Walk v Play: Judging a golf course ?

[Kevin Pallier]

Can one understand the "quality" of a golf course merely by walking it ? or does one need to play it in order to fully appreciate it ?

[John Moore II]

Most likely you need to play the course. But I can seen someone taking a really long walk around the course, actually standing up on each tee and in each fairway looking what shots to hit and such, I think a person could gain a very good understanding of the course; though probably not as good as could be had with playing. A person with a really good eye though could get a pretty detailed understanding of the course without playing, I think.

[K. Krahenbuhl]

I would answer both questions yes.  I think you can easily see the quality of a course without playing it, but it probably can't be fully appreciated until it is played.  I've walked Pine Valley and Augusta and you can pick up a lot about a course by doing this, but without hitting the shots and experiencing the contours of the greens I'm not sure that I can properly assess either of them.

[John Mayhugh]

You could do a great job judging a course just from walking and then stopping at the green and putting.  If you were only going to have a single trip around the course, walking it might tell you more than playing.  It just wouldn't be as much fun.   

I was fortunate enough to get to walk CPC on a maintenance day.  It's amazing how much you can notice when you're not trying to play shots.  I spent a lot of time in the fairway that way, too!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Absolute no brainer for me, I think walking is miles better, you are there and you can study options and absorb the whoe picture. When you play you are playing golf so you miss things especially the options, unless ofcourse you are not really intrested in the golf in which case you may as well be walking.

[Sean_A]

For me, I have to see balls moving to confirm my thoughts.  So many times I have been wrong in how I thought shots would turn out.  That said, watching many others play is probably the most effective way for me to get stuff.  I think there is an inherent risk for walkers to be get stuff wrong and probably be over-influenced by aesthetics.  Of course, judging a course is all personal anyway - so it doesn't really matter how folks come about their opinions.

Ciao

[Dan Herrmann]

Walking...  Especially if you can walk on the greens too, and maybe take a ball that you can roll to see the contours - even better - smuggle on a putter too.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Sean - I agree about needing to see balls react, especially on the greens and approaches.


I have found the best to judge a golf course is to walk it first, then play. I always keep a ball or 2 in my pocket to roll around the greens, but its best if you can walk with a group that is actually playing. It is nice to be able see where they are aiming and what the ball is doing on the ground. It will also give you a better idea of where landing areas are for a variety of players. If there is a caddy in the group, they are probably your best source of information.... Then play it after, so you can concentrate more on your game, but it is always good to see the course from  more than just the centerlines... my game takes me all over the place!

[Jason McNamara]

For me, I have to see balls moving to confirm my thoughts.  

Sean, wouldn't the venue affect that?  That is when it comes to a "ground game" course, playing counts relatively more than it might wrt an aerial course.

[Sean_A]

For me, I have to see balls moving to confirm my thoughts.  

Sean, wouldn't the venue affect that?  That is when it comes to a "ground game" course, playing counts relatively more than it might wrt an aerial course.

Jason

Thats very true.  I always think of a course as dry enough so angles matter - meaning if one gains the best angle he has choices - if one doesn't gain the best angle, the next shot is more about defense than attack.  If the course is so soft that angles matter little, then there isn't much point in wasting time trying to evaluate it.  One may as well drive a cart to each green and have a putt - its only half a course imo.

Ciao  

[Andrew Summerell]

I would think it depends on the person. Some people are very 'game' focused to the point that they would miss a lot that didn't involved their game.

I think with walking it is easier to see all that the course has to offer, but doing both is better. Often when I play a course I haven't played before, I will play by myself (if I'm able) & just take my time, hit a few different appraoch shots, chips from different position & have a few putts from different parts of the green to give me an overall view of what the course has to offer.

[Matt_Ward]

Walking gives you an idea of what a hole / course is about -- playing it and seeing firsthand how the ball actually reacts is the ultimate lie detector test. It also helps to have other observations from those in one's group -- especially when they feature players of varying handicap levels.

