How essential is playing it...

[Jeff Doerr]

to evaluating a course?

I was thinking about ANGC. If you go to three practice rounds, walk the whole course say 5 or 6 times, watch many of the best players play it, make a studied survey of all the holes...is that enough?

Yes, I realize that you don't get to putt the greens.

[John Kavanaugh]

It is enough to form an opinion and share it with others...remember that Tom Doak didn't play many of the courses in the Confidential Guide.  I myself have joined two courses after just a cart ride around and then did not play until having signed a contract to be a member with a lofty financial responsibility.  I put my money where my mouth was on those evaluations.  note:  These were not famous or ranked courses so I was going 100% on word of mouth and my one time tour.

[John Kavanaugh]

The one time where I think it may be essential to play a course would be if you had a choice betweening joining one or the other in the same city.  If I was choosing between LACC and Riviera I might feel like I would like to play LACC before making the choice.  

I am glad that I have played both Crooked Stick and Wolf Run in that did solidify which course I prefer.

It would be important to play both NGLA and Shinnecock if you were faced with a choice about which to join but not important to play Sebonack if it was a third choice.

On the other hand I would have no problem listing which course is best in order without having played any of the above...It all depends on why you are evaluating the course.  I have a strong feeling that all the courses that have been rated by Golf Magazine panelists have not been played by same.  What are you getting at by essential?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I don't believe that playing a course is crucial to evaluating it.  Of course, if you don't play there is a chance you might skip over holes or not give some of them a good look, and that's obviously not going to help your ability to judge the course; but most golfers ought to be able to judge how a course will play if they are looking closely.

GOLF Magazine just changed its system of voting so that we can only vote on the courses we've played ... thereby wasting my walk-throughs of courses from Myopia to Pronghorn, many of which they need more votes to evaluate fairly.  But, that's their plan.

[John Kavanaugh]

GOLF Magazine just changed its system of voting so that we can only vote on the courses we've played ... thereby wasting my walk-throughs of courses from Myopia to Pronghorn, many of which they need more votes to evaluate fairly.  But, that's their plan.

I know a little course that will be happy to hear that news.

[Ryan Farrow]

I think walking the course with a yardage book in hand is the best way to go about studying a golf course. When you are playing you tend to miss a lot more and there are way to many distractions, like your game and the people you are playing with. Say you are playing a round and drive down the right side of a 60 yard fairway are you really going to walk over to the other side to see what the approach looks like? Walk around every green complex? As mentioned the only downside is not being able to putt on the greens. As long as the setting is good, walking the course is sometimes just as enjoyable as playing. And walk it don't ride.

[JESII]

I'd agree with John and Tom on this with the caveat that in a conversation with differing opinions between two people: one with your experience at Augusta (Jeff) and one with that same experience plus one round of golf...I would give the nod to the playing experience...all other things being equal...

[Jeff Doerr]

Some of my thoughts on this come from Pebble Beach. I never played it, but spent a full week walking it during the 1992 US Open. I feel like I know every hole very well on the course (except #5!). My recall of Pebble is better than many courses I've played a couple times, even some I've played many times over.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

They probably would request that you don't have me there as a guest, either.

But I would think you should be offended by this point of view, because the magazine is really insisting that panelists seek access to play private courses instead of just looking at them.

[John Kavanaugh]

John:

They probably would request that you don't have me there as a guest, either.

Honesty that is not the case at all.  Bandon Resort is often discussed and Quail Hollow is never mentioned without you in the same breath.  You are now clearly on the Evansville A list.  I'd have to beat them off with a stick if they knew you were coming.  It is almost up there with hosting Larry Bird or Fuzzy.

[John Kavanaugh]

But I would think you should be offended by this point of view, because the magazine is really insisting that panelists seek access to play private courses instead of just looking at them.

Just caught your edit.  I trust Joe Passov and the difficult decisions he has in front of him.  In a put up or shut up moment a person close to Joe asked me what could be done to make a better panel and I told them...my wife just called I'll finish this later, sorry.

