Do higher handicap golfers

[Patrick_Mucci]

consciously or subconsciously understand the architecture better than the scratch player due to their more intimate interaction/interfacing with the architectural features ?

ie, a fairway bunker easily carried by the scratch golfer presents a clear and present danger to the higher handicap, thus he must formulate plans to avoid or counter the strategic affects of the bunker.

Having to repeat that process over and over and over again, does that higher handicap golfer gain a greater understanding of the impact of the architectural features ?

[Joe Bausch]

I think higher handicap players may be aware of certain features more than the scratch golfer, like the placement of FW bunkers that you mentioned.

But in my experience the scratch golfer is typically more aware of architectural subtleties, like the best angle to approach a green.

[Steve Pozaric]

Interesting question. 

I don't know if awareness is the exact right way to describe it.  Both high and low cappers can be equally knowledgeable, but potentially certain features impact their games differently.  I as a 15 might be aware of the better angle to approach a green and which part of the fairway I need to land in to get there, but I am just happy to get it in the fairway period.  Maybe it is an offensive view, i.e., how to best score (scratch/low) relative to a defensive mindset; i.e., how not to score high or how to avoid trouble (high - mid).

[Kalen Braley]

Pat,

As one who is currently playing as a high capper, I've given questions like this serious thought.  While I do beleive I can identify the best route(s) to take on most golf holes, unfortunatly with the state of my game, trying to pursue this is futile for the most part.

The vast majority of my non-putt shots are just trying to execute well enough to get the ball somewhere on the fairway or green.  However when I'm chipping around the greens or laying up with a short iron in my hand on a par 5, I can be strategic in my shot implementation.

High Handis in general are indeed aware of bunkers, ponds, etc, because we're often just trying to avoid them. 

[Dan Herrmann]

Patrick - absolutely yes.

The higher handicap golfer also brings the ground game much more into play.  You can really see the architect's intent when you're watching somebody carry 100 yards and roll from then on.

I know that Laura (about a 20) actually aims for speed slots/turbo boost areas. 

[Peter Wagner]

High handicap players (lets say 30+) might be aware of the architecture but are unable to enjoy it very often.

I would say that architecture starts to become relevant to the player at about a 20 handicap. Architecture then becomes increasingly more relevant as the handicap comes down.  For example a 5 handicap player can pretty much put the ball anywhere they want most of the time so the thinking side of golf becomes more and more important.

The very best players, maybe the top 700 or so in the world, seem to be unaffected by architecture.  In the age of 'bomb and gouge' does it matter what course you're playing?  To this very small group I would guess that only green contours versus green speed is the only significant architectural element.

So the sweet spot of player appreciation for architecture might be from scratch to 15 handicap or so.

But if true, then how many players break 90?  How do you design for the huge numbers of guys that never break 100?

[Steve Lang]

  wasn't there just a laborious high 'capper thread not so long ago..

what is a high 'capper?? 10-20.. 20-30+ .. bad joe sixpack hack?

how do 1-10, 10-20, 20-30+ 'cappers relate to challenges posed from their choice of tee boxes, incorrect or not, when they can't  hit 'designed" shots?

why do high 'cappers choose the wrong box? who says they can't play from any box they choose?  they paid their money same as the low 'capper

shouldn't americans be licensed to play, so high 'cappers can't ruin a 2.5 hour round on a 6000 yard course?

can anyone appreciate the architectural intent when the big question is how do i do something versus can i do something or why do i do something?

can a high 'capper carry the ball 100-210 yards consistently?

can a physical state of golfing prowess be equated to a mental state of acuity?

[TEPaul]

"Do higher handicap golfers consciously or subconsciously understand the architecture better than the scratch player due to their more intimate interaction/interfacing with the architectural features ?"


Patrick:

I just don't think that's the type of question that anyone can generalize a credible answer to (even though I have no doubt at all you are going to try! ).

As I've known plenty of scratch golfers who understand the strategic and aesthetic or whatever ramifications of architecture and architectural features so have I known plenty of handicap golfers who do as well.

[Anthony Gray]

  Pat,

  Great question. On a similiar note. On sports radio the other day the host was stating that the marginal pro players make better coaches than the great players because they have to rely on more than their skill and athletic ability. They have to stratigize more. In the same way I think the high handicappers may see the architecture differently.


   What are the handicaps of the best architects?

  Anthony

   

[Doug Ralston]

The productive architect named Jack Nicklaus has a pretty nice handicap.