[David_Madison]

I agree with Matt and Sean. As long as I could stand up on the tees, walk the fairways, and wander around the greens, I'd get a better idea of a course walking it versus playing it by myself, especially if I couldn't hit any extra shots or putts. But if the choice is playing by myself or walking the course without watching anyone play, I'll take playing. The more balls I see doing whatever they do, the better for getting a sense of what's going on. But, watching a PGA event from outside the ropes usually is close to useless. The players' shots are atypical from what normal golfers do, and the visuals are all wrong for really understanding things.

[Adam Clayman]

 If the course is so soft that angles matter little, then there isn't much point in wasting time trying to evaluate it.  One may as well drive a cart to each green and have a putt - its only half a course imo.

You must never play after a rain?

Basing the evaluation on results seems flawed.

It's obvious when a course is intelligently designed. Courses that are not as obvious might require further study, but, either way, quality should be elastic enough to handle whatever conditions mother nature throws at you.

[Rob Rigg]

Playing is better, unless you can really take your time walking around.

I think that your senses are elevated while you are playing and you can absorb more of the experience. Of course, playing might mean "hitting shots" more than anything because the way to experience a course as intended is to hit the shots as the architect intended. right?

Standing on the tee and having to execute is big, then hitting the approach from the ideal spot is vital, and then putting is massive. I think it is really hard to get a great feel for the greens without putting them.

If you can't play a course, nothing wrong with walking it though - definitely better than nothing.

[Eric Smith]

Can one understand the "quality" of a golf course merely by walking it ?

or does one need to play it in order to fully appreciate it ?

Can one understand the quality of a golf course merely by walking it ?  Yes, I think so.

 or does one need to play it in order to fully appreciate it ?  I'd also say yes to this question.

Consider this: when playing the course, you will be touring it in a single direction - meaning from tee to green (unless you are Shivas and Co. this winter at Peter Jans National.)

As some posters have already mentioned, I believe one can have an understanding of the quality of a golf course by merely walking it. 

Yet another angle to consider and Jay Flemma has mentioned this before on here -  when he walks a golf course sans golf clubs he'll do so starting at 18 green and work his way backwards through the course, ending at 1 tee.  A perspective that perhaps reveals certain qualities or characteristics that one may not pick up on their way around in the normal fashion.  I'm pretty sure a lot of golf architects oftentimes find their golf holes and courses this way as well.

[Sean_A]

 If the course is so soft that angles matter little, then there isn't much point in wasting time trying to evaluate it.  One may as well drive a cart to each green and have a putt - its only half a course imo.

You must never play after a rain?

Basing the evaluation on results seems flawed.

It's obvious when a course is intelligently designed. Courses that are not as obvious might require further study, but, either way, quality should be elastic enough to handle whatever conditions mother nature throws at you.

Adam

I live in England.  Do you think I have played after rain?  In any case, the best courses I know of are still alive after it rains.  On these courses, it rarely gets too soft that angles are eliminated.  Even if they do get too soft for this once in a great spell, its interesting from a playing perspective to see the course this way, but from an evaluation perspective, its not so interesting.  So yes, quality should be elastic enough to handle the weather, but it depends on what one thinks of as quality.  IMO, it would have to be a very special course indeed that is a wonder even when angles don't matter.  Does anybody know of one?  I think results matter because we I have to see what happens to the ball after it lands.  If there is no action after a ball lands, then yes, I think can evaluate by walking, having a few putts and not seeing a shot hit, but so what?

Ciao  

[James Boon]

Can one understand the "quality" of a golf course merely by walking it ? or does one need to play it in order to fully appreciate it ?

Kevin,

I've walked plenty of courses but in different ways, which give different perspectives as to the quality of the course:

1. I've walked my own course and several others like Brora, which I know reasonably well, and its a useful way of giving you a different perspective as you dont have the pressure of playing the shots, so you tend to notice different things, like how wide that fairway is that you keep missing or how the entrance to a green is actually quite narrow even though you keep hitting the green no problem.
2. I've walked quite a few courses as a behind the ropes spectator, which can give some insight into the course? But you need to get behind some of the tees to see how they would play, only really get a perspective of shots from the rough, and cant really tell how difficult a course is as you are watching guys who hit the ball so different to yourself. You do though get to notice drop offs or mounds around greens more I would say?
3. Caddying. I would say this is the best way to experience a course without actually playing it yourself. You don't have the pressure of playing the shots so can look around and see things from that different perspective, but you also get to see how a golf ball moves around the course.

