[Sean_A]

I am not sure I really know what a golf IQ is, but I am certain that to "see" a course one has to wander from the middle of the fairway.  It isn't as if figuring out the strategic options of a hole is a tough business even if we don't get to see the hole in a few different weather conditions and at varying degrees of maintenance.  I spose this is why we get thrilled when more than one or two are offered.  Golf is a game mainly concerned with what happens after a shot is missed and most of us are nowhere near proficient enough to claim our missed shots are inches or feet from being good shots.  As such, the edges of the course carry at least as much weight as the centre of the fairway.  

Ciao

[C. Squier]

Re: playing from the middle

I don't think it's fair to say that you can evaluate a course from the middle stripe.  I think you'd learn a lot more if you wandered right next to hazards, but in play.  Did the architect use hazards to protect the garden spot?  Did they use them to lead the golfer away from a spot, the opposite of protecting the ideal drive?  How severe is the penalty for narrowly missing a perfect drive?  Nobody this side of Fred Funk is going to hit every fairway, so evaluating from the middle is trivial at best.  I'd rather know how much I can risk by taking on ideal driving lines and approach shots into greens. 

[Paul Stephenson]

Lou,

For the first part, I just do not believe anyone can view the game through the eyes / or game of someone else...the internal reaction to everything we see and feel is our own. For example, if you hit every shot perfect but decide you want to see how the course suits me and you come down into the crap with me, you'll still have your own abilities in there with you...all you can hope for is that I can clearly articulate my opinion of the course.

In my opinion, Golf IQ is as Gib said initially, the assesment of what's in front of you and realistically setting a course of action to shooting the lowest number you could hope to.

The highest golfing IQ goes to the player who most frequently shoots the lowest score given their physical ability.


I do not believe critically analyzing a golf course for purely conversational purposes has a thing to do with golfing IQ.

Jim,

That's a pretty good definition to me.  So using your definition, in your opinion who has the higher IQ: Tom Kite or Sergio?

If I'm reading you right I think you'll answer Kite (I would).  I like that the best isn't necessarily the "smartest."

Paul

[Jaeger Kovich]

If you can:

play in under 4:10.

don't cheat

don't talk in my backswing

pull the pin if you are closet to the hole

put the pin back in if you are the first one finished

and don't offer unsolicited advice...

I welcome you to golfing mensa!

[Rob Rigg]

- Do you understand the rules and abide by them?
- Do you understand basic principles of course design and strategy, and seek to expand your knowledge through playing, walking courses, reading, etc.?
- Are you passionate about the game and playing it with friends and/or strangers?
- Do you continue, and enjoy, expanding upon your golfing "experiences" through travel?
- Do you educate friends and family about golf to help grow the game?
- Do you understand and respect the history of the game (yes - that does include the fact that golf is a walking game )?

If you can answer yes to these you probably have a decent Golf IQ.

As with everything in life, it is a learning process, and this site is a great place to embrace the game as Anthony pointed out with a couple of his comments about his home course.

A little education and understanding goes a long way - if the Golf IQ in this country would improve a few points then I think decisions made by clubs, developers, archies, members, public golfers, etc. would improve significantly.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou's point about the golf IQs of professional golfers, and how this translates to course design. I know for certain that every pro golfer, every very good amatuer even, has a golfing IQ that I will never be able to match.  They understand a golf course and what it's asking of them far better than I ever will -- and they have the physical talent to answer those "questions".  But I think that, sometimes, this level of deep understanding, for the very reason that it is deep and largely automatic/unconscious, isn't something that is easily put into words or abstract ideas, and so isn't easily 'transferable' to another field of endeavour, like golf course design. (I think our own Jim Sullivan and Jamie Slonis, just to mention two, may be the rare birds who can do both.)  This may sound condescending, and I really don't mean it to be (I've never played a course designed by a touring pro), but I think that, while some top-flight golfers turned designers KNOW, the trouble is that they DON'T KNOW THAT THEY KNOW -- and so they can't put what they've experienced for so many years into a form that allows others to share/replicate that experience. That's not a criticism, in and of itself -- I mean, my man Benny Goodman was playing professionally for Ben Pollack's band at 14 years old. He was already, even then, tearing-off sparkling and razor-sharp runs. If he'd ever wanted to be a music teacher, what could he possibly share with me that I'd TRULY understand, i.e understand on the experiential level?

