Miller's choices

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom P

I think my 99% statement (which I cannot find) related to discussing GCA in the context of actually playing golf.,  For that sort of chat, I'd take Miller over most people.  Playing golf is important to me, not whether or not the Principal's Nose bunker was created by Alan Robertson or some flock of amorous sheep.  I don't look at a lump of land and wonder "Did MacKenzie/Fazio/Ross/Pascuzzo (take your pick) find or shape that mound?"  I wonder, how does it affect play--of me and golfer of different skill and predilection.  If that's not GCA, I don't know what is.

shivas

I play VERY differently in competitions and walks in the parks with friends.  In the former you'll rarely see me taking the completely stupid shot.  In the latter, you'll rarely see me taking the smart road.

[THuckaby2]

VERY interesting and well-said, Rich - BOTH parts.

I'm of your "school" re golf course architecture - I too relate it to the play, not the names or the history.  You know that in the eyes of many here this makes us far less "students" of all this, of course?  

But what intrigues me is your take re how you play the game, as I have yet to make it so bi-polar.  That is, even now, clearly 15 years removed from playing any "serious" competitive golf, with 95% of my rounds being played (by choice) as what you would call "walks in the park with friends", I cannot shut off the "tournament" player and really ever play with reckless abandon - I just can't get to the NATO status hardly ever (Not Attached To Outcome).  Oh, you've seen me hit MANY horrible shots - that's not my point - it's more I just can't get myself to hit the "what the hell" shots unless pulling them off gains me SOMETHING, either in the score, the bet going on, whatever... I just can't play as you say you do, trying whatever shots whenever.  It's sick - even when I'm not keeping score, I just have to really PUSH myself to try such shots!

So how do you manage this bi-polar playing nature?  Getting "serious" and "playing smart" seems to me to be the easy part - once you've done it enough.  It's the shutting this off that vexes me, no matter how hard I try to follow guys like Dan King and not keep score, enjoy the walk, etc... No matter how much I profess to do exactly that... The "measurement" of the round still exists in some form in my mind.

Does playing competitively just do this to you?

Tom Paul - you've played WAY more competitive golf than I have... Can you play "what the hell" golf like this?

Sorry for the tangent.  This just really does intrigue me.

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Rich --

You write: "I would rather discuss GCA with Johnny Miller than with 99% of the people on this DG, if I had the chance."

I think we all know who the other 1% are!  

Oh, and take this, too:  

[THuckaby2]

GREAT line, Shivas.

But whereas I can absolutely understand turning stupidity on and off - that is, if you play "what the hell" all the time, it's got to be pretty easy to play "serious", at least after the first few times... Is it just me having a hard time going the other way?

Too bad we don't hear from David Eger any more here.  Not that I am even in his universe competitively - jeez, I'm a 5 hdcp who just used to play a lot of junior and college golf - but I wonder if he can ever play "what the hell" style.  Same goes for guys like Pat Mucci, Tom Paul, etc. who I gather have played a lot of very serious competitive golf.

I don't know your past, shivas - so my apologies if you are of this ilk also... And if you are, then please do answer how you so easily turn off the "smart/competitive" play.  Might be a personality thing, I don't know... This has baffled me for years though.

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

For me it partly relates to the fact that I didn't play much golf at all until I got into my late 20's, so I started out playing goofy and it is natural to me!  Secondly, when I did begin to play golf more seriously 90% of that golf was in Scotland, where golf is neatly bifurcated into Competitions and Bounce games.  You don't worry about keeping score in bounce games because they are just for fun and you don't have to post your score.  In Competitions, you have a card in your hand and everybody in the clubhouse will eventually know what you scored, so you try to optimize how you play.

Now, which Rich is going to show up at Barona?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Johnny Miller's top 10 from GD/1995:

1.Pebbble Beach
2.Shinnecock
3.PVGC
4.ANGC
5.Cypress Point
6.Merion
7.Winged Foot-West
8.Oakmont
9.Olympic
10.Prarie Dunes

[THuckaby2]

Rich - that makes PERFECT sense to me and thank you!  As you might know, I come from the opposite experience where sadly (to me) the competitive side came first and early - I started playing tournaments at age 12 and did so steadily through age 23 or so - so we just got the opposite things ingrained, wouldn't you say?  And yes, I would have to imagine that this is a LOT easier to differentiate in Scotland - we can chalk this up to yet another thing they do better re golf over there.  

Now as for which Rich shows up at Barona... well... for all the bluster, I can't see THE KING'S PUTTER warranting that much "serious" play.  As a team-mate, I want the competitive Rich to be there in full force... but as a friend, I want you to play whichever way is more fun for you!

I know I'm gonna try like hell to keep that "fun." That being said, I will have an opponent, and my match score will be recorded.  So I don't see myself cutting doglegs and trying sweeping hooks over water!

