[Chip Gaskins]

Somehow I ended up on a thread from 2005 and read a very interesting point.

Tom Doak said   "Many of the good players whom I know personally [everyone from Peter Oosterhuis to Tom Paul] have told me that when they were most competitive, they focused on scoring and pretty much ignored a lot of the things they now find interesting in golf architecture, even that they DELIBERATELY put those things out of their mind because they found them a distraction."

I know when I was younger and could actually play a decent round of golf I used to be the same way, I would try and focus on as few things as possible not related to the next shot and getting the ball in the hole.  (a side point...growing up playing an aerial game didn't make me think about all the GCA stuff I love now like firm and fast conditions where the ball runs and bounces which make you think about GCA more)

About the time I had kids I realized there was much more to golf than how low my score was that day.  At that point, golf course architecture became much more fun and meaningful because now I take pictures, talk about course strategy, bunker placement, green complexes, etc with my playing mates instead of the solemn "get the ball in the hole" mentality.  I enjoy golf a lot more now shooting higher scores but enjoying my surroundings.

Did/does anyone else have the same experience and now view GCA in a similar light?

[Bill_McBride]

I am the same way, but I can always recall planning the play of a hole from the green backwards.  Not sure how I got that, my dad was a pretty thoughtful player.

[Peter Pallotta]

Chip - good and interesting question. I think the answer depends on where you're standing, i.e. how good a player you are and how many years of playing experience you have.

My guess is that the Peter Os and Tom Ps of the world could deliberately ignore much of the golf architecture because they weren't actually ignoring it at all, i.e. after years of playing and of playing well and of knowing their games, they had internalized (and made into an unconscious process) much of the "seeing" that I still struggle with as someone who took up the game late.

Players like Peter O and Tom P were able to be competitive partly because they were making smart choices all the way through the round, and it seems to me that those smart choices had much to do with what the architecture/design demanded and allowed and penalized and suggested. In other words, players like that WERE seeing the architecture, but not AS architecture/design, and especially not architecture/design that's independent of the GAME of golf and their own desire to score as well as possible.

In short, they weren't on the golf course to APPRECIATE the architecture but to EXPERIENCE it. A player like me is still trying to learn just to SEE it. 

Just my guess of course; hopefully Tom P and other good players will jump in.

Peter     

[Carl Rogers]

Well yes.

If not for the very slow play about 5 years ago (during the 3rd time I played the course) on a Sunday afternoon at Riverfront in the fairway of the 5th hole did I begin to notice the sublety and diversity of the range of approach shots from just a relatively small distances ... angle to the green... different stances ... where not to hit it ... all on a hole that is seemingly simple.  It got me looking at the rest of the course ... reading Tom's books ... evetually discovering this website ... entering a bunch of design hole contests.

By trade I am an architect (as in buildings).

[Chris_Clouser]

It wasn't when I had kids, but I can remember when I started noticing gca.  It was in college at the club I was able to play at while in school.   The members would only let me play if I was willing to play for money.  Most of these guys were between 5 and 10 handicappers and could hit the ball a long way and thought they could beat up on a college kid who wasn't a member.  Well, I couldn't match them in length but I quickly figured out that they only knew one way to play the course, the aerial game.  these guys looked like superstars in the wet spring weather.  I began noticing how to play the holes in different ways.  So as weather conditions changed over the year (dry summer, wind, etc.) I was able to play even or win money on a more than regular basis.  By the end of my college days, all of those guys were wondering how they continually lost money to kid with a 13 handicap.  Now if I'd been smart enough to know that money was good for more than pizza and beer... 

As a side note, I no longer play for money, just because I don't want to be on the other end of the score.

[Jim Thompson]

I am the same way, but I can always recall planning the play of a hole from the green backwards.  Not sure how I got that, my dad was a pretty thoughtful player.

Bill,

I know some of the people you play with...

the architecture is the least of your worries.

JT

[John Kavanaugh]

If my 12 yr old ever tells me he sucks because he is too smart for the game I'm gonna stick a soccer ball in his shorts.