Peter

Peter,

May I suggest that you reread what you wrote?  Teaching is hardly the proper analogy (wasn't it Mencken who once observed:  "Those who can -- do. Those who can't -- teach").  Writing music, maybe improvisation or perhaps interpretation, are more in the same ballpark as the creative process of gca.  One of the best golf teachers I ever had- J. R. Ables at Ohio State, couldn't play a lick, but that's another thread.

I mostly agree with Jim Sullivan's response to my inquiry.  Watching Nicklaus hit a towering long iron into the 17th at Canterbury during the 1973 PGA made it very apparent that I could never experience the game like the great man.  Frankly, there are questions that these men have long ago answered that wouldn't even occur to indifferent golfers as myself.  No offense to Tom Doak, a guy whose work I enjoy and admire, but perhaps Nickalus doesn't have to visit the peripheries because he already sees and understands the whole picture from the vantage point of the centerline and 50 years of experience playing golf throughout the world at the highest levels.  Besides, Tom, that's what he had you in Long Island for! 

As others have noted, it is a far easier task to talk a good game than to play it.  It is only a little bit harder to write well.  Some, like Gib Papazian, though very few in number, not only have great wit and the facility to turn a phrase, they can also back their words with experience and, at least at one time, their sticks.  Perhaps that is why they sometimes grow a bit impatient.  Of the good players that have taken gca seriously (I exclude guys like Couples who apparently just sells his name for marketing purposes), they can answer any question that I can come up with.

I don't know what Anthony's definition of Golf I.Q. is, but mine does incorporate playing the game as well as understanding the grounds it is played on.  Bobby Jones II wrote a book about understanding the course's design characteristics to play better golf (which I don't think was all that well received).  In this regard, I agree with Gib Papazian (and not with John Cullum) that the important factors involved in rating golf courses are very relevant in how to play the game, and have much to do with what Golf I.Q. is about.

With due respect to Melvyn Hunter Brown and others, knowing who the Earl of Eglinton was, that George Thomas loved to grow roses, of Behr's "line of charm", or the diference between a fortress or skyline green are not very relevant.  They are nice things to know, particularly if one travels with heady company and needs to impress over cocktails, but not so in shooting a good score "commiserate" with one's skill level.

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Lou - you're right, the teaching analogy isn't any good. I just threw that in at the end -- I was trying to say again that what a Goodman or a Nicklaus "knows"  long ago became as much part of their bodies and psyches as of their conscious minds. Thus I think it's sometimes harder for people like that to communicate what they know to those who don't share the same level of knowing.

Peter

[Charlie Goerges]

I don't know what Anthony's definition of Golf I.Q. is, but mine does incorporate playing the game as well as understanding the grounds it is played on.  Bobby Jones II wrote a book about understanding the course's design characteristics to play better golf (which I don't think was all that well received).  In this regard, I agree with Gib Papazian (and not with John Cullum) that the important factors involved in rating golf courses are very relevant in how to play the game, and have much to do with what Golf I.Q. is about.

With due respect to Melvyn Hunter Brown and others, knowing who the Earl of Eglinton was, that George Thomas loved to grow roses, of Behr's "line of charm", or the diference between a fortress or skyline green are not very relevant.  They are nice things to know, particularly if one travels with heady company and needs to impress over cocktails, but not so in shooting a good score "commiserate" with one's skill level.

 

Lou,

I agree with the majority of your point. I think that golf IQ is tied to, and is a reflection of, the ability to play the game (and to some extent, experience). I think, also, that what Peter wrote generally jives with what you are saying. I don't think he meant that Benny Goodman should/could teach him to play.

