Is it ever good to consider your own play in evaluating a course?

[Bill_McBride]

Pat,

Apparently match play is just jerking around.. 

Medinah #3 isn't fun period, I don't care if you set up junior tees in the middle of the fairway.

who said anything about playing from the championship tees?

If being a very strong player is a prerequisite for this conversation, then why do the majority of touring pros, Ben Crenshaw excepted, generally make such mediocre golf course architects?

I'm a 20 currently.  Didn't start playing until my mid 30s. Guess that makes me unable to appreciate golf courses.  Any time you want to give me 11 a side from the tips at Winged foot and play a thousand dollar nassau, I'm there.....  

Be careful what you wish for, Mucci is a real stick!

[Kyle Harris]

Didn't Tom Watson say something about golf courses being played and not ranked?

I think your own play is really the only way to evaluate a course. The kicker is how much one understand their own game and how that fits in the metagame of golf.

[Sean_A]

Didn't Tom Watson say something about golf courses being played and not ranked?

I think your own play is really the only way to evaluate a course.

Huh?  What if a guy doesn't play golf - does that mean he can't evaluate a design based on how others play? 

Ciao

[Ian Andrew]

I played Kingston Heath with two really first class players last week. I had one of those days where I missed more than my fair share of shots - probably played and walked too much by that point.

But I made damned sure that I watched almost every one of their shots and lived a little vicariously through their play. You don’t have to hit the shots to learn, but often it helps to see “someone” play “a shot” to fully understand the more subtle parts of the design.

I think most of us can envision what something does, but until we get a ball in play, we can never be 100% sure. I hit at least 50 extra putts and chips around the 5th at Barnbougle Dunes with my host because we decided to explore all the alternatives (and there was no one behind us). We found all sorts of alternative shots to access even the harder pins on the left.

If we were very serious about playing, we would have left long before that to maintain some sense of rhythm to our round.

[Keith Phillips]

a decade ago i played two classics back to back - as a 14 I shot 84 to help win member guest at Oakmont and two weeks later shot 103 in Mamaroneck - Oakmont remains my favorite inland course...and Winged Foot sucks!

[JR Potts]

Trying to get Jud's point on this topic is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Patrick - I'll back the bet Jud threw out there.

Finally, Medinah does not have Junior or Woman's Tees...and it really doesn't have Senior Tees.  The club has three courses, if you can't play #3 from the tees that are out there, it is suggested that you play one of the other two courses.

And Butler is the same way - the course is built for its members.  If you're not good enough to play it (for score), then you shouldn't be a member.  I'm relatively certain that Bulter would be just fine if they never had another 15+ handicap play their course - especially the 15+ that got access and then bitch about how the course wasn't flexible enough for their poor games.

And on-point, it's impossible not to take your own play into account when evaluating a golf course.  I always snicker at guys who have strong opinion of golf courses when they spend all four hours of a round 25 yards deep into the right trees.  I mean really, what could they have learned?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Apparently match play is just jerking around..  

So if you're in one of your $ 1,000 Nassau matches you're examing the architectural features that don't interface with your game ?
Please, spare us the B.S.

Medinah #3 isn't fun period, I don't care if you set up junior tees in the middle of the fairway.

who said anything about playing from the championship tees?  I did, didn't you read my reply ?

If being a very strong player is a prerequisite for this conversation, then why do the majority of touring pros, Ben Crenshaw excepted, generally make such mediocre golf course architects?

Who said, "being a strong player is a prerequisite for this conversation" ?
I certainly didn't.

To answer your "touring pro" question, probably because developers and the end users believe that name recognition is important in terms of marketing and the quality of the product.  Are you familiar with the "Nicklaus" brand and its weight at the banks ?

Were Pete Dye and George Fazio good golfers ?

CB MacDonald ?
Donald Ross ?  

I'm a 20 currently.  
Didn't start playing until my mid 30s.
Guess that makes me unable to appreciate golf courses.

You'd be hard pressed to appreciate them from the perspective of a 15, 10, 5 and 0 handicap player wouldn't you.


Any time you want to give me 11 a side from the tips at Winged foot and play a thousand dollar nassau, I'm there.....  


It's typical that I get these offers in December, January and February.
But, somehow they seem to start disappearing around April and May.
I'd be happy to accomodate you with a match from the tips at Winged Foot West.
Typically we play seven ways (2 front, 2 back, 3 overall, with automatic presses when anyone goes 2 down)
As a 20 why do you feel entitled to 22 shots ?
We'll play the match with you getting the difference in our handicaps, with summer rules.