[Jerry Kluger]

If you don't think Tiger understands the design features of a hole with respect to how it he is to play it, I think you are mistaken.  He wins because he knows how to play the many shots that a design calls for.  He may not discuss the particular feature with his caddie as to its architectural merit, but he surely takes it into consideration when playing the hole.  You score by understanding how the hole should be played, i.e. architecture.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Golf has indeed changed in my life time, but not for the better, even with all the modern technical knowledge and equipment we have at hand.

When you play golf and you don’t notice the course or its intricacies then I think that is the time to ask yourself what the hell am I doing with my life.

Golf to me, is first and foremost for pleasure and enjoyment either by myself or with a group (of friends or strangers). I have also played in competitions but for fun.

Whatever happened to walking the course enjoying your surroundings, the challenges of the course, the pleasure of nature and fellowship of other human beings.

Tom’s quote seems to refer to a war zone, of having to get over the terrain at the minimal cost and drive for home and victory. No feeling, compassion or spirit is that - what are we teaching our kid these days, win at all costs?

You will excuse me if I don’t want any part of this type of aggressive game. I don’t recognise it as golf, certainly not the game I was taught by my father.

I pity all who play golf in this blind way – sorry, I just can’t think of a better way to describe it. You miss the whole essence of the game and do a disservice to yourself and the course.

Golf has become a distraction for these guys IMHO.   

[JR Potts]

Golf is a sport.  While "hit and giggle" is fun from time to time, I enjoy the challenge of the game more than the relative beauty of it.  The beauty just adds to it.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Hit & Giggle - boy have you missed the point.

The challange of you and the course is the relative beauty

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Melvyn:

Just to add a bit of humour to this discussion, I bet you just hate those Titleist advertisments don't you.  LOL

[Melvyn Morrow]

Dick

No,  David Joy played himself

Don't remember seeing any money from them
expect it all went to Old Tom Joy.

Good distraction!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Golf appeals to different people in different ways but I think its almost a case of the better golfer you are the least you enjoy the basic fundamentals of playing what is a game. I think the pro's are there to do their job, they need to focus on scoring as low as they can, there is not time/space in their minds to pay any 'deep' attention to the architecture or indeed surroundings, they want even green speeds, good conditioning and a fair test that sorts the good from the bad, many USA pro's initially hate links golf....in time most grow to love.... if people want buggys... if people want to play with hickories they can, mostly there is a choice... I dont agree with planners, yardage markers, GPS but we do live in a commercial world and to most people these things spell progress.

[Matt Kardash]

Ever since my early teens I have had a somewhat photographic memory of golf holes. I was about a 5 handicap when i was 15. Even though i was a pretty good golfer i was never that competetive and always noticed everything about the golf course. I guess I've always been interested in golf design. I just finished my degree in environmental science and have always toyed with persuing employment in golf design. I may have not chosen the right area of study for that though...

[Bill_McBride]

I am the same way, but I can always recall planning the play of a hole from the green backwards.  Not sure how I got that, my dad was a pretty thoughtful player.

Bill,

I know some of the people you play with...

the architecture is the least of your worries.

JT

Present company included I assume? 

[Andy Hughes]

You will excuse me if I don’t want any part of this type of aggressive game. I don’t recognise it as golf, certainly not the game I was taught by my father.

But Melvyn, with no disrespect intended, when your great, great grandfather was winning Opens and playing in his famous matches, do you imagine he was playing to win first and foremost, or for enjoyment and pleasure?  That would just seem to be the nature of competition, and should be differentiated from a round with your friends.

[Wade Whitehead]

I'll say: having played in a number of USGA qualifiers, I've never had the sense that anyone in the field was paying any attention to the intricacies (or intent) of the golf course at all.  It's all about one shot at a time.  Players are focused simply on hitting a good tee shot from the tee...they could care less about the general flow of the hole (or the course, for that matter), because they're there, as has been said, to do a job.  Just as they block out a bad putt or a fellow competitor, they ignore the golf course as a whole.

As well, at least at the venues selected for these events, the modern game (bomb & gouge) generally functions irrespective of a course's features.  There's simply no call for hitting a variety of shots.

As players get better, they get more consistent, and they require fewer options.  A great deal of the choices presented by a thoughtful architect are unneeded as a result.