[KBanks]

John,

I am curious to hear your view of the comparative merits of Crooked Stick v. Wolf Run. I have never seen it, but I think Jack Leer founded Wolf Run because he wanted a golf club more like Crooked Stick was in its earlier days.

Ken

[jeffwarne]

Wow,
Does anyone really walk a golf course with a yardage book and NOT play it?
That's incredible dedication and passion for architecture, or too much free time.... or both.

I don't even use a yardage book when I am playing-I can't figure out all those squiggly and curved lines and end up with a headache.

For me, golf courses are there to be played, but hats off to those who are that passionate.

[Jeff Doerr]

Jeff,

I think some of the best times to really view a course is to walk it at one of the lesser USGA or regional events. Usually admission is free and access to various parts of the couse is fairly open. I've been thinking of going to the Mid-Am at Bandon, even though I've played there quite a few times.

Cheers, Jeff

[RSLivingston_III]

If I really want to see a course while playing it, I want to do it as a single behind a four ball. If it is a significant course I want to go around with a yardage book and have a good looksee before playing.
When playing with others I rarely have time to look at everything I want to see on each hole.

[Chris Kane]

I commented to Kelly Blake Moran a few weeks ago that walking the Old Course for four hours might give one a better understanding than playing it once.

[wsmorrison]

I believe Kelly is right.  With TOC closed on Sunday, I would rather spend the whole day walking and studying the course than playing elsewhere.  

Likewise, if you have only one day to spend at Pine Valley and you primarily want to study and analyze the course, it would be far better spent studying the course during the Crump Cup final Sunday.  The public is allowed in and the club is kind enough to let the guests walk the course at their leisure as long as they mind the golfers.  An experienced golfer can learn quite a bit more studying the golf course in such a deliberate fashion not encumbered by play and pace of play considerations.  It is the absolutely best way to study a course of such complexity.

Would nearly everyone rather play TOC or PV than study it?  Of course.  But that doesn't mean it is not more beneficial to study the golf courses without playing them for a better insight into the designs.

These days, especially when with that notable walking wounded ex-golfer, Tom Paul, I walk and study courses new to me about as often as playing them. I find I do see more when that's all I'm doing.  If I keep playing as I did yesterday, I think I'll spend a lot more time looking at courses  

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

I can appreciate your comments.

Here's my take ...

When you walk only you receive sensory feedback on how things actually "look". No doubt that's a big time plus when compared to photos or second / third hand accounts. Given your trained eye you are likely to take in certain aspects that others may not.

Yet, the "look" needs to be counterbalanced with a much more upclose and personal how it actually "plays" IMHO. No doubt if one were to watch the Masters you can visualize the experiences of the world's best as they try to handle a course that has been changed dramatically from the time I first viewed it as a student at the University of Sout Carolina in the mid-70's.

The playing dimension is where the proverbial rubber meets the road for me.

I have find from my efforts in reviewing courses that there can be a marked differences between how a course "looks" from just walking the grounds to the actual execution of particular shots. In sum -- does the "look" dovetail with what actually takes place when making shots when playing. Sometimes it happens -- sometimes you get a course that "looks" grand but is more surface than depth.

The key thing to keep in mind when playing is to envision how the course plays for different game levels. I try to play many courses with a good friend of mine who is a bus driver and sports a 20 handicap. His game is entirely different than mine and during our post-round 19th hole banter we discuss the nature of the course and try to provide a balanced assessment that takes in the widest array of players.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

That's precisely the part I don't understand.

If I play the course, I am judging how it plays for me.  I've got to interpolate what it would play like for everybody else, and I do believe that's an important part of the equation ... that I am not just supposed to vote on what a course plays like for me.

So if a lot of what I'm judging is NOT the immediacy of my own play, then what difference does it make whether I'm playing or not?  Even if, say, I judged incorrectly and my own 4-iron held a green more easily than I thought, there are still a lot of players for whom it would not hold; there are days when the shot would play downwind and it might not hold; etc.

You seem to imply that I am judging mostly the esthetics of a course when I'm walking around, instead of the shot values as well.  I can assure you that's not the case.  I have to judge shot values all the time in the dirt ... so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe I can judge them when looking at a course in playing shape, even if I don't have a club in my hand.