I disgree with what you say about the history part (or what I call the scholarship, because it can reflect much more than the historical) of the game. For one, it's the part of the game that is not tied to one's prowess as a player. It's also the part that can stick with someone long after they've swung their last club, as has been mentioned by Melvyn. But what's more, I'd be willing to bet that no designer of courses (at least good courses), has made it into that profession without being a scholar of the game, whether they know it or not.

The scholarship may not matter to the rating of the courses, but without it there wouldn't be anything to rate.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Lou

What factors determine your golf IQ?

Knowledge of where you have been would I expect come into play. Without history which start after every breath we take, we would have no knowledge or understanding of life itself.  To go and say “ They are nice things to know, particularly if one travels with heady company and needs to impress over cocktails, but not so in shooting a good score "commiserate" with one's skill level”, well that’s your opinion and by the way without history you would not have an opinion, because it would not exist. We need to learn from the past to try and not make the same mistakes again, that’s true in politics and golf.

Lacking in understanding history limits IQ, you would have no answers, no understanding of the question, you would in fact be a typical politician, so with the greatest respect history does matter and if you care for your golf you would automatically know and understand the Earl of Eglinton contributions to golf.  Without him you may not have any Opens, Masters or Majors being played today. Never dismiss the past and without it your IQ levels will register a great big ZERO.

You are proving my point by calling me Melvyn Hunter Brown. Lou, history will improve your own golf IQ and perhaps get some names right in the process.

I wish you well.

Melvyn

[Jerry Kluger]

Lou:

You play a golf course - you only look at a painting.  You may like the way a course looks but the question is how it plays and your GCA IQ should give you the ability to recognize how a golf course will play.  Sure, looking at a hole from the center of the fairway is certainly something to consider but how often are players going to be there - to me, what is equally important is how it plays from other than the center of the fairway - what kind of challenges are there and are they acceptable - what kind of recovery shots are necessary when you're not in the ideal spot - this is what makes it so difficult to assess a course from playing it just once. 

I would like to throw this proposition out based upon my perceptions of people and not based upon any actual facts:  Lower handicap golfers are less likely to objective in rating a course and their GCA IQ is lower than mid level handicappers if all other factors such as reading background, variety of courses played, etc.  Why do I say this - because most low handicap players I have met judge a course by how well they scored on it.  If they are a 5 handicap and broke 80 then they like the course.  I know there are exceptions such as TH.  The 15 handicap who shoots 95 blames it on his ability as he never expected to shoot 85.  Now if the 15 shoots 105, he is probably so beat up that he can't think straight about anything, but if he shoots 5 or even 10 shots above his norm he is only going to blame himself.

[Lou_Duran]

Melvyn Hunter MORROW,

My apologies about calling you Brown.  It was not meant to be disrespectful; just a careless mistake that I seem to be making with more regularity these days (my mind captures a name or a word, my fingers type something quickly that sounds something a bit like it).  Hopefully it is something transitory and not part of the aging process (one of the problems with the English language is that it has so many words that sound similarly, but are not spelled the same and mean different things).  But I digress.

I am a big believer in history as my heavy emphasis on experience should instruct.  I am much less a fan of the cognitive process or abstract reasoning, particularly when it disregards historical knowledge (of what works) and real life experience.  In this regard, and not to be patronizing, the work of UK historian Michael Oakeshott is relatively new to me but intriguing and thought provoking.

I think that there is more than a bit of a difference between I.Q. and possessing knowledge.  I know some very smart people who I consider to be relative idiots and ill-informed on a variety of subjects.  I also know subject experts who are not particularly smart people (or have extraordinarily high I.Q.s).  Perhaps you can explain how knowing about your earl may help me to play Merion.  On the other hand, having played a large variety of courses in many different geographies, reading and studying the instruction and architecture literature extensively, and having competed at the local and regional level for a few years do contribute to both, my golf I.Q. and knowledge base.  While it may be incomplete and certainly not as thorough or at a as high of level as some on this site, it is sufficient to opine on this thread.

