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

[TEPaul]

Yes, Richard, this question and this subject has been on here before, just like most every other subject on here. The downside of a website like this one is there's only so much that one can discuss in this area of golf course architecture. That's probably why there are so many---eg too many---OT threads appearing on here these days.  

[Lloyd_Cole]

Slight aside - I think that many here have a cock eyed idea of what a good golfer is.
I think a 15 handicap is a good golfer. He pars 3 holes and takes only one over on the rest. If he knows the etiquette of the game he can keep up with scratch players.
I'm a 6 and I am a lot closer to a 15 than a 2.

[Phil McDade]

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.

I couldn't agree more...a very wise observation, esp. the last two paragraphs.

[Brad Swanson]

I ditto Phil's agreement, and often tell friends/relatives that are HHers down to bogey golfers that I could shave at least 3 strokes or more off of their average round without improving ball striking skills.  

How does this tie into architecture?  I think many people in this handicap range live off of the one or few shots they pull off per round that carried the pond, hit the island green, or the hole with the water that they parred, etc.  To that end, I think the course with more obvious dramatic challenges might be more entertaining for them, vs. the course that is more subtle, let gives less opportunities for the heroic memorable shot.

Cheers,
Brad    

[Mark Bourgeois]

For an interesting look at how golfers interface with architecture, check out the book "Smart Golf."  IMHO it's one of the best books I've read on golf.

The authors invented the concept of "personal par" and to illustrate it they show how golfers of varying abilities play holes on the Cog Hill Dubsdread course, versus how those golfers should play it.  The "post-mortem" discussions with golfers alone may justify the price of the book.  It certainly gives a window into the unfair advantage course designers have over higher handicap players, specifically players who lack course management skills.

George P., you need to play more links courses!

Mark

[BCrosby]

Interesting thread.

To paraphrase Tolstoy, all good golfers are good in the same way; all HHer's are HHer's in their own unique way.

Which makes it hard to design a golf course for HHer's.

Bob

[JohnV]

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.

When I started doing Course Ratings for the Oregon GA, one of the long time raters told me, "Bogey Golfers don't layup."

We would rarely if ever give a bogey golfer a layup by choice (vs forced ones where he couldn't carry a lake etc.)

[George Pazin]

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      

This wonderfully encapsulates my thoughts.

[Adam Clayman]

The go for it mentality is what temps us all. The problem hh's have with playing smart is they can screw that shot up just as easily. Reasons why so many go for it, is also a function of the predominate soft canvas' aerial assualt enviornment most have grown up with.

[Norbert P]

 Well said, Adam. There are few things worse than the chunked layup shot or foozled safe iron off the tee.  

"My name is Norbert, and I am a high handicapper."  NP

[George Pazin]

George:

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

 ...


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

Tom, you're comments to JESII on the PV/Shinney thread werew part of the inspiration for this thread.

What's particularly odd to me is that I kind of employ the strategy you advocated: play conservative, "sneak up" on the greens, avoiding the hazards.

Here's the main problem I face (I have no idea how common it is) as a high handicapper: a decent percentage of my shots - maybe 10-15% - are so bad even a novice would be embarrassed of them - tops, shanks, super chunked shots. I'm pretty certain this is mostly because I can only find the time to play about 5 or 6 times a year (at least, since I became a dad).

So when I employ a very conservative strategy, it frequently works out like this. an actual hole I played a couple years ago:

Short par 5 on my home muni, banked like a turn at Daytona. My drive goes relatively long, but a bit right of the fairway. Curiously, it's actually in an ideal area to approach the green, as at the top of the left turning bank, it flattens out - but not only am I not in the fairway, it turns out I'm in a bare spot with a giant clump of grass and dirt right behind my ball. I'm 200 yards out from the green. So I elect to try to layup, punching out a wedge. I top it, but it rolls about 60-70 yards forward out into the fairway. No problem, now I have a short iron into the green.

The ensuing shots:

Completely chunked 9 iron, followed by completely chunked wedge, then a po'd wedge short of the green, and next thing you know, I'm chipping onto the green and 2 putting for a giant number.

So playing conservative doesn't always yield good results, or even satisfactory results, for a hh'er like me.

Then I start thinking, I might as well NOT play conservative, as I'm just not consistent enough to even benefit from it.

Maybe I'm as frustrated by my lack of time to play or practice as anything the golf course offers....

[George Pazin]

The go for it mentality is what temps us all. The problem hh's have with playing smart is they can screw that shot up just as easily. Reasons why so many go for it, is also a function of the predominate soft canvas' aerial assualt enviornment most have grown up with.

I shoulda just quoted this instead of my previous post!

