A Philosophy of the Game and GCA

[Adam Clayman]

Tom is just to damn polite to make distinctions between the varying qualities, of one course to another, let alone speak ill of experiences.

You have likely heard of the inherent bias that the rank and file gca.com geek is often accused of having. Well, this question of yours is the final exam for enlightenment.

I have to go but now....



 

[TEPaul]

"Tom - from your last post I get the impression that the "competitive game-sporting experience" divide that I'm asking about might have more to do with the maintenance of a course rather than its design, i.e. whether playing alone or in competition, the firm and fast conditions demanded a greater participation in and focus on 'nature'. Yes? Maybe?"

Peter:

In my opinion, there is no question about it---none!

This website appears to be big into the philosophy and playability of firm and fast. But in the end that's just a term.

What does it really mean in play, in satisfaction and in interest to the golfer, whether alone or against other golfers? That's one thing I believe (on a whole lot of reflection over the last 5-6 years) I'm discovering. It's not just to have it or not, that's for sure---it's to have it (F&F) to what DEGREE and on what topographical conditions (in a general sense)?

In other words, is a golf ball that bounces and rolls out fifty yards on a fairway five time more satisfying than one that rolls out ten yards or is something like that even important to ask?

Probably yes and no but I would say the former is a whole lot more fun and interesting and engaging for the golfer than the latter whether it's five times more or twice as much.

Then what about topography with varying degrees of firm and fast? Is it twice as fascinating to watch a ball scoot sideways on a golf course than to watch it scoot straight down a hill?

Is this even important to ask? Probably not but I don't see why it shouldn't at least occur to us and perhaps be appreciated in some comparative sense. After-all these are the kinds of canvases that golf course architects can create and do create. These are questions and thoughts that are very much at their disposal to affect in various ways whether they make them or use what they find.

Of course maintenance is central and key, in my opinion.

My words "Maintenance Meld" were very carefully chosen. I thought I needed words and a term that showed that it was particular maintenance practices that MELD into architecture to make it play as good as it can and not necessarily look as good as it can in the sense of lush green and super immaculate that generally does not allow a golf ball to bounce and rollout in varying distances and directions.

Firm and fast is the ground game of golf---it's the bounce and rollout of the ball and in my book the more the better.

Is the ground game in an historic or general sense half the game of golf (as opposed to the aerial game)?

Frankly, at this point, I would say definitely it is, maybe it's even more in a visceral sense. I think that is for us, particularly in America now, to begin to determine again. I think there's a ton of potential in this for golfers and for a potential renewed interest in golf.

Another question, and a huge one is how does firm and fast playability affect the sensibilities of golfers playing alone vs golfers competing against other golfers?

The air versus the ground as they relate to a golf ball struck? These things are probably just so fundamental and basic that we hardly think much about them anymore.

I love aerial shots---they're fascinating---they require skill and practice and in a certain sense the air is nature too. But  the ground and its eternally varying configurations are more fascinating, so much more fascinating to me anyway.

One can see the ground and all its configurations and ramifications. How important is that compared to the air with aerial shots? The air is the same to me all over the world and I don't know about you but I just can't actually see the air even though I do love to try to sense the unseen wind.  



Can you even imagine what a huge and potentially controversial subject it would be to explore the things the ground can do to golf balls when players are competing against one another vs playing alone? It gets directly into "fairness" and "unfairness" and the apparent necessity to isolate one golfer's skill against another's simply to compare two human competitors in the currency of strokes.

That necessity virtually does not exist when one is playing golf alone against that other sometimes overlooked competitor----Nature herself----eg the golf course.

Or does it?

Perhaps over time golf has developed even a third competitor for our interest or maybe to our detriment even when we play golf alone.

Most call it par.

I love playing golf alone and I obviously really love the experiences of a Mallow. I said above I've never been so transfixed to see a golf ball bound around a golf course like that. It so much made me engage with the ground, the golf course---Nature.

What I didn't say was as good as that was and it was super great, never far from my mind was that thing we call Par.

In a sense I'm almost sorry to admit that now.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, I don't think you should feel the slightest bit bad for thinking about par.

It is afterall inherent in the rules of golf to play the hole in fewest strokes possible.

Par, the number, helps determine if you won, lost or halved the battle over the land and air, even by yourself.(BTW, AIR IS NOT THE SAME EVERYWHERE)

I'll never forget the first time I played with one of our resident architects (on this site) he had such a pre-determined notion of the gca.com geek that when he saw that I kept my score, he seemed surprised and commented, in a pokingly fun way, how I was fixated on a card pencil mentality. The reality was that since I carry a handicap card, I turn in all my scores from all my rounds. Call me crazy, but thats all I cared about, not the importance of the resulting number.

