How does a high handicap golfer play? How should he play? Should anyone care?

[George Pazin]

This has certainly been a hot button issue for yours truly on this site.

I've read so many posters - whom I know to be very good golfers - share thoughts on how hh'ers play the game. The general consensus would appear to be simply summarized as "Play the right tees", which I couldn't disagree with more.

What a very wise poster said last week (or maybe the week before, in the PV vs. Shinney thread) about Tom Paul rings true, so true I'll actually dig it up and quote him:

I can validate both of Tom's points there...1) he was extremely short relative to his peer great amateur players...2) and on the other side, he was too damn good from there on into the hole to have even the slightest clue what a 15 handicapper must be thinking when they are trying to get onto the 8th green at Pine Valley...

Also, by the same poster from another thread:

I say this with the caveat that, players can only really judge a golf course through their own play. I don't care if I've played 50 rounds with a 15 handicapper, I cannot tell you how he feels when he's standing on the tee trying to figure out the best way to make a par or bogey...

Waaaaaaaaay too often (to use a different poster's style ), folks seem to think the only real difference between ace golfers and those of us who struggle is length off the tee. Well, I'm here to tell you that's way down on the list of differences.

The biggest single difference, imho, is quality of misses, and I believe this is also the biggest area of misunderstanding of hh'ers.

So if the guy I quoted above feels he can't judge how a hh'er plays, why does anyone else?

Put another way, do you really remember how you played the game when you were starting out, or is your memory perhaps colored? My money's on the latter.

What are the implications for architecture?

How should one accomodate the hh'er?

Can you do this while still probably sufficient challenge for the better golfer?

Should any architect even care about the hh'er? (I mean this seriously - I'm starting to wonder if maybe architects should just ignore those of us who don't have the ability to play at least moderately capably. Maybe there really isn't room for the casual golfer on "better" courses. Or maybe there is?)

Does this playability have implications for the better golfer as well?

Well, that's a lot of babble to digest for now - I'll share more later, if anyone cares to hear it.

[Tom Huckaby]

That's a lot of questions, George.

But let's start with the most basic.  You as a high handicapper have often told us lower handicappers we have no clue how you play, your strengths and weaknesses, motivations, etc.  Jamie Slonis did state he has no clue how a 15 would play a certain hole.  Well, Jamie Slonis probably has been a scratch for decades, and also hasn't hit a truly 15 handicap worthy shot in longer.  It stands to reason he'd make that statement.

But not all of us lower handicaps are Jamie Slonis.

I hit horrid shots all the time.  I mean shots that would make an 18 handicap cringe.  It's the nature of having zero time to practice.  Oh sure, also most of my shots an 18 would kill for - but that's not the point.  You want to say us lower handicappers have no clue about how you play, and at least for some of us, it's just not true.  We're more like you than you know.

And yes, we all did start off somewhere.  For some of us the memories are better than others, and perhaps they are colored.  But when you add that to the present-day awful shots, well... It seems to me not much of a stretch to believe that we can understand how higher handicappers play.

Let's battle this before we move on to your other questions... which to me have obvious answers, given there are WAY WAY WAY more of you then there are of me.... but let's try to settle this first.

TH

[George Pazin]

You want to say us lower handicappers have no clue about how you play, and at least for some of us, it's just not true.  We're more like you than you know.

I'm certainly willing to say this may be true.

But I stand by how folks tend to incorrectly extrapolate thoughts on how hh'ers actually play, and should play.

Does the better golfer simply do a better job of dismissing these mishits and not holding it against the course?

P.S. Jamie didn't post those things.

[Tom Huckaby]

OK, so I tend to get past posters confused.  My recollection was it was one of the truly GREAT players.  Sully?  TEP?  Either way, my comments stand.

And in terms of evaluating a course, I wouldn't say the better golfer does ANYTHING better - that's a wholly different skill. The bottom line is this:  SOME people tend to incorrectly extrapolate thoughts on how hh'ers actually play, and should play - but not EVERYONE.  Many can understand both sides.

TH

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
Was it Bob Toski who said that a player with a 5 handicap is closer to a 15 than he is to a 2?

I think the vast majority of courses are playable for anyone, anyone that is who has enough ability to maintain a handicap, whatever that handicap may be.
You don't necessarily need to get 'better' to play most courses you just need to get more familiar with them to start posting scores in a range you can live with. That might be an advantage that the low guy has, his game has more elements in it that allow him to deal with what's in front of him more readily than the higher guy, and thereby start posting acceptable scores sooner than the higher handicapper.

