be better to putt from... a nob that the ball can bounce off of and get to a difficult hole location... a side of a fairway that will give a better angle of attack... but typically these are small areas, and unless you have the skill to get to them, you are always going to be better off just aiming for the largest possible area and doing damage prevention.  You may not get the best way in, but you won't get the worst, so to speak.  

So I wouldn't say love for GCA should necessarily make you a worse player... what will make you worse is if you lose your knowledge of your own limitations.  It sounds to me like you know such well, so you'll be just fine.

So you can treat it like this:  in rounds where you really care about your score or your match, you can still seek out the cool architectural-based advantages - you just can't blindly aim for them - you have to factor what happens if you miss them.  Then play for your misses rather than your hits, so to speak.  Don't allow the misses to kill you.  Of course this isn't much fun at all, especially when your newly-trained architectural eye sees these cool things you COULD do... you just have to save those shots for rounds/games that are more for fun, less for result.

TH

[Mike Nuzzo]

What you really have to be careful of is such a love of the game and architecture that you decide to make it a career...
My swing is good, but my short game is not.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm sorry Tim, but I've got this one trademarked.  

Ask Huckaby...he used to use my quote as his tagline.  

It went something like, "Could it be that GCA has made us all worse players, but better golfers?"

I know personally I went from a score-obsessed automaton in my 20s who had to be an absolute asshole to play with to the somewhat genial, fun-loving hacker I am today, simply because my joy is mostly around studying the externals, not the internals.

[Tom Huckaby]

Yes I did.  I still think that was a great quote.

I'm just also adept at advising others how to avoid the pitfalls.

 

[Gib_Papazian]

It is very simple with me. My golf game comes in three distinct flavors 90% of the time.

#1. The architecture inspires me and I shoot a low number because I can *see* the shots before my eyes and visualize the bounce and roll of the ball.

#2. The golf course is amusing and enjoyable - though not especially stimulating - and I shoot 77 or so, followed by a margarita and little conversation about the golf course itself.

#3. Atlantic GC, Pasadera, Grand Cypress South, Poppy Ridge, The Ranch, Coyote Creek, Eagle Ridge. 18 holes of excrement that regardless of score, induces an aesthetic and spiritual poisoning that takes weeks to cycle out of my fragile psyche.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()