I'd much rather play with fellows who have historical interest and perspective, and who shoot a higher score.  These are the folks who are really playing golf anyway.

WW

[John Kavanaugh]

I'll say: having played in a number of USGA qualifiers, I've never had the sense that anyone in the field was paying any attention to the intricacies (or intent) of the golf course at all.  It's all about one shot at a time.  Players are focused simply on hitting a good tee shot from the tee...they could care less about the general flow of the hole (or the course, for that matter), because they're there, as has been said, to do a job.  And, at least at the venues selected for these events, the modern game (bomb & gouge) generally functions irrespective of a course's features.

As players get better, they get more consistent, and they need fewer options.  A great deal of the choices presented by a thoughtful architect are unneeded as a result.

I'd much rather play with fellows who have historical interest and perspective, and who shoot a higher score.  These are the folks who are really playing golf anyway.

WW

Whitehead,

Who do you then believe is the greatest golfer in the world....your Dad? (Please imagine the sound of puke hitting the floor.)

[Kirk Gill]

I wish I could remember who made the comment that for competitive tournament golf the game required a scientific approach, while for the casual player a more artistic approach would be more satisfactory.

I agree with this. Grooving the swing through constant repetition, relentless practicing, constant use of yardage books and other yardage aids, minute knowledge of greens and a love of soft, point-to-point conditions aren't really my thing. But as those who have played a round or two with me will attest, there's nothing tournament-worthy about my game. But damn, do I have a great time.  And when I'm out there, I'm constantly looking for the hand of the architect, sometimes laughing at what they're asking me or tempting me to do, sometimes cursing as I am foiled by their work. But I can afford to feel that way. All I've got on the line is my green fee.

[Chip Gaskins]

guys there were two more sentences in Doak's post that I didn't include because at first i didn't think it was relevant. 

maybe it is after all.

Tom Doak said "...Mr. Nicklaus has not said anything of the sort ... he's said since he was 25 that he was interested in the design of the course, and I'll take his word for that.  But I would also bet there are some aspects of Royal Melbourne that I've noticed and he has not, and vice versa."

[Melvyn Morrow]

Let me tell you a little story about a golf competition that helped kill a brilliant young player.

It was instigated by a father & son (I call them the killers although they never actually laid hand on their victim) in the winter (end of November of 1875). They were good golfers but no real match against this their young opponent.

The competition was over six days in a 12 round match. The Son insisted on 6 stroke advantage per round totalling 72 strokes for the whole competition.

The outcome per day including the allowance of 6 holes
per round reads as follows:-
                                      Opponent      Son
First day      -         AM        97            103
                               PM        93            100
The second day  AM        87            100
                               PM        88            100
The third day        AM        89              91
                              PM        89              99
                          Out       270            291
                             In       272           302
                           Total      542             593
Opponent Win by 51 less 36 stroke handicap = Win by 15

The weather became very bad with snow, by the fifth day the Referee wanted to postpone the match until better weather, however the father/son did not agree as they believed using the conditions could work in the Son’s advantage as their victim was clearly showing signs of illness and insisted in carrying on  the match   
                                Opponent      Son
The fourth day    AM         96            100
                             PM         91              96
The fifth day       AM       112             115
                             PM       102              116           
The sixth day      AM       111            125
                             PM       111               116 
                            Out       308            323
                               In       315             345
                          Total       623              668
Opponent Win by 45 less 36 stroke handicap = Won by 9

Please note that these scores are from W W Tulloch’s book
‘The Life of Tom Morris’

Before the end of the month the young Opponent was dead.

This is of course the real story of Young Tom Morris (the young Opponent) and Mr Arthur Molesworth (the Son).

As far as I am concerned The Father /Son combination set out to win at any cost, even though the Son was not good enough. I am in agreement with my own father who believed that their greed helped bring Young Tom’s life to an early end.

Perhaps you may now understand why after this I play golf for fun and enjoyment. I have nothing to prove to myself.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Why did Bobby Jones give up competitive golf so young? He could no longer stand it.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Mark- It was more health really why Bobby quit, he loved the game hence he stayed amateur, had he not had the neurological problems who knows.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()