I don't know who you have in mind when you talk about the high handicap player, but I have a woman here who never hits it more than 100/120 yards, never hits it higher than 20' or so, doesn't necessarily have a firm idea of where the fairway is, plays other courses that I know aren't pushovers but are ones she's familiar with, and still scores her usual 50 to 65 for nine holes. Any course she's on is no different for her than it is for me or for you, she's just playing from a different place than us, most of the time, that is.  

 

[Mark_F]

George,

I think variety is the key to testing all handicaps.

Most low handicaps of my experience are generally long, yes, but mostly they just tend to do everything quite well.

As you noted,higher handicappers can come in all permutations.

I tend to think my home course is a pretty good model for what you surmise.  

It only has two par fives,plenty of width in the fairways - although one hole is quite narrow and a vary tough driving proposition - and a good mixture of small to medium greens, with a length of 6600 yards.

On many, if not most, of these greens, the pin is never comletely seen,which tends to unsettle better players.

Higher handicappers of varying ability can tend to whiff it around, but there are several holes which require strong driving,and several which demand pinpoint iron shots.

There is plenty of short grass around the greens, and since the green sites are so varied, you do need a variety of shots to score well, but could probably make do on a number of holes with a putter.

It differs in its ability to test low handicappers, from a Royal Melbourne,say, because it looks very simple, but I think it is a more difficult driving course.

[Craig Sweet]

I play every week with a couple of high handicappers and from my observation they are so focused on hitting the shot, and thinking about the last shot, and remembering to do this and do that during their swing, that MOST architectural features and certainly any sense of strategy, does not register with them...it is only when they have hit a couple of good shots in a row that they relax and look around them and begin to see the field they are playing upon.

[Kalen Braley]

I think I have a fairly relevant point of view on this, although I'll likely be summarily dismissed.

I've been between a 12-15 handicapper for several years now so while I don't know if I'm a HH'er, I'm not too far away, especially with the way I've been playing this year.

For me, I can make plenty of pars and have shot several 9s where I was 1 to 2 over par.  But the problem is I can't seem to put these back to back and will often shoot 10-12 over on the other 9.  But its usually not from a steady dose of double bogeys and bogeys its from those 2-3 holes where I make a triple or even quad.  You hit 1 shot OB, now your pressing to save double bogey, and next thing you know you got a snowman.  Its very very easy to do.  But to get to the point, I think it very much is a mental thing where when I'm going good, its hard not to think..."damn when is that quad bogey" hole coming.

So in a way I guess its a fatalistic mindset.  However on the other hand when I keep doing this over and over and over again, its hard to think positive and truly beleive those 203 bad holes won't come.  I'm guessing low cappers don't have to fight off these demons as much and can often avoid the snowmen by salvaging bogeys in these situations.  But having confidence is a huge issue in my mind that low cappers have which HH'ers don't especially when its an ass-puckering shot/hole to be played.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I'm guessing low cappers don't have to fight off these demons as much and can often avoid the snowmen by salvaging bogeys in these situations.  But having confidence is a huge issue in my mind that low cappers have which HH'ers don't especially when its an ass-puckering shot/hole to be played.

Is hicap loss of confidence more likely on "a*s-puckering shot/hole" when playing against lowcap who is "shot-puckering a*s/hole"?

[Peter Pallotta]

George
I'd say that the best an architect could do for the high handicapper is to give him a fighting chance. I don't think the architect can do more than that, or that he should even try to.

Much like a big part of golf course architecture is about the good execution of ideas (not just the ideas themselves), so too is the playing of golf about executing good shots (not just strategizing about those shots).

Yes, the architect can give the high handicapper options e.g. a recovery option after a very poor tee shot, one that allows him to lay up short of the green and still get his bogey (or even his par); but he can't play that lay-up shot for him, nor can he do much -- design-wise -- to mitigate the fact that the high-handicapper's lay-up shot will likely be just as lousy as his tee-shot.

Or so it seems to me. I can't imagine, and I'm not sure I want to imagine, what a course designed to allow for every "contingency" would look like. 

A fighting chance is all I'd ask for.

Peter     

[Kalen Braley]

You make a good point Mark...

The difference is one who is trying to scratch a par out of the hole in the low capper...

And the HH'er who is just trying to get the ball in play and avoid losing a handful of balls on the hole and taking a * or Pickup on the hole.

[Kalen Braley]

George
I'd say that the best an architect could do for the high handicapper is to give him a fighting chance. I don't think the architect can do more than that, or that he should even try to.

Much like a big part of golf course architecture is about the good execution of ideas (not just the ideas themselves), so too is the playing of golf about executing good shots (not just strategizing about those shots).

