Has GolfClubAtlas Helped Your Game at All?

[Phil Benedict]

It's sort of interesting that some of you guys consider architectural knowledge/interest a bit of a distraction on the course.

[Andy Troeger]

Phil,
Maybe some guys that actually drive the ball well can actually think about hitting a "side" of the fairway from the tee. I tend to laugh at most of that. I'm just happy if I find the dang ball and have a swing.

Fairways to me are what "playoffs" are to Jim Mora, or something like that  

If I can accomplish that, I have a fighting chance for the rest of the hole.

[Tom Huckaby]

Phil:  perhaps this example will help.

First hole, Santa Teresa golf course.  Each set of thoughts occurs in about the 5 seconds of my pre-shot routine.

Tom (prior to GCA participation):  hmm, OB left, trees right, just keep it between those and we're fine.  Green is huge, no big deal where we come in from.  Concentrate, make a good strike.

Tom (post-GCA participation):  Wow, that OB left sure is stupidly place - I hate internal OB.  No way MacKenzie would have done this.  Jeez JakaB would go ballistic seeing this hole.  Man those trees on the right really need clearing too - the angle in from that side would be so much better and why do people let trees grow and take that way so often!  Jeez, that green is big but you know the bunker does slope away a bit from the left - more reason to try to go right.  But man, no one would design a hole this obvious, how are they trying to trick me?  Jeez perhaps it's better to go left - I must be missing something.  That bunker on the left sure is artfully placed now that I want to go left.  I wonder what TE Paul would say about that?  Man it's a drag he hasn't seen this course.  Come to think of it, Ran ought to do a profile on this course because the world needs to see more munis.  Oh, I guess I ought to hit the ball.


 

[Bill Brightly]

Jamie,

Has your handicap gone down? Or do you just feel like you are a better player now?

Could it be that you just can better appreciate just how good your good shots are (and were)?

I have this theory that great players "play dumb." They just see the shot that needs to be hit and they hit it, without a lot of interference or extaneous thoughts or doubts. So I think GCA has the potential to be a distraction, but better players have already figured out how to get focused before each shot, whether the distraction was a cough in your backswing or a brief architectual study of the hole before you tee off!

[Tom Huckaby]

Has it helped my game?  Hell no.  How could it?

I am now convinced that I'm not only allowed, but in the spirit of the game, actually supposed to be able to hit it anyfrickingplace -- and still have a recovery shot.

I am now convinced that all greenspeeds have tripled in the last 5 years, so I leave tons of putts short now.

I am now convinced that I have the option of bump and running 5 irons from 80 yards and do so, only to wind up 4 times farther from the hole than if I'd just lobbed a LW in there and spun it.

Helped?  You gotta be kidding.  Ignorance is bliss in a world of scorecards and pencils.  

Perfectly stated and I couldn't agree more.

I must say I love my Santa Teresa example.  Those who know the hole ought to find it amusing.  It's a very simple dog leg left medium length par four with absolutely zero tricks.

TH

[TEPaul]

TomH:

The tee shot is of no consequence to me. All I would say to you is if those louts and golfing criminals at Santa Teresa have not yet learned to play by the strict USGA Rules of Golf every single one of them should be locked up in the USGA's Rules penitentiary for a minimum of a year. And I think you should be investigated for some kind of conspiracy after the fact.

I believe the USGA has a regional brig somewhere around San Francisco now.

[Tom Huckaby]

I gotta say these last two have me ROLLING!

Great stuff, guys.  Now I am off to go play a horrifically overpriced and basically boring private club (Almaden CC) which 7 years ago I would have been very excited to play.

I hate this place.

 

[Kalen Braley]

I wish it has, but utlimately it has not. There are the obvious things like playing away from trouble, not hitting the ball 6 inches fat, not 3 jacking, but I've always known those things.  I suppose what I'm really saying is that while I do notice preferred places to hit the ball, angles, strategy and all that, I just completely lack the ability to execute that well to take advantage of it. So I would love to play with more "Strategery" but I'm still:

A) Just trying to get the ball somwhere on the fairway and aovid trouble.

B) Just hoping to avoid the bunkers and hit the green, anywhere will do.

C)  Usually just making sure not to 3 putt.

Now if I had some serious mad game like Huck, then I would be trying hard to place the ball in a certain spot.  

[TEPaul]

"I played there once.  The 220 pound Hippo of Golf in the Valley..."

I think I drove past it once about 38 years ago. Does that count for anything? I think it should count for something  because there are some people who think if Seth Raynor or C.B. Macdonald were ever within ten miles of some golf course they probably had a lot to do with designing it or influencing its design.

[JESII]

Here's the difference between playing golf with an eye on the GCA and trying to analyze the GCA while playing golf...and every one of you raters are guilty of it...you think you can see the golf course through other people's golf games.

Raters think this makes you a better rater but all it does it make you wrong.

If it were possible to understand how a course effects other players why would they need more than one guy to rate a course?

[Mike Mosely]

I think it has...because I've learned how to read a hole and figure out, for example, a redan or a punchbowl, I know what type of shot is required for the best outcome.  Then the execution - or lack thereof - is up to me.