Cheers,

James

[Adrian_Stiff]

For me, I have to see balls moving to confirm my thoughts.  

Sean, wouldn't the venue affect that?  That is when it comes to a "ground game" course, playing counts relatively more than it might wrt an aerial course.

Jason

Thats very true.  I always think of a course as dry enough so angles matter - meaning if one gains the best angle he has choices - if one doesn't gain the best angle, the next shot is more about defense than attack.  If the course is so soft that angles matter little, then there isn't much point in wasting time trying to evaluate it.  One may as well drive a cart to each green and have a putt - its only half a course imo.

Ciao  

Sean- Gof courses are usually soft. Certainly in the UK we spend half the year with placing on fairways and for the most part the summers are damp. You must find it hard to evauate any course in this country.

[Sean_A]

For me, I have to see balls moving to confirm my thoughts.  

Sean, wouldn't the venue affect that?  That is when it comes to a "ground game" course, playing counts relatively more than it might wrt an aerial course.

Jason

Thats very true.  I always think of a course as dry enough so angles matter - meaning if one gains the best angle he has choices - if one doesn't gain the best angle, the next shot is more about defense than attack.  If the course is so soft that angles matter little, then there isn't much point in wasting time trying to evaluate it.  One may as well drive a cart to each green and have a putt - its only half a course imo.

Ciao  

Sean- Gof courses are usually soft. Certainly in the UK we spend half the year with placing on fairways and for the most part the summers are damp. You must find it hard to evauate any course in this country.

Adrian

I rarely play parkland golf and if I do, I avoid doing so in winter.  Dry turf is critical for top notch golf.  The vast majority of the courses I play are dry and if not firm, firm enough that I see some action after the ball lands.  You must hang around new parklands - many have the rep for being wet and sloppy pretty much after any decent sort of rain.  Do you think it is an accident that I don't belong to two links clubs and not any club in the Midlands - my home?  Dry turf is that important to me.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean- Yep I do hang around wet parklands, but I expect most GB courses fall into that category. Links golf is really quite rare.

[John Moore II]

I think what we are finding out here is that, like many other things related to golf architecture, walking or playing a course is really based on an individual's own "eyes." Some can do it better when walking, others when playing.  And in truth, I think its necessary to walk and play a course many times to really see everything about the course. I remember that at Mid South I would notice different stuff about the course every time I played. From subtle contours in the fairway to a little bit different strategy for a hole. I don't think its possible at all to fully understand a course with only one viewing, whether that viewing comes from walking or playing.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Given the choice of one round on a course with the sole objective of learning as much as possible....

...I think most architects will say "walk" and most players will say "play"

[John Moore II]

Given the choice of one round on a course with the sole objective of learning as much as possible....

...I think most architects will say "walk" and most players will say "play"

I would say play with the intention of learning about the course. You can play simply to hit shots and score, or you can play with the intention of observing and learning. Do the latter and you'll come out on top.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Given the choice of one round on a course with the sole objective of learning as much as possible....

...I think most architects will say "walk" and most players will say "play"

I would say play with the intention of learning about the course. You can play simply to hit shots and score, or you can play with the intention of observing and learning. Do the latter and you'll come out on top.

If you had the course to yourself and an infinite amount of time, absolutely... But if you walk, you mentally take more notes, you stand in a variety of different places to suit what you're trying to achieve (as opposed to where your ball comes to rest) and you watch a whole heap of other golfers play shots of all varieties (if the course is open when you walk)... There are of course advantages to be gained from playing... But my above statement stands - given one round with study the sole objective, I would walk...