Yes, the architect can give the high handicapper options e.g. a recovery option after a very poor tee shot, one that allows him to lay up short of the green and still get his bogie (or even his par); but he can't play that lay-up shot for him, nor can he do much -- design-wise -- to mitigate the fact that the high-handicapper's lay-up shot will likely be just as lousy as his tee-shot.

Or so it seems to me. I can't imagine, and I'm not sure I want to imagine, what a course designed to allow for every "contingency" would look like.  

A fighting chance is all I'd ask for.

Peter      

Peter,

Doesn't at least part of the genius of TOC lie in that for the most part it can accomadate pretty much every golfer??

[Tommy Williamsen]

I play with a friend who is a 15.  He can a does hit it anywhere.  I swear he could be a 12 if he played a little smarter: hit three wood off the tee, hit away from danger, lay up from 200 yards, etc.  He tells me that it would not be fun for him.  He wants to hit driver and go for the green when it is probably not prudent.  That's the fun for him, even more than score.  

I think HHers should play the way they have the most fun.

[TEPaul]

George:

First of all it's pretty hard to generalize about what a HHer is in a ball striking context.

But let's take the USGA theoretical "Bogey" golfer who falls into a differential of something like 17-22.

Golfers who fall into that actual differential come in so many different types as far as actually hitting a ball even that so-called "Bogey" golfer is almost impossible to categorize (and frankly this is one of the inherent weaknesses with the handicap system but what the hell else can they use or do?)

The USGA's rating system even has that so-called "bogey" golfer broken down into someone who hits a tee ball about 200 yards and is only capable of reaching something like a 385 yard hole in two.

Why is it then that I've known so many 17-22 handicappers who can hit a ball 250 or more yards etc?

In my opinion, a really good slice of handicap golfers maintain their high handicap simply because they just don't know how to think well on a golf course to avoid wasting shots needlessly.

They try stuff that I wouldn't try as a scratch player. Why do they do that? Simply because they either do not know or do not appreciate the naunces of course management like I do. With many of these people if they hit their ideal golf shot compared to my ideal golf shot there wouldn't even be any difference. In some cases they may be longer than me, sometimes a whole lot longer.

In my opinion, without even improving the quality of their ball striking they could significantly cut down on their handicaps by learning how to think better on a golf course with the types of shots they try. I see those HHers trying shots I'd never try and I have a handicap that's twenty shots less than them. What does that right there tell you?

I don't see why golf professionals don't try to teach as much on basic course management as they do in actual swing mechanics.

If they did that they'd make better golfers without even improving the quality of their actual ball striking.

Of course, if you want to become a low handicapper or a scratch player at some point you're going to have to practice enough to get your ball striking really consistent.

But to go the last mile to get your handicap down to scratch or whatever you just have to learn how to think smart or think realistic in course management. If you don't ever learn to do that you'll never really know how to stop wasting shots needlessly.

And then you throw all the nuances of risk management in an architectural context into all this it can get into a pretty good education.

Some really good players don't know that much about golf course architecture and some just don't care about it much. I used to be that way too.

But there's one thing that almost all good players (scratch or whatever) do know intuitively and that is the realities of risk management on a golf course. If they never did know that I doubt they'd ever experience being a scratch golfer.

In my opinion, the same thing is true in almost all cases right on up the handicap latter. I firmly believe I could teach a huge slice of HHers how to just about cut their handicaps in half by thinking better.

I think the reason I can say that is I believe I happen to be a low handicapper who really does know and understand how a HHer thinks. The reason I say that is, on reflection, I guess, I was truly something of an anomalie at the level I played at. I was a remarkably short player (particularly off the tee) who was probably more conservative than almost anyone else i played against at my level.

Think what that really means in the context of this type of subject.

[Peter Pallotta]

Kalen - well, that's getting to the heart of it, I think. From what I've read, TOC can "accomodate" most levels of play in that the high-handicapper will not necessarily blow his brains out playing it, and might even play to his handicap (if the wind is down). But can even TOC mitigate for the fact that the high-handicapper's "safe" lay-up recovery shot won't likely end up where it's safe, or where he wanted it? Can it "allow for" the fact that the high-handicapper will often find himself on the wrong side of a green-side bunker, or worse, in it? I don't know how it could.

I guess what I'm saying is that defining "playable" in terms of giving the high-handicapper a fighting-chance to play to his handicap while having fun (and options) is a reasonable definition. I'd even say that the ideal course for the high-handicapper would also allow for the possibility of that golfer, on a rare and magical day, shooting his best score ever.