Ryan Potts,

I'd be happy to have you participate in the wager.

[Kyle Harris]

Didn't Tom Watson say something about golf courses being played and not ranked?

I think your own play is really the only way to evaluate a course.

Huh?  What if a guy doesn't play golf - does that mean he can't evaluate a design based on how others play? 

Ciao

Sean,

Fair enough, but please include the whole post. That person would have to understand where the other "games" fit in the metagame of golf.

[Jud_T]

Pat,

I'm a 20.9 index currently (up from 17.3  ) which translates to a course handicap of 27 for a 145 slope, you are a 4.1 if I'm reading it correctly which makes you a 5 from the tips, that sound like 11 a side to me...Fyi, I can probably arrange some interesting side action with a buddy who will give you one a side as well...I'm down except for the automatics.  Don't do those since I gave an entire Scotland trip back once at Kingsbarns....

Ryan,

Nobody will be more happy to not have me at Butler again than me...There's no question that I have no business being out there. I was simply responding to Pat's conjecture that it's merely a matter of playing the right tees....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

I think you have to differentiate "playing" from "observing" when one or the other is your main focus.

Some people have incredible, broad powers of observation, others have tunnel vision and only see the golf course through their game.

Most people playing a meaningful round are focused on their objective/s, not the totality of the design.

Evaluating a golf course through your own play is erratic at best, unless you're a plus handicap.
Too often, evaluating a golf course through your own play is constricting or myopic.
When you factor in the variable/s in one's play it gets even more complicated.

When handicaps are determined by taking the differential between the lowest 10 or your last 20 scores versus the course rating/slope you begin to see that variable.  A 10 handicap golfer might score 80 on a par 72 course and he might score 100.  Certainly the gap between the two scores is so considerable that the golfer's perspective of the golf course might be vastly different for each round.
And, in both cases, his evaluation might be mortally flawed.

Sean Arble,

Seth Raynor, a non-golfer comes to mind as the perfect example of a non-golfer's ability to evaluate a golf course.
But, Seth Raynor's purpose for being on a golf course wasn't to play golf.
Seth Raynor was trained as an engineer and a surveyor, and tutored/mentored/educated by one of the finest architetural minds of his time.

But, the question originally posed wasn't whether or not a non-golfer could evaluate a golf course.

The question posed didn't ask for an arms length or disinterested party's opinion, it asked whether an interested party, a golfer playing a round on a particular golf course, with a built in bias, should insert that bias in evaluating that golf course.

My answer, as convoluted as it might seem to some, was that the architect must forge a disinterested challenge that favors no particular game.

Once a golfer evaluates a golf course on the basis of his game, he's no longer a disinterested party without bias, he's clearly predisposed, and as such, his evaluation is inherently flawed.

That's my premise and I'm sticking to it.

[Jud_T]

Pat,

That makes a lot more sense and I think you are correct in the sense that it takes a trained, impartial eye to really assess a courses design elements.  It's very difficult for the average player, particularly after only one or two rounds, to get out of their own way and experience to fairly evaluate a design.  And of course one's play is only one of a myriad of elements that can influence one's view, i.e. exclusivity, hospitality, scenery, etc....I don't buy the view, expressed by some here, that only someone who has a chance at shooting par from the tips can fully appreciate the full measure of the intended strategy of a course...If that were the case then all the low single digit players' opinions of a given course wouldn't mean sh*t compared to Tiger Woods' who carries the ball 40 yards further than them and is giving them a stroke a hole ( a +13 at last measure...)...Since the average club player carries a 15 index and the average non-club player is somewhere north of that, it seems a bit arrogant to assume that only those 2-3 standard deviations from the mean of playing ability should hold court on what is or isn't in GCA.  If that's the case, then Tom Doak's ( a 10?) opinion is useless, and as a matter of fact this entire site would be a complete waste of time (? ?) unless the best golfer in the world were posting....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jud,

In my limited experience of interacting with golfers who were either evaluating a golf course, a golf hole or a particular feature, I've noticed several general tendencies.

Low handicap golfers have wanted to stiffen the challenge and high handicappers have wanted to diminish the challenge.
Both factions present their case, solely in the context of their game and how the hole/feature affects it, or could effect it.
Low handicappers have tended to want to make the challenge more difficult, not for themselves, but, for the lesser player.
The higher handicappers have tended to want to make the challenge easier for themselves, with little concern about making the challenge more difficult for the lower handicap player.
In general, I've sensed an antagonism between the two factions that rarely leads to consensus..