[TEPaul]

"....why would they need more than one guy to rate a course?"

Because they think they can sell more damn magazines that way.

[JESII]

Why would the current top 100 list sell more copies than a list featuring your top 100 list?

[TEPaul]

"Why would the current top 100 list sell more copies than a list featuring your top 100 list?"

Because?!?    

[mike_malone]

 It hasn't helped my game, but it sure has hurt my playing partners' games. I ramble on about  architecture and they can't concentrate on their game.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Phil,
Would that be #9?

I don't know if GCA (or anything else ) could, or has, helped my game, but it has helped me towards a better appreciation of the effects that certain elements have on other players, like reasonable width which I used to think was an unfair reward for the wild. Now I look at is an more of aid for the poor soul who's often way over to the side and doesn't really need 3" of rough to compound his misery.  

[Phil Benedict]

Phil,
Would that be #9?

I don't know if GCA (or anything else ) could, or has, helped my game, but it has helped me towards a better appreciation of the effects that certain elements have on other players, like reasonable width which I used to think was an unfair reward for the wild. Now I look at is an more of aid for the poor soul who's often way over to the side and doesn't really need 3" of rough to compound his misery.  

Yes.  I have probably made more birdies on that hole from the left rough and even the 10th fairway than the middle of the 9th fairway.  It's a superior angle because it takes the water hazard out of play (other than for a severe mishit) on the second shot.  I don't really aim my drive in that direction but often end up there because I am guarding against losing it right.  It's a little embarrassing to birdie the hole in a manner that clearly violates architectural intent, but I flatter myself that I am one of the few members who has the length to take advantage of the angle.  Most everyone else would end in the trees but I am able to carry the trees other than in a severe headwind.

[JSlonis]

It's not that I'm not target oriented, I am...it's just that with a broader view of a hole or a single shot, it frees my mind up just a bit.  Maybe a better way to say it would be...I manage my misses better.

Jamie -

As a golfer of your caliber, you know that it ultimately gets down to the execution of the shot.

But do you manage your misses better because you understand the GCA of the course or because you have a better idea of your "normal miss"?

Mike

Mike,

I actually think it is a bit of both, I think I have a better understanding of design and how an architect allows you to play a particular hole.  Obviously proper execution of the shot at hand is first and foremost.  Without the ability to hit it toward the target most times, all the planning and strategy doesn't mean anything.    

In regard to my own game and golfswing, as I've matured, I do have a better understanding of my normal misses.  That combined with a better overall view of a course's architecture has made my game more consistent.

Bill,

Yes, my HDCP has come down slightly since joining this esteemed group.  Even though I think it has helped me, I do agree with you that too much analysis can be detrimental.  Your theory of "playing dumb" is right on.  Eventually once you've evaluated the scene, you just have to block all the extraneous stuff out and pull the trigger.  Maybe I'm the odd one, but for me, having a better understanding of what I'm seeing allows me to do just that.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Phil,
If I remember correctly you'd still have to carry it from over there, right?, but it would be less dangerous for a draw from the left side (and you could bounce one in off the bridge   ).
Is there a  bunker between the water and the green?

p.s. you just have to flash the Phil (Mickelson) grin when you birdie from the wrong farway.

   

[Phil Benedict]

Jim,

You still have to carry the water but the water to the left of the green is almost out play whereas it is very much in play from the middle of the fairway.  The bunker you are referring to left of the green is gone because it was not part of Ross's plan.  In fact the hole is now bunkerless.  The bunker to the left of the green made the hole easier because it captured shots which would otherwise bounce into the water.

[Peter Nomm]

Seeing everything on the course is both a blessing and a curse - similar to teaching golf.  As much as I teach golf, it is very easy to see just how much can go wrong in a swing.  I believe this over-anaysis is why much of today's instruction is unsuccessful.  

So then when I play, I need to remember that I am playing golf instead of thinking it (at least from a swing perspective).  However, if my swing if off, at least I know multiple ways to try to recover.

Same thing with looking at the design of a course.  Sometimes we may notice more trouble than others, which can adversely affect how we hit the shot..  However we can also notice areas where margins of error exist that make our play more forgiving.

So depending on the situation, it can be good or bad.

Another thought to cinsider - Moe Norman - one of the straightest hitters of all time.  I can be reasonably sure that he didn't consider the architectural features of a hole when hitting a tee-shot.  See no trouble, fear no trouble.  Who knows?

[Steve Lang]

  Definitely!  At ALL!  

But then i know how to play.. and have fun..

Since scoring is largely a function of attitude, i try to only let play be disturbed moderately by gca think.. and move on to the next shot..

[Jeffrey Prest]

It hasn't helped my game, but it sure has hurt my playing partners' games. I ramble on about  architecture and they can't concentrate on their game.

My partners have found a way round this problem. Whenever I start rabbiting on about "geometric architecture", "short hole templates" and "Tillinghast-derivative", they tell me I'm a golfer, not a ****** wine critic and storm off to partner someone else instead.

Thanks a bunch.