[JESII]

Adam,

That cuts more to language I can understand...so is the GCA.com geek concerned with his score or not...just trying to see where I fall.

I think I've made it very clear that I feel attempting to score well is the key to understanding and appreciating golf course architecture...

[Adam Clayman]

Concerned is not the proper wording. It's human nature to try their best everytime out.

I go so far as to try and not think about score until the round is over. That's why I write them down, so I don't have to think about it.

As far as evals on gca, my score, should have no bearing.

[JESII]

Adam,


You might have read me wrong...when I say "I think I've made it very clear that I feel attempting to score well is the key to understanding and appreciating golf course architecture..."[/i]  

My point is that if you stand on the tee and simply do not care enough about your eventual score on the hole, how can you be trusted to engage your mind to make a full assesment of the hole and therefore determine its quality...

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, I understood that and I think it's human nature to try to their best, as I said. Not caring (or thinking) about the eventual score does not imply a lackluster approach to each and every shot, or inhibit someone from absorbing the golf courses information and feel.

[JESII]

Adam,

If you are telling me you stand on each tee and try to figure out how best to get the ball in the hole we're on the exact same page. It forces you to analyze all aspects of the architecture to determine which will effect you on the way to the hole...then figure out how to deal with them...then learn if you made the right choice and try it all again next time...

But you cannot put that person in the camp of 'not caring what they shoot'. There is a difference (to me) between caring what you shoot, and letting what you shoot effect you in any way beyond just that...your golf score on that day.

I think we're on the same page, other than the fact that I can remember what I made on each hole after the round...how's the song go? Rocky Mountain High...

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, How else do you remember those scores other than by thinking about them throughout the round?

When I was living in the kingdom, playing everyday I could remember every hole's scores because I was intimatly familiar with the courses. Now that I seem to be a one hit wonder kid, traveling around playing places I likely won't get back to again, and have to turn in my evaluation of the layout, I'm able to look around, take in the entire golf course without the distraction of score.

I'm not in your league as far as ability goes, but on the few times I have been under par, the mere thought of it, seemd to alter my thinking and the blow up was inevitable. By not thinking about score I can minimize the possibility of that occurance, should it ever happen again.

[JESII]

Adam,


Are you honestly telling me that when you're on the fourth hole you forget that you birdied 1 and 2? Don't you just now when you're coming down the stretch if you've got a good one going or not? If you are able to separate that stuff in your mind, good for you...that's a talent with some serious retail value for the guys on TV...


I guess the other thing is that I play almost all of my non-competitive golf at HVCC where I've played a thousand rounds and can easily remember later what I made on each hole...when I go somewhere new I cannot always do that...

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom, Adam, JES - thanks, I enjoyed reading your more personal thoughts/experiences. Here's mine:

While I've played a number of sports competitively in the past (and understand the pleasure of that), I only took up golf in my mid-30s, about 7 years ago, and have played a very limited number of rounds since then. And for whatever reason, my #1 concern with golf right from the start was not 'competing' or even 'scoring' but trying to achieve an understanding and growing mastery of the golf swing.

I read about it, think about it, and take great pleasure in it.  (What I don't take pleasure in is a shot "that'll play", i.e. a shot that's badly planned and badly struck but that somehow finds the fairway.) So, I think I understand a little of Leach's attitude about competing against oneself and against nature (including the 'nature' of the game) more than against an opponent, or even against "par".

BUT: I DO keep score, every time, and carefully, and I DO 'judge' my progress by my scores, and I DO care about getting the ball in the cup. What I read in Leach was not an either-or situation, but a question about what the golfer's PRIMARY concern will be.  My primary concern has always been a desire to execute and experience a 'proper' golf shot, and to develop a sound, repeatable (and even pretty) swing. I racked up a lot of really high scores early on, when I could've scored better by simply accepting my basic shape shot (a fade) and 'playing with it'. But I wasn't AS concerned about my scores as I was about challenging myself to get better...and perhaps not co-incidentally, what THIS has meant is that I've gotten much better much faster than either my friends or I could've imagined.

Ironic? No. I think this 'irony' is repeated every day, in all walks of life; something like "put a good golf swing first and all these other good things will be added unto you".  
And to come full circle on this, it is only recently -- after having seen my game improve through a 'non-competing' attitude -- that I am now starting to be able to interface with the architecture in the way the designer intended, and to really begin to appreciate it in a full new way.

That's why I asked if there was a kind of design (and now I'm thinking 'maintenance' too) that encourages a PRIMARY concern with the "sporting experience" of the player competing against himself and against ‘nature’ more than against another player or par.  

I hope I haven't beat a dead horse, again.

Peter