The architect must dismiss biased views, he must ignore interested factions and find a tactical balance amongst all factions, not in any one feature or hole, but in the context the entire 18 holes.

It's a rare committee/board session when low handicaps 0-2 and high handicaps 18-20 come to a meeting of the minds on a particular feature or hole, and that's why clubs NEED to hire a disinterested, independent party, an architect.

In order to make an honest or thorough evaluation, one must evaluate a feature, hole or golf course in the context of the broad spectrum of golfers who will interface with those features, holes and golf course, and not in the sole context of their game.

[Jud_T]

Pat,

Forgive me my transgresses.  I am relatively new to this site and you have a much more subtle view of the subject than I understood at first glance...Please see my related thread- We like quirky fun designs because we're hackers...

[Mac Plumart]

Enough of this "nice-nice"...

I want a $1,000 nassau at Winged Foot from the tips with automatic presses when anyone goes 2 down beteween Jud and Patrick!!!!!!

I know we can get someone from GCA to give us stroke by stroke commentary on the site!!!

 

[Jud_T]

Mac,

I'm all for it and I'm sure it would be quite entertaining. (I have the inside track on the best caddie as well!).  The problem, as I'm sure you're aware, is my volatility vs. Pat's.  i.e. if we both are playing our best, then it's a 50/50 proposition, but if we are both off our game, I'm sure to lose most of the time as a bad round for him may be 4 or 5 shots worse while a bad round for me may be 10-15 shots worse, so the real odds are more like 2-1 in his favor....

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Some food for thought over the next couple days.

I recently had a conversation with another poster about how golfers' play influences feelings about the course. The short of it was that I feel golfers miss things when only playing once or twice, because there is (understandably) too much influence of the outcome of their own shots, as well as a misunderstanding of how the best play.

I find it fascinating how many golfers walk off great courses feeling they left more than a few shots out on the course. Upon reflection, I consider this a HUGE plus for any course. It's my own (limited) experience that the best courses always leave one feeling as though they should have scored better, but somehow didn't. It's the somehow that is important, imho.

After relating this drivel to my friend, he remarked that in his many years of tournament play - always well into the double digits every year for many years - he frequently heard fellow golfers lamenting how they "shot 75 but should have shot 68" or something like that. He said he was the only one who routinely said "I shot 72 but should have shot 80!"

George:

I can't think of one occasion where I didn't walk off a course feeling that I had left a few shots on the course. In my opinion, it's got nothing to do with the quality of the course. We all make mistakes, whether it's on a dog-track or a Top 100 course. Even Tiger Woods hasn't played a perfect round in his life and probably never will.

I believe your friend was just good at course management. Squeezing a 72 out of an 80 is the sign of a good golfer. It's about getting up-and-down when it counts and minimizing mistakes.

As one or two (Ian / Rob) have already said, if you want to evaluate a course properly, you need to forget about the score. I'd say you need to just drop balls down here and there and play from different positions. Try chipping and putting from all angles and positions. It takes a lot of walking and time to fully evaluate a course. You need to look at the approaches to greens from all angles and distances. It's a bit like a survey.

Personally, I like to keep score, so I don't think that I can be fully focused on evaluating a course; it's a bit of give and take in my opinion. On the other hand, I don't think I could evaluate and appreciate a course by just walking it.

Dónal.

[Mac Plumart]

Jud...

I hear you.

As an FYI...I'm willing to stake a % of  your risk in return for a % of the profit.  Perhaps, we could get a syndicate going to help alleviate some of the risk...but then some of your reward as well.

Or you guys could drop it to a friendly game ($1 nassau) and give us feedback after your round along the lines of what a mid to high handicapper thought of the round and the course versus a low handicapper.

Either way, I'm trying to get you a look (or another look) at Winged Foot!!!  Work with me here!!

[Mike Hendren]

Those people who opine that one cannot evaluate a course after a single play likely have better access.

While there are those of us who cannot adequately articulate our opinions (or as Sean Arble rightly points out, are simply too intellectually lazy to do so) the cognoscenti should heavily consider the fact that we indeed "get it" whatever the heck "it" is.

Not only is it not a "monumental mistake" as Pat Mucci opines, I'd argue that the ONLY way to evaluate a golf course is in the context of your game.  If not, why bother playing the round?

I don't at all mean to imply that all golf courses should suit every type of game.  All I know is that I've played with several members of this web-site on golf courses they've been fortunate enough to play multiple times and it's obvious form their choices that they don't "get" the architecture.

I'd even argue that the key to evaluating golf course architecture is a keen understanding (not playing capability) of the GAME itself.  

Perhaps a single play forces the student of architecture to pay better attention.  

Give me the guy who takes the time to look for replaced cups on the green over the guy who curses after a poorly struck shot every time.

My game has fallen to pieces but in no way do I want to "diminish the challenge."  The double-digit handicapper has to confront virtually every architectural element on a golf course.  Accordingly, he cannot let down his guard in evaluating the golf course.

I can recall only a single round in the past 40 years where I failed to make a par due to stunningly poor play.  It was my only round on what I believe to be the best course in this country.  

I have come to love the architecture more than the game, to the extent that I have resigned my club membership so I can budget those funds to travel and see more courses.  

Mike

[George Pazin]

When I visit a course to evaluate it - I never keep score. If I play the hole "properly" then I will probably finish it - [color]if I hit a wayward drive, then I will often pick my ball up and put it down in position A or B to get a feel for how the hole was supposed to be played.[/color]

You'll pardon me for singling you out, but I think this is a real mistake (in general, not necessarily when you personally do it). I don't believe it is good to say a hole is supposed to be played in a certain manner, again speaking generally. I'll try to expand more later.

Thanks, Tom P, for noticing the importance of the word "somehow". That was a carefully worded sentence, in spite of its brevity.

Tom D, I love this statement:

But to suggest that you should not use the shots you hit on a course to HELP you judge its merits is pretty silly, to me.  Results matter.  You just shouldn't make the mistake of thinking the hole ALWAYS plays the way you played it.

More later.

[George Pazin]

You're right, Shiv. Maybe I should have asked:

How should one's play influence thoughts on a golf course?

Of course, Pat disagrees, which only means I'm on the right track...

There is a very controversial sports talk guy here in the Burgh who has one thing that he says that I love: What coulda happened, did.

[TEPaul]

GeorgeP:

What I'm about to say I realize is somewhat off the point of the subject of your thread---eg "Is it ever a good to consider your own play in evaluating a course?" but I have noticed over the years that some golfers (and golf architectural analysts) are just a whole lot better than others at picking up the nuances of any course's architecture than others are given some limited amount of time or experience with a course.

I've seen some analysts who play a course once and they seem to think they have basically noticed most everything about the architectural ramifications of a course when I can tell really well they just haven't. I guess this is just a common case that some people just do not appreciate very well to KNOW WHAT THEY DON'T KNOW!

On the other hand, I have seen others who pick up on all kinds of architectural nuances really quickly even if they have never seen or experienced the relevent shots with these architectural nuances.

I'm sure a guy like Doak can do this really well, and I have noticed being with them that Bill V could do it well as I think Ran Morrissett can as well, and even on recent threads I was pretty amazed at how much Bradley Anderson picked up on with some architectural nuances of the architecture of Oakmont, after having seen it only once.

As for me, I just can't play golf and notice architectural nuances very well that have not related to what I've done on the course that day. I guess I just can't stop concentrating on what I'm trying to do and spend the time to really look around and analyze.

But courses with great architecture like Pine Valley that I've probably played more and know better than anyone else on here still surprises me with some of its architectural nuances, particularly when the course and particularly the approaches and greens are firm and fast.

There is no question in my mind that when good architecture plays firm and fast all kinds of architectural nuances start to pop out that even long term members never appreciated or even noticed.

[Jerry Kluger]

I would like to submit the following with respect to this thread:  If a hole can only be played one way is it good architecture?  What I am saying is that if after you play a hole and are trying to judge its architecture, you come to the conclusion that it can only be played one way in order to score well on the hole, is that necessarily bad?  In other words,  if you have to play the hole by playing to point A and then to point B can that be good architecture - to me, generally the answer is "no." So my own play will influence my consideration of the hole and that is because of the architecture and not because of my play - does that make sense?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Hendren, et. al.,

"I do not believe any one is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played them under all the varying conditions possible--varying winds, rain, heat, frost, etc."

[George Pazin]

If we imposed that standard on everyone, this would be one lonely and quiet site.

Tom P -

You're certainly right about some folks getting it immediately and others never. I guess my next question would be for those who get it, such as those mentioned by you, what things do you look for? Do you think there is anything most relative novices frequently miss?

As I mentioned earlier, I think playing a hole as one believes the designer has in mind is somewhat of a mistake. I think this approach would miss the lion's share of the architect's work, and would render most analysis rather dull and boring.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

It depends on whether you're most concerned with, quantity or quality