[Ed Oden]

Conventional wisdom seems to be that architectural nuiances are often only revealed through repeated play and that it takes time to learn the finer strategic points of a golf course.  That makes perfect theoretical sense to me.  However, in my experience, the reality is often the exact opposite.  The more I know about a course the worse I play.  There is something about absolute ignorance other than what the eye can see that seems to focus me more on the task at hand.  But when I know what is behind door number 3, I over think and fail to just play my game.  Has anyone else had similar experiences?  If so, is this relevant to gca?  Does it say anything about architecture or only indicate that I am a prime candidate for a labotomy?

[Phil McDade]

Ed:

One of the best rounds I ever played was on a daily fee course near Phoenix that I found on the web with a very good rate for late February. I hadn't picked up a club in four months and played some of my best golf ever.

I do think there is a lot to over-thinking a course. However, having played my local 9-hole muni probably close to 100 times, I do know how to play that course to avoid the worst of its admittedly not-that-tough trouble, and where to hit it to get the best approaches, or the best lag putts.

So, for me, it can run both ways.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed,

That's an interesting topic.

Could the answer lie in the "negative" mind set of most golfers ?

I too have played some of my best rounds on a first time play.

One reason I believe is that I ask my caddy to ONLY inform me of where to play, and NOT to inform me of where NOT to play.

Thus, my feed back from the caddy is all positive reinforcement.

Repeat play reveals more of the negatives, the mental magnets that attract us to adversity if not disaster.

There may be a parabolic curve to this, where eventually, one comes to terms with the architecture, understands it and knows how to cope with it.

It's a very interesting dynamic.

[Ed Oden]

Patrick:

You could be right with your parabolic curve theory.  Of course, for me to say for sure, I'd need to look up what "parabolic curve" actually means.

A scary thought just occurred to me.  When I go to a course for the first time (especially a classic), I usually just try to take it all in.  I'm not responding or adjusting my game to the architecture very much during that initial round.  But I see and, hopefully, appreciate some of the finer strategic and architectural components of the course.  So when I go back, I WANT to respond to that architecture and adjust my play accordingly.  I WANT to sling a draw into a redan.  I WANT to run a long long iron up on a biarritz.  But those often aren't the shots that work best for MY game.  I fear that the best way for me to score is often to disregard the architecture.  God forbid!!!  Suddenly the labotomy is not looking like such a bad option.

Ed

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed,

I don't think that you can adapt your game to fit the architecture unless you're a superior player.

I think you have to dance with who you brung.

Perhaps, what's causing you difficulty, is your attempt to play a game that you're not familiar with.

Why not just play YOUR game ?

There's more than one way to play most holes, and you can't force a play that you're not familiar with, just because that's how the cognoscente would have you do it.

But, it is fun to try.

[JMEvensky]

I think a lot of it has to do with a player's skill level.

Given repeated exposure to a certain course,a more skilled player learns where not to hit it and has the talent to avoid the trouble.The lesser skilled player,after repeated exposure, sees the trouble and focuses on nothing else.

[Ed Oden]

Thanks guys.  My handicap is 6, so not sure where you think that puts me on the apptitude scale.  Just to be clear, I am NOT one who gets hung up on score at all.  I really don't care if I shoot 75 or 85 (now 95 might be a different story).  I play golf to have fun and see great golf courses.  So it doesn't particularly bother me if I am approaching things in a way that doesn't always produce the lowest score.  My point is that, at least for me, seeing and appreciating the architecture often has no bearing whatsoever on my score.  I doubt that is what any of us on this board would want.  I'm dialing the labotomist now.

[George Pazin]

I think a lot of it has to do with a player's skill level.

Given repeated exposure to a certain course,a more skilled player learns where not to hit it and has the talent to avoid the trouble.The lesser skilled player,after repeated exposure, sees the trouble and focuses on nothing else.

I think you just called Ed a lesser skilled player!

For me personally, it depends entirely on the course. If it's a course I love or enjoy, I find repeated play helps my score; if it's one I don't particularly care for, my play gets worse each time. I don't know if either is as much the case of knowing the trouble so much as just my mental outlook.

I certainly feel a comfort level at my home muni that leads to lower scores there than anywhere else.

[JMEvensky]

I think a lot of it has to do with a player's skill level.

Given repeated exposure to a certain course,a more skilled player learns where not to hit it and has the talent to avoid the trouble.The lesser skilled player,after repeated exposure, sees the trouble and focuses on nothing else.

I think you just called Ed a lesser skilled player!

For me personally, it depends entirely on the course. If it's a course I love or enjoy, I find repeated play helps my score; if it's one I don't particularly care for, my play gets worse each time. I don't know if either is as much the case of knowing the trouble so much as just my mental outlook.

I certainly feel a comfort level at my home muni that leads to lower scores there than anywhere else.

You're probably right-that's what I mistakenly implied and shouldn't have.Now,I'll try to dig myself out.

I occasionally get to/have to play with tour players at my home course.We've all played there forever.Standing on a tee box with water right,I always worry about hitting it there.Listening to the pro's,you'd think they never even noticed the water being there.Granted,tour pro's aren't the best "control group".

Maybe what I should have said is that ignorance is bliss for those who,for whatever reason,worry less about their score than just enjoying the course.By their nature,tour pro's seem to frequently "interface" with the architecture only so far as it interfaces with their score.

[John Moore II]

I can see it both ways. From a playing and score standpoint, I can see where it might be good to not know much about the course. But from an architectural standpoint, there is no way to see it all in one play, unless its a very poor course. Usually the architectural merits of a course are revealed over time.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()