BTW, to suggest that without the good Earl there might not have been "any Opens, Masters or Majors being played today" betrays common sense and a lack of understanding the lessons of history.  I am curious, do you think I need to know the history of Henry Ford to be able to operate an automobile today effectively?  Do you believe that if Edison hadn't been born that we wouldn't have lights?

Wishing you well, as well.

Jerry Kluger,

I agree that golf and fine art are two different things because the way we experience each.  Golf is interactive in a very physical way, though both impact the emotions and the senses.

My experience regarding rating is opposite to yours.  I can give you a plethora of reasons that high handicap raters gave for marking down a course- ranging from not liking the position of the women's tees to having to pass behind another green to reach a subsequent tee to cross bunkers- which got me scratching my head.

Most low handicap players have been high handicappers at one time, and even the low single digit players shoot 90 on occasion.  All players hit awful shots from which they have to recover.  Many high handicappers have not been good players and never possessed the ability to hit some shots.  This doesn't mean that they can't empathize, impute, or imagine.

On balance, I think the low handicapper has better insights, holding everything else equal.  However, I don't see the handicap as a major factor in rating a golf course.  Being very serious and dedicated along with breadth and depth of experience are the keys in my opinion.  

[JESII]

Jim,

That's a pretty good definition to me.  So using your definition, in your opinion who has the higher IQ: Tom Kite or Sergio?

If I'm reading you right I think you'll answer Kite (I would).  I like that the best isn't necessarily the "smartest."

Paul

Sorry Paul...stepped away and didn't come back for a while.

I would say Kite did/does, but Sergio could match or pass him as he develops.

[Bob_Huntley]

There are too many idiots on this site. No wonder Tommy and some of the old timers have run away.  

Gib,

To what, The News of the World?

Bob

[Adrian_Stiff]

IQ must have a different meaning in the US than over here. I certainly translated it knowledge of golf.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Lou

With most things modern we seem to try and make them far more complicated than they are or need to be. Perhaps that is why you not only got my name wrong but also missed out the word MAY when relating to the Championships & competitions i.e. Without him you may not have any Opens, Masters or Majors being played today.

But you are entitled to your opinion, so am I.

Melvyn

[Doug Siebert]

When I read "golf IQ" I think of what is brought up every year when watching the Open - that the fans over there are so much more knowledgeable than the ones in the US.  I'm not talking about the "you da man" guys, they are in single digits on any IQ test.  I'm talking about the fans who play a lot of golf but may or may not really understand the game.
 
If they see a player in a difficult lie around the green pitch the ball 40' from the hole, and realize that getting the ball on the green at all from where he was is quite the accomplishment, they'll give him a round of well-deserved applause.  In the same circumstance I think most galleries in the US would manage only a smattering of applause, thinking that the shot wasn't very good if he didn't get close to the hole.

To have a high golf IQ you have to understand what the issues are and what outcomes are possible in any given circumstance.  It is helpful to be a good player and be able to draw upon your own experiences, but it isn't necessary.  It is helpful to have been exposed to a wide variety of courses and have decades of golfing experience, but with a sufficiently vivid imagination, you can get by with less than most would be willing to admit.

[Anthony Gray]

  Do you have to golf outside your own country to have a high golf IQ?

  Anthony

[Melvyn Morrow]

Anthony

It depends upon which game of golf you play

However, you gain understand and knowledge of how others approach the game. Or you can just sit around TOC and you will see nearly all the golfers of the world playing their game, before adjusting to the nature of the course.

Melvyn

[JESII]

Melvyn,

That last sentence is interesting to me because I've often wondered if you're better off hitting the shots you can hit (and allowing for the negative consequences) or hoping to hit "THE RIGHT SHOT"...

[John_Cullum]

I'm talking about the fans who play a lot of golf but may or may not really understand the game.
 