But I just don't see how you can stretch the definition of "playability" much further than that and still have it retain any meaning; or how and why a designer would even go about trying to create a course with such playability.

Peter        

[Doug Ralston]

Now I am a high handicap golfer, though I have no official handicap at all. A realistic score for me ranges from high 80's to over 100, depending on the day. The reason for the range? I have not a clue!

Some days I just hit the ball more consistently than other days. *shrug* I hit occasional great shots. And, perhaps because they are so 'ocassional', they are a huge adrenilin rush!

I thinks that is a part of the attraction for the high handi, the knowledge that the sensation WILL come.

As for 'course management', I usually DO have some strategy I am trying, though my consistent slice and inconsistent solid strikes usually defeat the plans I concieve.

A part of my 'problem', if it is one, is that I really do not care enough to work hard toward a better game.

I LOVE golf! I LOVE golf courses even more. The two, while being not mutually exclusive, are not entirely the same thing either. When I see a great course all sorts of concepts for play occur to me. I can't DO it, but I can imagine it.

My score has never been more than the smallest part of my enjoyment of this game. The beauty, the GCA appreciation, the comraderie, the condition of course and weather ....... all these play a larger part in the 'experience' than my score.

I cannot speak for other high handicaps. This is just about what I take away from my hobby.

Doug

[TEPaul]

Doug:

Interesting post there.

On another thread a while ago as was referenced in the first post of this thread JESII said he thought I probably had no real idea what goes through the mind of a 15 handicapper.

Well, I do think I know what goes through the mind of a 15 handicapper but I do admit I don't know how any golfer cannot want to really improve some way, some how.

I just can't imagine not wanting to do that if you're really into things golf. That is just beyond my comprehension but maybe that's just me. My Dad was a very fine player and even though I didn't like golf or play it until I was about 35 I guess I at least got that drive to get as good as I could when I did start playing through that osmosis.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I am convinced that high handicappers who "love golf" (as opposed to "casual golfers" who wouldn't know or care if they were playing Pine Valley or Radnor Valley), thouroughly enjoy great, difficult (maybe even too difficult for them) courses.  I don't think there is a 15 on this website who wouldn't kill to play the great courses, even though most of those courses are well beyong their capabilities.  A 15 might shoot 110 at Pine Valley, but he will come away with the golf experience of his life.
   So, there is no reason for an architect to "dumb down" a course for the benefit of the masses.  The masses who care know when they're being patronized.  Those who don't care don't matter.  Otherwise, great courses will stop being built.

[Patrick Kiser]

Interesting topic George.

I think so far for me it's been width and the ability to find your ball and recover as keys for the HHper.  Even if it means running up a score.  I clearly remember just a few years ago when I first started being in constant trouble, but if I found the ball ... it gave me hope.  As for how to make it interesting for the LHper, I think it means making it a difficult challenge around and on the greens.  And as I've improved ... I'm finding this to be the case.  More and more about my short game.  Especially the putting.

But then this is exactly what the classic gurus like Mackenzie insisted on.  Nothing new.

Doug's response isn't far off from how I like to approach this game, although I've felt for some time the game is naturally more appreciated if you're a better player.  Does better mean bomb and gauge?  No.  Better means having more shots in the bag and making effective smart use of those.  More ways to work the ball around the course and knowing when they make sense and when they don't.  The more a course can push those the better.  That comes through lessons, learning on your own, playing experience, and observing better players.  Practice can help refine this obviously.  Also letting go of the scorecard can make a big difference.  Last but not least, controlling the blow up holes.

But what if you don't have the time, inclination, or $$$ to commit to this?  Is it then fair to expect the course itself to help overcome this hurdle?  Or for that matter expect a new set of clubs to take care of the player shortcomings?  In my opinion no.  As for the course itself, it should not as a consequence make the experience any worse for the high handicapper.  The gap between the reward for a good shot vs. a poor shot should not be too great.

... and the HHper has to be comfortable in staying a HHper.

[Adam Clayman]

"What are the implications for architecture?

How should one accomodate the hh'er?

Can you do this while still probably sufficient challenge for the better golfer?"

George, I'm not sure the architecture has to accomodate. But, It should identify the level of competency, for the  semi-bogie golfer, on each and every shot on any particular day.

 Super high handicappers who insist on swinging out of their shoes, and fail to ever break 90, should not be accomodated.

 Little old ladies who can belt it 125 yards (75+ in the air) should.





 

[Rich Goodale]

This thread has a real--and I mean REAL--sense of deja vu to me.  I'm sure I've "seen" Tom Paul's post with the tyop "anomalie" before, and I know that this is not the first time that a poster has confused George Pazin with Gib Papazian!