His company produced a course here in Cincinnati. The story told there is that he played it first, but refused to play #18. Why? Because he refused to set a 'course record' unreachable by the golfers who would compete there. Classy!

I am a very high handicap golfer. I haven't a clue about great architecture. I just know what I like. I like to play courses that emphasize trying different shot, not just hitting a driver. I like courses where even short hitters like myself have 'features' to consider, and to try to make shots that give me an adrenaline rush. I like to be able to play 'up' or 'down' on the same hole sometimes. And I like medium to slow greens, as I have no control at all on those speedy ones.

Perhaps overly important to me is playing a course in beautiful surroundings. Golf, to me, is like hiking ....... a way to get to natural surroundings and enjoy them. It is renewal!

Doug

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter Wagner,

I wasn't referencing golfers with handicaps of 30+.

At that level, solid ball striking is a random act at best.

By higher handicaps I meant the group between approximately 10 and 20.

Doug Ralston,

The question has nothing to do with differentiating great from good from mediocre architecture, it has to do with recognizing the architectural features you're faced with in a given round and figuring out how to best manage them.

Kalen Braley,

Don't you think that the higher handicap must factor in greater margins of error when confronting architectural features that can produce negative results, whereas the lower handicap player can shave that margin or ignore it completely ?

[C. Squier]

If a player selects the correct set of tee boxes, in a perfect world each player should need to formulate a plan around hazards.  Pat, I've seen just as many high handicaps play tees that put the bunkers out of reach as I have low guys play tees that allow them to carry every bunker.  Furthermore, I've seen low guys get outdriven by higher handicaps all day long. 

An average high handicapper aims away from hazards while an average low guy aims at intended targets.  I don't believe that makes a high guy any more aware of architecture, it's simply golf psychology 101.  Being aware of golf architecture isn't about knowing that the course had exactly 84 bunkers on it when walking off 18, it's about seeing an intended target and picking the best shot at getting there. 

[Peter Wagner]

I wasn't referencing golfers with handicaps of 30+.

At that level, solid ball striking is a random act at best.

By higher handicaps I meant the group between approximately 10 and 20.

Patrick,
I was just applying extreme examples to your question and working inwards from that to try to answer.  Sorry, this is a bad problem solving habit I picked up from old computer science days. 

[Joe Hancock]

I wasn't referencing golfers with handicaps of 30+.

At that level, solid ball striking is a random act at best.

By higher handicaps I meant the group between approximately 10 and 20.

Patrick,
I was just applying extreme examples to your question and working inwards from that to try to answer.  Sorry, this is a bad problem solving habit I picked up from old computer science days. 

Peter,

How old? Like, FORTRAN on a UNIVAC old?

That's old.....(but not you)

Joe

[John Moore II]

But what about the very good golfer who is a very short hitter? We had a member at my last club who was a 2ish handicap (his handicap fluctuated between +1 and 4) but he could only hit his driver 225ish yards. So in that way, he has to pay attention to many fairway bunkers; just as many as the 10-15 handicap who hits it that far or even a bit farther.

Now, I understand that many, if not most, fairway bunkers are not in play for me. But that does not mean that I do not notice them and see the strategic benefit in them.

I would also say it depends on which tees are played. I played on a few days ago and played the regular men's tees because its been about 2 months since I played. Of course, most of those bunkers were not in play for me, but from the back tees, they would have been. I think anyone who pays attention to the course can see the design intent in bunkers, fairway 'rolls', greenside bunkering, etc. But I am not sure it is fair to say that higher handicap players understand the architecture of a course better than a good players simply because they hit the ball shorter or hit the ball more often.

Pat--I have been told that you are quite a fine player in your own right. Does that mean Kalen, (who by his own admission, not mine) who is a higher handicap player should naturally understand the course architecture and design intent better than you?

[Dan Herrmann]

Joe - I'm really depressed now.

FORTRAN was my first programming language.  Univac was my first employer.

And now, Patrick says "higher handicap" is 10 - 20.  That's me too!

Anybody have the number of a good shrink
--------------------------------

Back on topic - I'm about a 12.  I'm still at the point where I see what NOT to do instead of what I should do.  So I guess you could say that I'm the type of player the architect can mess with.  Shoot - Pete Dye just confounds me the first couple of times I play one his courses. 

But, being a golfer, I tend to enjoy the mental anguish.  Overcoming fear is a wonderful thing.