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

My experience with high handicappers and hearkening back to being one is that those who play more than you have a steeper learning curve, in that they come to realize there's little advantage gained by playing conservatively as they are just as likely to screw the conservative shot up as the risky one; so why not go for the risky shot?  Add to it that that's more fun, and there you have it.  There's good reason JV's course rating description is followed nation wide...I don't think I've EVER had the bogey do a layup by choice.

TH

[Brad Swanson]

The problem hh's have with playing smart is they can screw that shot up just as easily.

Adam,
   Thats an all or none type of thinking.  I think this subject covers a spectrum of shades.  Are you telling me that the HH shouldn't at least keep in mind the percentage play when planning their next shot where significant trouble lurks?  Maybe my definition of HHer encompasses a player better than most others are considering here.  if we're talking about people that can't get the ball airborne 50% of the time, then all bets are off, and this thread is pretty much pointless IMHO.

Cheers,
Brad

[Kalen Braley]

I would agree....

Nothing more frustrating that deciding to play it smart and safe but getting burned big time cause you grossly mishit a shot and it goes OB or something....all it takes is 3-4 shots like that per round and you ain't breaking 90.

Moral of the story...play easy courses with little to none hazards and OB..    

[Garland Bayley]

I would agree....

Nothing more frustrating that deciding to play it smart and safe but getting burned big time cause you grossly mishit a shot and it goes OB or something....all it takes is 3-4 shots like that per round and you ain't breaking 90.

Moral of the story...play easy courses with little to none hazards and OB..    

What does not having OB and hazards have to do with easy?

[Kalen Braley]

I would agree....

Nothing more frustrating that deciding to play it smart and safe but getting burned big time cause you grossly mishit a shot and it goes OB or something....all it takes is 3-4 shots like that per round and you ain't breaking 90.

Moral of the story...play easy courses with little to none hazards and OB..    

What does not having OB and hazards have to do with easy?

God gave you a brain...it would suit you well to use it from time to time..  

[Adam Clayman]

Brad, I agree with the many shades and variations of thought and abilities. My comment pertained to a point in almost everyones evolution, if they persue some form of structured golf competitions. It boils down to one of those mysteries, this sport provides the mind to tangle with.

[Garland Bayley]

I would agree....

Nothing more frustrating that deciding to play it smart and safe but getting burned big time cause you grossly mishit a shot and it goes OB or something....all it takes is 3-4 shots like that per round and you ain't breaking 90.

Moral of the story...play easy courses with little to none hazards and OB..    

What does not having OB and hazards have to do with easy?

God gave you a brain...it would suit you well to use it from time to time..  

I have a brain and I use it. Please explain your premise! The easiest courses I have played here locally are chocked full of OB and hazards.
It would seem there is not the correlation that you imply.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brad:

I mean this as no insult to HHs... as I say I am way closer to them than I am to a scratch... but I sincerely believe that those who consider percentages truly are few and far between, and of those who do, many come to realize over time that it just doesn't matter much, for reasons many have stated.  If you have no good idea where the ball's going anyway, why not just try for the fun hero shot?

But of course one size does not fit all.  This is a generalization, for sure.  I also know a few damn good golfers who rarely play smart, for other reasons...

[George Pazin]

Brad:

I mean this as no insult to HHs... as I say I am way closer to them than I am to a scratch... but I sincerely believe that those who consider percentages truly are few and far between, and of those who do, many come to realize over time that it just doesn't matter much, for reasons many have stated.  If you have no good idea where the ball's going anyway, why not just try for the fun hero shot?

But of course one size does not fit all.  This is a generalization, for sure.  I also know a few damn good golfers who rarely play smart, for other reasons...

This is mostly true.

There are obviously times even bozos like me play safe. If I have 200 yards to carry water off a downhill lie/stance, even I'm gonna layup there more often than not.

There just aren't that many black and white issues, and if there is room for error, the heroic shot usually wins out.

One interesting side effect of designing a course to accommodate the hh'er - give 'em a fighting chance, as Peter says - is that it makes the course more playable under more extreme conditions, such as heavy winds.

[Tom Huckaby]

I like the general thought of giving them a fighting chance... but... the trick is to do that and not make the margin of error SO huge so that it's too easy for better players.  And that's a tough trick... and also the reason why architects like Doak and C&C seem to be so successful.  I really believe that most if not all of their courses do give the HHers a fighting chance while still retaining darn interesting challenge for the low capper.

Of course other architects succeed at this also, but those just immediately spring to mind.

TH

[George Pazin]

A lurker emailed me these thoughts, I thought they were interesting. I'll add his name to them if he okays it:

brother george pazin,

you apparently have built up quite a bit of steam on this topic. may i
suggest you narrow your focus. stereotypically (high handicappers) grouping
all incidents cannot answer any of your very good questions. maybe i can
help.