[Steve Okula]

The level of your game has a lot to do with it. My own golf game sucks to a spectacular degree.

 I learn nothing about a course by slicing drives out of bounds, or shanking pitches into the water, or taking three to get out of a shallow bunker.

The only way I can judge a course is not to play it.

I do learn from watching competent players attack a course. Best is to watch people with different abilities, from touring pro to 20 handicap, so a Pro-Am is ideal.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Read what I said at the outset -- I said "your eyes" will likely be able to take in certain aspects that others cannot. I don't doubt your professional expertise in identifying such shot values / situations -- you do it for a living and have been quite successful.

Got it.

However ...

The vast number of raters who simply walk and not play will usually judge the "look" aspects purely from a cosmetic point of view. I have seen this happen plenty of times and it's been confirmed often from what these same people post here on GCA. When I've gone to these "great" courses and actually played them with a mix bag of players I can see the "look" elements they indeed mentioned, but I can see where they missed the boat on how the layout actually plays.

One other thing -- I try to assess courses beyond how it fits my game. That's a tiresome argument that rings hollow. If you think people like me are only interested in how a course plays for my game then you don't know me as well as you think because my range of courses spans a much broader spectrum than those who see quality golf through a narrow set of circumstances here on GCA.

Tom, I try to envision the different elements you just mentioned in your last post. For example, wind direction and the nature of topography and what playing options / angles are provided. I also ask questions of the staff because these people can be most helpful. No doubt if one has a informed caddie you can add a good bit more info to the total picture. I don't just play in some sort of tunnel and then ipso facto spit out an assessment of any course.

The fact finding process for me is a bit more entailed than you think -- but playing is certainly no different than having a meal which is presented in grand fashion in a sumptious setting -- you still need to sample the food to see if it meets the ultimate taste test.

Clearly, multiple rounds can add an even greater understanding because you find out if the original thinking still holds or needs to be modified.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Certainly there is something to be said in walking the course and envisioning shots.  Some people are better at that than others.  But let's take a hole as an example.  Say number eight at Pine Valley.  Walking the hole cannot produce the fear that playing it does.  Off the tee the drive looks benign enough.  Even from the fairway, without a club in hand the second shot looks like the player needs to be precise.  With a club in hand the shot looks a little different.  Secondly I don't think you can tell which of the two greens at 8 is more strategic by looking at the hole.  Hitting shots into them makes a difference.

The same may hold true for Pinehust #2.  Looking at those greens is pretty different from hitting  shots into ithem or trying to chip/pitch/putt from the fringe.

The best of all possible worlds woud be to both walk and play.

[Tony Ristola]

Tommy,

I made a couple trips to Pinehurst #2 and walked the course both times. The value of walking is you can watch how the ball reacts when it hits the grounds. You can sit in one area and watch shot after shot if you please. You can spend more time shecking out the intersting stuff. A different kind of feedback but valuable.

I think someone who plays well could identify and appreciate the tough shots, even the subtle ones, and understand how much stress it would put on the sphincter.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy,

I made a couple trips to Pinehurst #2 and walked the course both times. The value of walking is you can watch how the ball reacts when it hits the grounds. You can sit in one area and watch shot after shot if you please. You can spend more time shecking out the intersting stuff. A different kind of feedback but valuable.

Good point.  Watching someone play a course is not too much different from playing it yourself.  It certainly beats just walking the course without seeing shots hit.

I think someone who plays well could identify and appreciate the tough shots, even the subtle ones, and understand how much stress it would put on the sphincter.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

I think your post #18 is a very good and important one. It's relevent not just in that you're an architect but that you are probably just as likely to judge a course through your own game while playing it as anyone else.

Matt Ward:

Playing a course is obviously the most complete thing to do but learning how to analyze a course and architecture by just looking at it is too. Your analogy of tasting a sumptious meal to playing a golf course is not a very good one, frankly. It's a lot easier to determine aspects of the architecture of a golf course by looking at it than it is a sumptuous meal by just looking at it. Nobody has ever needed to try to taste or eat a golf course or its architecture.