[Joe Hancock]

Joe - I'm really depressed now.

FORTRAN was my first programming language.  Univac was my first employer.

And now, Patrick says "higher handicap" is 10 - 20.  That's me too!

Anybody have the number of a good shrink

DeVries refers to me as "The Counselor". I can help.

 

[Peter Wagner]

How old? Like, FORTRAN on a UNIVAC old?

That's old.....(but not you)

Joe

Joe,
Yep, I'm getting pretty old.  I started programming PDP-11's in machine code written on punch cards - truly the stone age as compared to now.  FORTRAN was considered exotic at the time and BASIC was widely used.  It looked just like this:



A PDP-11 was very expensive at the time and so it was manned 24 hours a day 7 days a week by programmers to get the most from the asset.  The total computing horse power in the above photo would now be completely eclipsed by a Mac laptop and an iPhone would give it a run for the money.  Amazing stuff.

My first big job was for a defense contractor working on IBM 360's as shown below.  Notice the punch card reader in the center of the photo.  Also check out the disk drives in the lower left.  The disk platter was about 24 inches wide and exposed and tricky to mount in the drive.  If installed incorrectly it resulted in a 'head strike' and a very embarrassing loud and shrill squeal for 3 or 4 minutes while all rushed to spin the drive down.  These drives held about 1 meg if I remember it right.

I was talking with my daughter's 19 year old boyfriend (Engineering major at Penn) about this over the Christmas break and he had to Google punch cards as he had never heard of that before.  Made me feel like a thousand years old.

Crude by today's standard but we used these stone age tools to create guidance software for the B-1 bomber and cruise missiles.



Sorry in advance for the thread hijack but I haven't thought of this stuff in a long time.

[Jim Thornton]

Patrick-

In general, I strongly agree with your premise.

My index is 16.5, and as a short but straight hitter off the tee, I find that I need to "navigate" my way from point to point on the golf course.

For many of today's players who have incredible length, they can essentially take many architectural features out of play by flying the ball over them.

Allow me to provide an example from a course we both know well...Hidden Creek.  The long par 3 4th hole was undoubtedly designed to play as a Redan hole, where if the pin is located on the back left (lower) portion of the green, the ideal tee shot would chase onto the front right portion of the green and chase back to the hole location.  Modern players who are capable of hitting a towering high 3/4 iron 220 - 230 yards can just carry the left fronting bunker and go right at the hole, completely eliminating the Redan feature.

Your thoughts?


Jim

 

[Dan King]

Cool pics. One of my first job in the computer industry was as a tape and disk drive librarian in the mid-70s. I remember well that sound from when a disk was installed incorrectly.

The really nice thing about having punch cards everywhere was you always had somewhere to write notes. I had hundreds of punch cards at home with phone numbers and little notes.

We've come a long way since then, but talking to old-timers in my first job, it was amazing to hear how far we had come from the computers they used to first land on the moon. It's freekin' amazing we made it -- or just as amazing we were able to fake it.

Thanks for the memories.

Cheers,
Dan King

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
 --Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

[C. Squier]

Allow me to provide an example from a course we both know well...Hidden Creek.  The long par 3 4th hole was undoubtedly designed to play as a Redan hole, where if the pin is located on the back left (lower) portion of the green, the ideal tee shot would chase onto the front right portion of the green and chase back to the hole location.  Modern players who are capable of hitting a towering high 3/4 iron 220 - 230 yards can just carry the left fronting bunker and go right at the hole, completely eliminating the Redan feature.

I don't think that's a function of the longer player not understanding the architecture, but a function of equipment and golf balls being better suited for the shot. 

As for a 3 or 4 iron "towering" 220-230 yards, that is a shot for only the most skilled golfer.  I fluctuate anywhere from a 1-5 handicap during the year and the shot you described would be quite scary.  You can bet I'd be using the Redan's kicker on that hole in my attempt to play it. 

In my opinion, the idea of architectural features not mattering is a complete myth, except for extreme cases of world class golfers and unholy long hitters.  It is my dream that we can completely forget about how players on the PGA Tour play courses and focus on the other 99.99% of the golfing population.  I don't believe that there are more than 3 people on this board that have reduced golf to point-and-click and can forget about architectural features of a course.   

For someone who's never been a low handicapper, I can't stress enough that being a low handicap is not because of the good shots they hit, but from the avoidance of bad shots.  The gap between a 5's good shots and a 15's is narrow.  The gap between a 5's bad shots and a 15's is huge.  Nobody steps up to a golf ball with the desire to hit a bad shot, we all envision a good shot.  In that vision, I think we all have the same ability to see the same architectural features. 