I think the basic questions have been answered, to wit:

1.  "High" handicappers come in all guises and sizes, from the gorilla who can't think his way out of a paper bag to the athletically challenged who couldn't ever break 100 if he or she couldn't think strategically.

2.  The "high" handicapper should play how he or she wants to, in light of his or her objectives and capabilities.  Except for the VERY rare example of the mature (i.e. over 25) player who is actually capable of improving from say a 15 to a 5, it's a big world out there (Paul) and let a thousand flowers bloom (Mao).

3.  Owners, developers and architects should care given that the "high" handicap player is the core market for virtually any golf course in the world--even, maybe even especially-- for the finest and most strategically challenging of them.  If the Old Course or Pebble Beach or Dornoch limited play to only those who could break 90 under tournament conditions, they would be virtually empty.  If Pine Valley were to do the same, it would be so obscure that it would never show up on "top-100" lists, except as a Brigadoon-like "hidden gem."

Then, as one of my favorite professors used to say, "Therefore, Mr. GCA.com/Dork, what?"  Well, working in reverse:

3.  Unless you are a masochist or sadist, don't build courses without ample escape hatches.  The clueless gorillas will always try to emulate the Tiger, and even enjoy it when they inevitably fail, but a big part of your market wants to be challenged rather than humiliated.  It's neither expensive nor rocket science to build landing areas at 100-200 yard intervals, even if (particularly if?) they are at oblique angles to the seemingly direct line to the hole.  At the green ends too, allow a bail out option from every angle.  Only the rabbits will take the option, but don't deny it of them.

2.  What rings your bell?  Would you rather be sitting in the clubhouse collecting the money or having the better story?  Would you prefer to be respected because you nutted a 3-wood to 20 feet on the 13th (on the way to a dodgy "93") or because you broke your handicap playing Spyglass, by keeping the "X's" off your card?  Do you get your jollies from just being there or do you really want to improve your game?  The pro quoted below who said that it is harder to get from 15 to 5 than 5 to 2 is spot on.  Any reasonably athletic golfer can get to 8 if they practice a bit.  Getting to 5 only requries a bit of thinking and a bit of real competition.  Getting to 2, however, (and I'm speculating here) requires serious commitment.

1.  Only he or she really knows.......

[Tim Pitner]

I certainly believe that architects should care--higher handicaps are the vast majority of the market and anyone with a handicap higher than, say 3 or 4, knows something about erratic play.  

My observations as a 9-10 handicap and someone who plays with a lot of diverse players are:  the main issue isn't length, it's consistency of ball-striking--many players have little control over where the ball is going to go and it doesn't matter whether it's with a driver or an 8 iron; higher handicappers don't play well from bunkers or out of rough; and many players are psyched out by severe hazards like forced carries, water and bunkers.  

Many of the features that make a course playable for higher handicappers are ones that make for good, strategic golf for any player:  wide fairways so you can play an errant drive but the out-of-position player is punished by a bad angle or issue at the green site; little water; using short grass more than sand bunkers and long rough as hazards, etc.  Maybe I've been brainwashed by this site, but there is a lot right with this sort of recipe.  Generally, courses which challenge low handicappers but which don't cause a higher handicapper to lose a dozen balls and shoot 110, are the finest courses.  

[Willie_Dow]

Too few golf courses have adequate practice areas.  Areas where a player can work on his bad shot game to develop a confident management of play.

Especially, short game management.  Flop shots.  Bump and run shots.  Shots out of thick rough.  Various type of bunkers, shallow and deep to various slope of greens.

These areas should be away from the range where there is more conversation than concentration.

[James Bennett]

Too few golf courses have adequate practice areas.  Areas where a player can work on his bad shot game to develop a confident management of play.

Especially, short game management.  Flop shots.  Bump and run shots.  Shots out of thick rough.  Various type of bunkers, shallow and deep to various slope of greens.

These areas should be away from the range where there is more conversation than concentration.

Short game - more conversation, less concentration.  That is very sage advice Willie.

James B

[Dan Boerger]

I don't think course designers -- for all but top end private courses  -- can or should avoid creating a course for the "higher" handicap player. That's where the critical mass is, to be sure.

One observation I've made over the years is that there seems to be countless ways to make bogey or become a bogey golfer. I've seen very intense and athletic players toil to get to an 18, I've seen the less athletic, happy-go-lucky types just get it around the green in regulation and then hope for the once-in-a-while up and down par, I've seen arrow straight and sprayers get there too. You get the idea.

[Tags:]

Tags: