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

[George Pazin]

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!"

I think there is genius in those statements. Think about it over the next few days and we'll talk again.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

There is an old saying in the gca biz - never ask a golfer what he thinks of the course, just ask him what he shot and you have your answer. I think that works about 90% of the time.

I rarely hear a golfer say "I loved this hole". The more typical response is, its good, but I HATE that hole...."

Or, you can play a variation of that old kids game where you add the words "in between the sheets....." to any song title and still have a song title...In gca, I add "It doesn't fit my game" to any course criticism and it still makes sense, and usually a lot more of it.

On a related note, do golfers ever relay the story of the good bounce, or do they always reflect on the bad ones when determining what they shot or could have shot?  So, while I agree that a great course affects your score upward in ways you don't understand at first, in a large percentage of the time, golfers making those shoulda coulda woulda comments are simply being...well, golfers.

[Sean_A]

George

It isn't often I walk off a course and wonder how I dropped those shots.  When this does happen the course is often a very subtle, clever design and one I want to see again. 

When I recount scores I always chuck out the "I don't know why I dropped a shot" shots and accept their loss - chalk one up for the archie.  Its only the shots where I screw up and know why that I have a hard time accepting.  Even then, for my shoulda score I usually halve this number after subtracting the odd long putt or bit of good fortune like bouncing back in bounds.  So in the end, its rare for me to say I shoulda scored say more than 2 shots better than I did - which of course is essentially in a buffer zone of an acceptable score given my performance. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"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."

George:

I think that statement is real genius, particularly the second sentence!


It's too bad Bob Crosby didn't hear that one a few years ago because if he had he would've put it into his calander of golf quotations.

[TEPaul]

George:

I'll tell you, and on reflection, playing pretty much just tournaments (no real recreational golf) all those years, tournament golf was not a good architectural education at all for me (I can think of 2-3 instances only, and one was NGLA after a tournament, where a day or two later, it suddenly occured to me and I would think to myself, Holy Shit, that was quite a golf course and architecture). But for real architectural education, observation or appreciation of any golf course, officiating tournaments on the Class A circuit beats actually playing tournaments for me by a factor of about 100!

[Patrick_Mucci]

There's never been a golf course where I completed my round and didn't think I left shots on the golf course, irrespective of the architectural quality of the golf course.

Let's not forget that golf is the play of a game involving scoring, and not the evaluation of the architecture.

As to considering one's own play in evaluating a golf course, that's a monumental mistake.

To be objective, one must evaluate a golf course in a disinterested fashion, and not from a single perspective, especially one based upon one's play of the golf course.

The golf course is static, save for some minor variables.

Why should a particular golfer's evaluation differ, based upon their score.

Does the golf course reveal itself differently when a golfer shoots 66 versus 78 versus 88 ?

Handicap/player wise, the architect has "no dog in the fight".
He tends to forge a disinterested 18 hole challenge, one that neither favors nor punishes a select faction.

While one feature or one hole may favor a draw, another hole may favor a fade.
While one hole may favor length, another may favor accuracy.
While one hole may favor the high handicapper, another may favor the low handicapper,
but, overall, the challenge presented in all 18 holes "BALANCES OUT" favoring no one faction.

That's the biggest problem I see with green committees and boards, they/golfers try to amend/alter the golf course to favor their particular game, giving no consideration to the games of other players.

[Mac Plumart]

You know guys, I think I take a different view on this one.  But for starters, let me say that if you are a "pencil and scorecard" golfer you shouldn't be a golf course critic.  Plain and simple.

However, I think you should "consider" your own play when evaluating a course...as the thread clearly states.

For example, I played a course early this summer which was on the "best new" courses list.  I think at the time I was a 15 handicap.  I played so-so and hit an 85.  I remember one shot on the back nine where I pulled the heck out of an 8 iron.  It was WAY left of the green...but it hit the surrounding hills/slopes and rolled all the way down and onto the green and left me with a 15 foot putt for birdie.  WTF?!?!?  That is poor architecture in my book.  Poor!!!

And the thing about it was that was not the only time these hills/slopes that flanked the fairways saved a poor shot of mine.  Even though I scored well, I thought the course was a joke.  So "considering" my play, which was not at my best, and my score which was below my handicap...I concluded this was not a course I wanted to play again.

Vinnie Kmetz made a comment that it isn't your score that matters, rather it is the strategy, execution, and way you arrived at your score that makes a course and the game enjoyable.  (or at least he said something like that).  Golf course critics need to have this mindset.  if they hit 95 but have a strategic, exciting, and fun duel with the course that is better than a 75 without the interesting duel.

[Bill_McBride]

For example, I played a course early this summer which was on the "best new" courses list.  I think at the time I was a 15 handicap.  I played so-so and hit an 85.  I remember one shot on the back nine where I pulled the heck out of an 8 iron.  It was WAY left of the green...but it hit the surrounding hills/slopes and rolled all the way down and onto the green and left me with a 15 foot putt for birdie.  WTF?!?!?  That is poor architecture in my book.  Poor!!!

Mac, I think you are missing an important part of golf architecture appreciation here, as well some of the most fun experiences on a golf course.

I have no idea what the course is, or the architect, but he may well have planned this slope that you can play off to access the green, or even a particularly pin.

It is really gratifying to size up an approach shot and see where the architect has given you a kick plate to play off, or a back stop where the ball will gather far beyond the pin and slowly roll back down toward the green, or some other feature that's not readily apparent unless your eyes are open to innovation. 

Once you start looking for those opportunities, and trying to utilize them, golf becomes a whole new game.

At Yale we spent about 10 minutes on the 10th green, watching guys try to putt to a front pin from up behind a ridge.  The required line was perhaps 15' to the right of the direct line.  That is fun golf!

[Ian Andrew]

Never do - I'm much more interested in the architecture than posting a score.

If I'm worried about missing something after wayward play - I simply pick up - and spend time looking at a hole.
I love to attempt the shots or try a line - but I no longer care about posting a score.
I do pay a lot of attention to each player’s shots to see how they react and where they end up.
I will ask them questions about the shot they just hit.

I love to hit a few extra putts on areas that draw my attention.
I'm there to learn about the course - and I won't let playing get in the way.  
 
Some may find this practice odd - but I never get in the way, disrupt the rhythm of more serious players or hold up the group.
I've found this attitude helpful when I struggle, because I made the trip to learn from the course - not play it.

[Rob Rigg]

When I visit a course to evaluate it - I never keep score. If I play the hole "properly" then I will probably finish it - 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.

I never mind missing a green when I am evaluating a course because I think it is fun to chip on or blast out of a bunker to get a feel for how the complex works together.

If there is no one behind me, I think it is fun to putt from different parts of the green to the hole to get a feel for the slopes and undulations and different pin placements.

The most important thing about a course is how the 18 holes work together - basically "what kind of walk is it?" - so if the ultimate goal is to give the course a chance, then you have to let yourself "enjoy the walk" and not let anything get in your way that is not part of that experience.

There are enough biases we deal with in course evaluation - eliminating as many as possible is a good thing.

[Adam Clayman]

For example, I played a course early this summer which was on the "best new" courses list.  I think at the time I was a 15 handicap.  I played so-so and hit an 85.  I remember one shot on the back nine where I pulled the heck out of an 8 iron.  It was WAY left of the green...but it hit the surrounding hills/slopes and rolled all the way down and onto the green and left me with a 15 foot putt for birdie.  WTF?!?!?  That is poor architecture in my book.  Poor!!!

And the thing about it was that was not the only time these hills/slopes that flanked the fairways saved a poor shot of mine.  Even though I scored well, I thought the course was a joke.  So "considering" my play, which was not at my best, and my score which was below my handicap...I concluded this was not a course I wanted to play again.

Well, there is a fine line between overly used and properly used features. Especially containment.

Mac, The same happened to me on the 15th at Sand Hills. Yes , I got lucky, but it is in no way poor architecture. It may actually be a secret way to get to a specific area of the green.

And that is precisely why you should not evaluate a golf course based on how you played it, especially once.

[Bill_McBride]

For example, I played a course early this summer which was on the "best new" courses list.  I think at the time I was a 15 handicap.  I played so-so and hit an 85.  I remember one shot on the back nine where I pulled the heck out of an 8 iron.  It was WAY left of the green...but it hit the surrounding hills/slopes and rolled all the way down and onto the green and left me with a 15 foot putt for birdie.  WTF?!?!?  That is poor architecture in my book.  Poor!!!

And the thing about it was that was not the only time these hills/slopes that flanked the fairways saved a poor shot of mine.  Even though I scored well, I thought the course was a joke.  So "considering" my play, which was not at my best, and my score which was below my handicap...I concluded this was not a course I wanted to play again.

Well, there is a fine line between overly used and properly used features. Especially containment.

Mac, The same happened to me on the 15th at Sand Hills. Yes , I got lucky, but it is in no way poor architecture. It may actually be a secret way to get to a specific area of the green.

And that is precisely why you should not evaluate a golf course based on how you played it, especially once.

Adam, when I wrote my reply #7 above, two of the fun design features I was thinking of were behind the top of the 7th green and the mound to the left of the rear bunker on #14, both at Black Mesa.  You played a wedge off that backstop behind the green on #7 for a birdie, and Lou Duran played off the mound on #14 to kick in range. 

If we didn't look for those kind of features, golf wouldn't be nearly as much fun!

[Tim Gavrich]

Never do - I'm much more interested in the architecture than posting a score.

...
 
I've found this attitude helpful when I struggle, because I made the trip to learn from the course - not play it.

Ian--

As an architect, do you feel as though this approach is one that should be taken by all players, or is it more realistic to do that as one for whom golf course architecture is a living?  I've always felt that at its core, golf is a game played either against one's fellow players or against par.  So, for about 99% of the rounds I play, I keep score--even on courses I'm playing for the first time and especially on courses that I may only play once.  Really the only times I don't keep score are practice rounds before tournaments, when I'm trying to familiarize myself with a course for the purpose of playing it in as few strokes as possible.  My appraisal of the quality of a course therefore comes from playing it, rather than playing with or on it, if that makes sense.  I don't really think there are many golf courses I've come away from thinking that I had an inadequate understanding of it from just playing for a score.  Of course, I always enjoying hitting extra shots on holes when I can.

Perhaps it comes down to whether you're a golfer in the sporting sense or a golfer in the hobby sense.  I certainly accept the legitimacy of those who don't really play golf for a score, as long as they don't take hit a disrespectful number of extra balls and hold up play.

--Tim

[Jud_T]

Score per se doesn't matter.  Although I think after only one visit one tends to favor courses where one played well.  When it does have an impact is when a mid to high handicapper is playing a championship layout that was not designed to be fun for all abilities.  This is IMHO an architectural weakness.  I think many of us here could design very difficult courses that would test the strong player.  But there are not nearly enough of us that can design courses that will test the strong player yet be fun for all abilities..

[Tom_Doak]

There is an old saying in the gca biz - never ask a golfer what he thinks of the course, just ask him what he shot and you have your answer. I think that works about 90% of the time.

Jeff:  My variation on that is "Always ask a golfer what he thinks of the course, but if he tells you what he shot, you can probably ignore the rest of it."

George:

This is a very good topic.  Long ago, I wrote about Cypress Point exactly what your friend said -- that nearly every player walked off the 18th thinking he had left some shots out there.  That's the reason it's such a good course, whether or not some long hitters think it's too short.  And more importantly, it drives home the point that a course does not have to be super-hard to leave you with the feeling you could have done better.

You've got some observers for whom score is way too important -- who can't even understand that most people are out there to have fun, and that fun is not necessarily related to score.  You've got other observers who think that anyone obsessed by [or focused on?] score should be dismissed outright.  It is indeed a Big World.

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.

[archie_struthers]

 


Hey George I'd take your friend any day as partner....a really good player often shoots a good score and hits it pretty bad...in fact the attitude that score is everything separates the real players from the wannabbees ...my good friend Tim DeBaufre (who was a player) always asked me how I played , I've learned to just tell him the number ....no descriptions please  lol

[Patrick_Mucci]

Score per se doesn't matter. 

Then, like Ian, who's picking up his ball and puttering around, you're NOT playing golf.

Although I think after only one visit one tends to favor courses where one played well. 

"Favors" it in what context ?

When it does have an impact is when a mid to high handicapper is playing a championship layout that was not designed to be fun for all abilities. 

Then, the golfer is playing from the wrong tees.

This is IMHO an architectural weakness. 

NO, it's the golfer's weakness, his ego that has brought him to play from tees unintended for his ilk.

I think many of us here could design very difficult courses that would test the strong player. 
But there are not nearly enough of us that can design courses that will test the strong player yet be fun for all abilities..

I think that's pretty much impossible, unless you have different sets of tees, and even with different sets of tees, the disparity in play between the wide spectrum of golfers is too difficult for the architect to overcome, especially in light of the advances in the I&B.

Can you think of a championship course that tests the strongest players that's fun for golfers of all abilities ?

[Ian Andrew]

Tim,

People who play for the sport of the game should play and keep score.
They would miss out on too much if they don't.
I have a different agenda than most.

I enjoy playing and do finish most rounds.
But if I hit into deep trouble or have trouble finding the ball in long rough - I drop and go.
If you do that, you can't keep score.

I do enjoy a match - but not keeping score.

[Adam Clayman]

Bill, I remember it well. And well said.

But if I hit into deep trouble or have trouble finding the ball in long rough - I drop and go.
If you do that, you can't keep score.

I do enjoy a match - but not keeping score.

Ian,
 If one can use ESC to take scores on holes not played. It seems logical that a golfer who throws down the occasional ball, can still turn in a score using either ESC, or as in match play, what the golfer most likely would've scored.

[Mark Pearce]

Can you think of a championship course that tests the strongest players that's fun for golfers of all abilities

Yes.  Muirfield.  Dornoch.  Carnoustie  Three courses I played as a (poor) 19 handicapper in the past and had a blast.  Sometimes, Patrick, the arrogance of the good player shines through too brightly in you.  To imagine a weaker golfer cannot "play" these courses and enjoy them is nonsense.  He/she may not score well, or play to their handicap but they can still have a great deal of fun.  Far more, in fact, than on some flat, short, boring course where playing to your handicap is no challenge.

[Jud_T]

Pat,

Dude-deconstructionism went out with the '90's...

1. Score doesn't matter AS IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSING A COURSE"S DESIGN.

2. There are no tees at places like Butler or Medinah #3 that are fun for the mid to high handicapper.

3. Favors as in ranks more highly.

4. Lots- Olympia Fields, Chicago Golf, Winged Foot, TOC, Muirfield, Pebble, Merion, etc., etc....This is in fact IMHO one of the defining characteristics that seperates the truly great courses from the merely good to very good...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can you think of a championship course that tests the strongest players that's fun for golfers of all abilities

Yes.  Muirfield.  Dornoch.  Carnoustie 

Three courses I played as a (poor) 19 handicapper in the past and had a blast. 

And you played all three from the Championship tees used in the Opens ?


Sometimes, Patrick, the arrogance of the good player shines through too brightly in you. 
To imagine a weaker golfer cannot "play" these courses and enjoy them is nonsense. 

It's not nonsense, it's a fact.
Tell us, how as a 19 handicap, from the Championship tees at Muirfield, Dornoch and Carnoustie, you interfaced with the architecture, the features when you played ?

He/she may not score well, or play to their handicap but they can still have a great deal of fun. 

How so when it's impossible to interface with the architectural features,, save at the green end ?

Far more, in fact, than on some flat, short, boring course where playing to your handicap is no challenge.

As a 19 handicap how can playing at any golf course NOT be a challenge for you ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Dude-deconstructionism went out with the '90's...

1. Score doesn't matter AS IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSING A COURSE"S DESIGN.

That would depend upon whether you were playing golf or just jerking around.
If you're playing golf, score matters.
If score doesn't matter, then you're not playing golf.
Since score doesn't matter for you, what's your handicap ?

2. There are no tees at places like Butler or Medinah #3 that are fun for the mid to high handicapper.

Are women and high handicappers banned from Medinah # 3 ?
Or, are there tees to accomodate them ?

3. Favors as in ranks more highly.

So you would rank the architectural merits of a golf course based upon the scores you shot ?
That's a rather unique methodology.

4. Lots- Olympia Fields, Chicago Golf, Winged Foot, TOC, Muirfield, Pebble, Merion, etc., etc....
This is in fact IMHO one of the defining characteristics that seperates the truly great courses from the merely good to very good...


Let's focus on one course at a time.
Tell us what or how playing Winged Foot West from the championship tees is fun.
First, tell us your handicap so that we might better understand your response.

Thanks

[Jud_T]

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.....  

[Norbert P]

I am a scratch golfer when I'm standing on the 1st tee. 
I am a higher handicapper when I walk off the 18th green.
And never the two shall meet.


I can contemplate, analyze and theorize golf designs but it can be disappointing when the tee shots go awry and I don't get the approach angles that I'd hoped to have. I want to experience what the preferred angles gives the player but shotgunning my drives keeps me ignorant, though it helps my recovery game.  I don't blame anybody but myself. 

I always have to keep in mind though that Alistair was no great stick, and he did alright.