If they see a player in a difficult lie around the green pitch the ball 40' from the hole, and realize that getting the ball on the green at all from where he was is quite the accomplishment, they'll give him a round of well-deserved applause.  In the same circumstance I think most galleries in the US would manage only a smattering of applause, thinking that the shot wasn't very good if he didn't get close to the hole.

To have a high golf IQ you have to understand what the issues are and what outcomes are possible in any given circumstance.  It is helpful to be a good player and be able to draw upon your own experiences, but it isn't necessary.  It is helpful to have been exposed to a wide variety of courses and have decades of golfing experience, but with a sufficiently vivid imagination, you can get by with less than most would be willing to admit.

I think that nails it more than anything. I am irked when I hear spectators oooh and aahhh when a tour player chips his ball up hill 40 feet with 30 feet of green to work with and gets it to two feet. If he can't do that 95 times out of 100 he's got no business playing for a living. By the same  token, occasionally you'll see a guy shortsided, down hill over a bunker and get it to 8 feet and the same crowd has no idea how good that is. (Note that this is not observed from the middle of the fairway)

[Anthony Gray]

Anthony

It depends upon which game of golf you play

However, you gain understand and knowledge of how others approach the game. Or you can just sit around TOC and you will see nearly all the golfers of the world playing their game, before adjusting to the nature of the course.

Melvyn

  Melvyn,

  I do think that it is good to be a cultured golfer. To see how the approach to golf differs with each society and within each society. In the US the culture of golf is different from club to club. I know and respect your opinions on walking only but when you travel here you will see that the use of buggies allow for a great number of older players to play that simply cannot walk 18 holes. In our weekend lowball 20% of the players are in their seventies and can only join the crowd because of buggies. They have a positive effect on the culture at my club and would be greatly missed if it was walking only. I imagine that their mental and physical health is better because they play every weekend. I feel the UK guys would greatly benefit by a trip to the US to see how the role golf plays in the US society.

  Anthony

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

That is why I always suggest that you play a round Am then again PM, allowing you to play your game AM and ‘hitting the shots you can hit’ then PM play the course and not hope but try and ‘hit the Right Shot’. Afterwards tell me which round you enjoyed the most, my guess is the second even if you got it all wrong because IMHO that is what golf is all about.

Anthony

Don’t get me on carts – but one thing I will ask what about all our older players, not all use carts over here. Must be that thing you call Culture, or is it just that we play golf in the time honoured way. The challenge of the course is both in the game and in the physical exercise. Nevertheless, I am not going to sit, ride or rise to your bate.

Melvyn

PS What golf IQ do you need to use a cart? 

[Anthony Gray]

 Melvyn,

  The cart keeps you enjoying the game longer, which hopefully can add years to your life. I truly understand the time honoured way. If I did not I would not see it necessary to return every year to the home of golf. As far as IQ I think mine has increased because I have traveled not only overseas but also in the US. I am a richer person for it and would love like many others to host you here in the US. Would that trip increase your golf IQ?

  I would love to introduce you to members at my club as a gradson of Old Tom Morris and see the reactions. But do not be surprised if some do not know Old Tom because the IQ at my club can be a little low at times. Even if your trip to the US does not add to your already high IQ, you will truly be a richer man.

  Respctfully, 

  Anthony

[JESII]

Jim

That is why I always suggest that you play a round Am then again PM, allowing you to play your game AM and ‘hitting the shots you can hit’ then PM play the course and not hope but try and ‘hit the Right Shot’. Afterwards tell me which round you enjoyed the most, my guess is the second even if you got it all wrong because IMHO that is what golf is all about.

Thanks Melvyn...good advice.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Anthony

When young, I was always told to ask if I did not know; that my learning would not end when I left school and that we should try to understand others.

Would I be richer by experiencing your culture or improve my golf IQ, well there is just one simple answer to that which is a great big yes of course it would.

Our lives are richer because the majority of us are willing to learn and embrace our fellow Man as equals. Here’s to improved golf IQ….. and
world domination of the real game – ops that just slipped out.

Melvyn   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()