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,

Thanks for posting those pics and the ensuing discussion....brings back old memories.  Not from using that stuff mind you but having to take a history of computers course back in college.      I must admit, I was always fascinated with the modern origins of what we have today, and having a super-enthusastic college professor who once used those machines and told us oodles of story about thier "magic" made it one of the funnest classes I took during my entire college career.  You can clearly put me in the camp as one who greatly appreciates the pioneers of modern computing, even if they originally only had the computing power of an average hand-held calclator.  Think vaccum tubes!! 

[Kalen Braley]

Pat...you asked:

Don't you think that the higher handicap must factor in greater margins of error when confronting architectural features that can produce negative results, whereas the lower handicap player can shave that margin or ignore it completely ?

If I understand your question correctly then yes I would agree.  Consider a hole with a water hazard left, ample 40 yard wide fairway with bunkering to the right.  On the tee,  a low capper can just aim right down main street and probably give little thought or worry in finding either hazard.  A high capper must weigh out where they want to have thier miss and favor that side.  That way a bad miss left would still hopefully find the fairway and a miss right would be in the bunkers, which is better than being in the water hazard.

Where this issue really find massive seperation is in forced carries.  A high capper will fret and sweat over a 200 yard carry as a general rule, while most low cappers wouldn't give it a thought and swing away without worry.

[Patrick_Mucci]

But what about the very good golfer who is a very short hitter?

I'd say that golfer is a very rare commodity.

We had a member at my last club who was a 2ish handicap (his handicap fluctuated between +1 and 4) but he could only hit his driver 225ish yards.

I find it hard to believe that someone whose two shot distance max is about 430 could be a +1 handicap, or even a 2 handicap or perhaps even a 4 handicap.

He certainly wouldn't be a + 1 handicap at WFW, BPB, Pine Tree or Boca Rio, unless of course, he plays from the ladies tees.


So in that way, he has to pay attention to many fairway bunkers; just as many as the 10-15 handicap who hits it that far or even a bit farther.

In general, if 10-15's hit their drives 225, I'd agree with that.
I don't know many 15's who hit their drives 225.

Now, I understand that many, if not most, fairway bunkers are not in play for me. But that does not mean that I do not notice them and see the strategic benefit in them.

So, you tend to pay attention to elements and features that have no impact on your game ?

I would also say it depends on which tees are played.
I played on a few days ago and played the regular men's tees because its been about 2 months since I played. Of course, most of those bunkers were not in play for me, but from the back tees, they would have been.

I think anyone who pays attention to the course can see the design intent in bunkers, fairway 'rolls', greenside bunkering, etc.

But I am not sure it is fair to say that higher handicap players understand the architecture of a course better than a good players simply because they hit the ball shorter or hit the ball more often.

I never said that.
Please go back and reread the premise.

Pat--I have been told that you are quite a fine player in your own right.
Does that mean Kalen, (who by his own admission, not mine) who is a higher handicap player should naturally understand the course architecture and design intent better than you?

That was never the question.
The question dealt with features that impacted the play of the higher handicap and the higher handicap players greater need to avoid them.  The opening post appears below.

"Do higher handicap golfers
consciously or subconsciously understand the architecture better than the scratch player due to their more intimate interaction/interfacing with the architectural features ?

ie, a fairway bunker easily carried by the scratch golfer presents a clear and present danger to the higher handicap, thus he must formulate plans to avoid or counter the strategic affects of the bunker.

Having to repeat that process over and over and over again, does that higher handicap golfer gain a greater understanding of the impact of the architectural features ?  "

[TEPaul]

"But what about the very good golfer who is a very short hitter?

I'd say that golfer is a very rare commodity."


Yeah, Patrick, I guess I would too but it is a fact and I should know. I guess one should ask what is meant by a good golfer but if one is going to use legitimate handicap as a barometer I think scratch should fill that bill.

The point is some scratch players can't or don't hit it very far but they still have to compete with everyone else on the flat.

This was a constant perplexer for me throughout all the years I competed, and it's why I think I'm a very good bridge between the mentality of a good player and the rest.  I had to do things to score that other scratch players didn't have to do.

In a sense my career and my strategies were something like that time you got sick, lost all that weigh and had to figure out how to adjust strategically to continue to score well.

Savy?