1) can a blind person appreciate visual arts ? this in my opinion is the
question as relates to seeing architecture from the player's observations to
the course. there is a mutually exclusive relationship between good player,
bad player, appreciating architecture and ignoring architecture. [clue
beethoven was deaf when he created his best work]

2) how does one design a course to accomodate every level player ? i believe
it was pete dye who stated words to the effect "who the hell knows where the
high handicapper is going to be on the hole after his third shot ?" this
issue in my opinion is relating to a course wanting to be all things to all
players. it is unanswerable in the aggregate based on my experiences. [clue
high handicapper traveler purposely aims for a feared hazzard on a famous
course stating "i didn't come all this way to miss it"]

3) lies, damn lies and gurus (teaching pros) - statistically analysis shows
the high handicapper problem as [fill in the blank] (the analysis is used to
promote new products so the fill is either i)short off the tee if your
selling drivers ii)inaccurate approaches if you selling hybrids iii)three
putts if your selling putters etc etc etc [clue the magic bullet is always
the marketing answer but practice practice practice is the real answer]

4) the architects (living or dead) and the raters (living or dead) - the
living are ALL trying to sell something, the dead must let their work speak
for them. since i prefer the work to speak for itself and i dont know how to
use a ouiji board i suggest we kill all the living (architects and raters).
[clue erin hills is on 700 acres with the golf course on approx 200 acres,
whats with the other 500 acres ?]

5) who killed the ponce ? would the demise of the mona lisa be allowed by
art lovers, historians and the like ? and if not, is art really important or
just symbolic ? i suggest architecture (or a specific architect) was only
devised to be important to market and promote and sell real estate
communities. do you really care who was behind designing and building the
brooklyn bridge ? certainly the players of the past ages may have known the
courses architects same as we do today but i dont think they (the players -
pros, ams, club memebers, the public at large) created an aura about their
mystique any more or less than existed around john augustus roebling in his
time[clue heralding donald ross at the same time killing one of his courses
rings hollow to me so why hype contemporary architects]

6)"Maybe there really isn't room for the casual golfer on "better" courses"
well there goes just about every pro-am scheduled in the future which should
make phil very happy (or are you saying if a "casual" golfer is willing to
pay enough to play a pro-am he/she is allowed in ?) my high handicap friends
at clubs like siwanoy and maidstone and scarsdale will be very disappointed
in your remark or taking it the other way could pebble beach survive
financially if it only allowed scratch players to play ? [clue read
wodehouse - very few of the heros in each story were scratch but the oldest
member highly regards his course as a stern test for even the best player]

7) "How should one accomodate the hh'er?" - i would suggest the same way the
church accomodates both sinners and saints - asking any high handicapper
"would you like to play better" would be like asking someone would they like
to win the lottery. sinners will stay in touch if they ever hope to get
absolution, saints may take it for granted - let each player individually
decide how to suit a course to the caliber and capability of that player.
[clue if you were offered a membership to augusta would you decline if you
could never break 100 on the course ?]

never underestimate stupidity when ego is imvolved - i myself eventhough
a high handicapper would also want a us open standard architecture on my own
private dream course since undoubtedly my ego would override and supercede
my capability as a player (and the architect who kissed my ass the best
would, of course, get the job) - but who among us is going to admit it
otherwise ?

[Patrick Kiser]

Yep.  That was my tune back a few posts.

Can't make the difference between a poor shot and a decent one too great.

The challenge for the LHper is as he/she gets closer to the green.

I like the general thought of giving them a fighting chance... but... the trick is to do that and not make the margin of error SO huge so that it's too easy for better players.  And that's a tough trick... and also the reason why architects like Doak and C&C seem to be so successful.  I really believe that most if not all of their courses do give the HHers a fighting chance while still retaining darn interesting challenge for the low capper.

Of course other architects succeed at this also, but those just immediately spring to mind.

TH

[TEPaul]

"So playing conservative doesn't always yield good results, or even satisfactory results, for a hh'er like me."

George:

Of course not. No kind of strategy (aggressive or conservative) yields satisfactory results if sprinkled with an assortment of complete misses.

However, as Behr said----"It should not be the job of the architect to inform the golfer of his bad shots---that should be the business of the golf professional."

And he combined that with the suggestion that architects do not need to design to punish the complete misses of HHers because their own games are punishment enough.

What I'm talking about in a conservative vs aggressive sense in the context of strategy or course management is this----if a HHer hits what is for him an excellently struck shot, perhaps right at a green and the best it could ever do is land in the end of a pond immediately in front of a green he just isn't thinking well----eg he is thinking in a course management sense too aggressively for his own almost ideal capabilities.

This is the kind of thing I'd like to see HHers avoid in a course management sense. Total misses don't have much to do with that.

[Tags:]

Tags: