"Golfers love it"

[Marty Bonnar]

In my usual cavalier, laissez-faire style, I made a throwaway statement in Kyle's Kingsbarns thread which at that moment seemed simple and typically (of me) trite but is one which has sparked one or two more neurons in my wine-addled brain than I might have expected.

I said: "Golfers love it".

Seemingly such a simple thing to say and one which I'm sure everyone here can relate to. You KNOW the holes you LOVE and you know all the others are the plain-Jane wallflowers which you could take or leave.

But WE spend a lot of time, tears and heartache unravelling the qualities of golf holes which we think/know are important. Are we over-critical? Do we over-'anal'yse their qualities? What's the point? Self-agrandissement? Peer acceptance?

I know many of our golf buddies who are less interested than we are just want to play the damn thing and see how they do. Maybe they're TOTALLY right?

Oh no, I'm becoming the middle-aged crisis bloke...

FBD.

[BCrosby]

FBD -

I'm not sure it's a zero sum thing. I enjoy a Mozart symphony, but I know virtually nothing about music.

But others know a great deal about music; they study it carefully and argue over it passionately.

Both approaches to Mozart's symphonies strike me a legit.

Why doesn't the same apply to golf holes?

Bob

[Mark Pearce]

In my usual cavalier, laissez-faire style, I made a throwaway statement in Kyle's Kingsbarns thread which at that moment seemed simple and typically (of me) trite but is one which has sparked one or two more neurons in my wine-addled brain than I might have expected.

I said: "Golfers love it".

Seemingly such a simple thing to say and one which I'm sure everyone here can relate to. You KNOW the holes you LOVE and you know all the others are the plain-Jane wallflowers which you could take or leave.

But WE spend a lot of time, tears and heartache unravelling the qualities of golf holes which we think/know are important. Are we over-critical? Do we over-'anal'yse their qualities? What's the point? Self-agrandissement? Peer acceptance?

I know many of our golf buddies who are less interested than we are just want to play the damn thing and see how they do. Maybe they're TOTALLY right?

Oh no, I'm becoming the middle-aged crisis bloke...

FBD.

Isn't it the same as any art form?  (Accepting, for the purpose of this discussion only, your suggestion that GCA is art)  There's music that many people love but yet scholars spend time trying to understand why it is that some music (or painting, or sculpture) is loved and others not.  The majority of listeners don't care, they know that they like some music (painting, sculpture) but not other music.   Aren't we really just trying to understand why we love these holes?

[Marty Bonnar]

Great comments, boys.

So are we saying that we, because golf architecture is 'our bag', legitimately spend OUR time discussing and debating the qualities of our subject, just because we can. Or because we SHOULD?

Interesting also that you should both cite music. A subject exceedingly close to my - and many's a GCAer's - heart. Possibly/probably THE most subjective topic upon which to have an opinion

So, can we say that 'taste' is THE important factor in opinion-forming? Does that mean that 'taste' also colours any critic's opinion? NB - 'Critic' = 'Rater'??

Maybe I'm right about the whole 'Art' thing after all. I have to be right about something in this earth-visit. Sheesh, the last time I was here in human form I had that whole 'kill all the boy-childs in the kingdom' gig. Boy, that turned out to be so unpopular...

FBD.

[rjsimper]

If someone spends more time critiquing architecture, and/or studying and discussing the game's history, than they do actually playing the game, are they golfer? Seems to me they become more of a critic/historian than a golfer.

[Ronald Montesano]

Define "more time."  There are many ways to skin a cat (including the Paraguayan Parachute, but that's another story to invent for another time) and there are many ways to define a "golfer."  Competitive v. Recreational; Scratch v. Handicap; Frequent v. Infrequent; One who practices v. one who does not, and on and on goes the list.

During my recent Sandhills (N.C.) trip, I and the other archie buff had a blast discussing Ross v. Dye v. Strantz.  The other two guys in the group?  Not so much.  In retrospect, I missed a golden opportunity to perform the following...

I think that we can perform the following ritual if we wish to truly add something to the body of knowledge about what reaction a hole has on the unpracticed eye.  Simply ask your uninitiated golfing pals which holes they liked most and least at the well-built course you play.  Rather than say "Did you know that Tilly...." find out their opinion and use that to draw some conclusions.

[Mark Pearce]

If someone spends more time critiquing architecture, and/or studying and discussing the game's history, than they do actually playing the game, are they golfer? Seems to me they become more of a critic/historian than a golfer.

I spend more time at the office than I do playing golf.  I'm a lawyer.  Does that mean I can't be a golfer as well?

[mike_beene]

Mark,worked out OK for Bobby Jones.

[Kalen Braley]

Are we over-critical?

Often times yes marty, especially when the criticsm is pointed at the man instead of the architecture..

 Do we over-'anal'yse their qualities?

I think this happens on occasion, but for the most part I think its good to de-construct things into its smallest parts...after all this is science at is very core...to figure out how stuff works/fits together

What's the point?

waste time, no life, nothing esle better to do..   

Self-agrandissement?

Sure...sounds good too, I can buy that

 Peer acceptance?

why not this one too!! 

I know many of our golf buddies who are less interested than we are just want to play the damn thing and see how they do. Maybe they're TOTALLY right?

This is perhaps the most true.  GCA'ers forget we are indeed the tiny minority. Most folks just want to go out there and give it a chop, nothing more than that.  Its not that we or they have any more "higher insights", we're just looking for different things thats all

Oh no, I'm becoming the middle-aged crisis bloke...

Ahhh cmon no your not...not when u can still make fun of yerself!!   

FBD.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Marty,

I have noodled on this thread for a while.  Yes, I think we can over analyze and its not a great thing.

For that matter, if my legacy is that average (and "unitiiated" or "ill informed") golfers love my courses, but critics are lukewarn, I think I would be happier.

Forget Motzart.  Think movies, like the light fluffy comedies that so many of us go to watch for escape.  The millions in box office reciepts say they struck a chord with the masses, even if the critics say the content is poor.  Or pop music.  Many tried to intellectually compare the Beatles to Motzart but those buying the records didn't care.

I do agree with the notion of not telling your friends about architectural heritage.  I know that at Sand Creek Station they mention some of the templates/classic models I used.  My sense is that golfers pick up on that a little, but in reality, they like the holes for whatever they like them for, and kind of like the verbiage just enough to additionally justify/rationalize their emotional decision to play there. 

And those things that they like, but can't describe, are probably more design elements we don't talk about here much - like scale (things are bigger than most courses they can play) preservation of trees (this is Kansas, trees are valuble) and the bent fw, which play better than the fescue/blue fw they are used to.  If there is a design element they respond to, I think its just the overall "feel" that things were arranged somehow, not the specifics of how they were arranged and that the aesthetics of the bunkers, greens, contouring, etc. just sort of "feel right".

Or in short, they appreciate the landscape architectural/aesthetics of the course more than the strategic design features. And, as Seinfeld would say, "Not that there is anything wrong with that!"

But, I am already over analyzing, aren't I?