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Shivas --

"It doesn't take a genious to turn stupidity on and off."

I'm with Huckaby. What a great line! I might even replace "I am a member of a party of one" with that line.

You know what makes it just priceless in my admittedly strange eyes?

"Genious"!

Intentional or not, that's the funniest tyop of the year!  

[Neal_Meagher]

Craig Edgmand,

Yes indeed, Johnny Miller is credited as co-designer of the Maderas Golf Club along with Robert Muir Graves.  In truth he was involved and had some good suggestions for the course as it was being built.

I was the senior golf course architect with Mr. Graves at the time the planning for the course was begun in 1997  and worked with him, first, on tweaking the routing and, secondly, on all of the associated design detailing, drawings, specifications, contractor selection, etc.  During construction I was the project designer and made about 99% of the field visits for our firm, some with Mr. Graves, most without.

Just prior to construction, the owner made the decision to employ Johnny (along with his designer, Fred Bliss), to endorse the course and to provide some design critique.  To his credit, he did not merely want to show up on opening day and cut a ribbon and give a clinic but to actually have some input.  To that end, he was on site once prior to construction and three times during construction.  And, of course, he did cut that ribbon and give that clinic at the opening.  

I had the challenge of keeping all of the various designers and owner and owner's rep and construction management firm on track with the overall goal of what we were trying to accomplish with the golf course.  I was on-site over 30 times but wished it could have been more, because when a site like Maderas's is taking shape, things move in a hurry and there are many decisions to be made.  Mundane things that people just don't think about have to be considered.  All of the things that Mike Young talks about on this site, the detail things as well as the big picture design issues.

So, while it is not a Johnny Miller signature course, he was involved, from the beginning as a marketing tool, but then during the job as a valuable contributor to the finished product.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Thanks Neal for the update. I look forward to seeing and hearing about course but mostly playing it next month.

[THuckaby2]

Craig - I told ya Neal would know!  Neal, thanks for checking in, so thoroughly and quickly.  For guys like Craig and I who are outside the industry, the "workings" like this are indeed fascinating.

And I'm here to say also that I haven't met many golf course designers/architects/whatever you want to call them - I'll call them "guys who do this for a living" - and the ones I have are REMARKABLY honest, open, upstanding, GREAT folks.  Neal is a PRIME example of that.  Many of you may know who he just took on as a partner so SAINTHOOD remains very viable for Neal also!  

TH

[TEPaul]

Rich:

If you'd rather discuss GCA with JohnnyM in the context of playing golf more than almost anyone else I can certainly understand that. I believe I've heard Johnny discuss playing golf in an architectural context and he was extremely interesting, as I recall. I'm not certain what it would be like discussing building a golf course with Johnny though. Some people I know say it's not that interesting but I've never seen a Johnny built course and maybe that would be fascinating too!

And I certainly do understand that guys like you (and TomH) would rather just play and consider architecture that way primarily. There's sure nothing wrong with that--it's great, golf and its architecture ultimately is there to be played!! And as far as looking at a clump of turf and wanting to know if MacKenzie, Pascusso etc built it, well....

But the question for you is how would you like to spend a weekend walking Ardrossan Farm (raw land) with Bill Coore  analyzing landforms, talking about the fundamentals and techniques of routing, little possibilities, big ones, all kinds of possible concepts, features, playabilities, any number of things to do with architecture. Or walking through half constructed Friar's or Hidden Creek with him discussing how what was coming to life would affect various golfers and why, or standing on a great Perry Maxwell green at Gulph Mills having him explain how to build those kinds of contours.

Or the same with Gil walking and talking about all things to do with architecture, how it was conceived and created at Inniscrone, Applebrook, Pine Valley etc, or talking and looking at PD with Doak. Spending time with Ron Prichard at Aronomink talking about the ramifications of valid restoration. And particularly spending a day or two on preconstruction Rustic Canyon discussing how to perfect a concept that you could see was evolving into real quality and why and how with Shackelford and Wagner.

That's the question for you Rich. That kind of thing just might not interest you and that's fine too. But if it did interest you I'd love to know why and how. I'd like to see you explain that to me and how you think it might be different than just playing golf. If you think it would be interesting but particularly if you really think there would be something to learn then I think you will come to understand that you might be able to see architecture in another way and another light.

That's also probably why some of us like to read so much about the older classic architects, to try to understand why they did what they did and how!
 

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

As you may remember, from personal experience, and some of my previous posts, I was fortunate enough last year to:

--spend 3 hours with Ken Bakst "walking" an almost fully grown-in Friar's Head in October
--spend a 1/2 hour or so with Pete Galea in his truck driving through the scrubland and old strawberry farm from which he plans to create 9 new holes at Pajaro Valley
--have a brief drive through with yourself of the Ardrossan Farm property
--walk the 5-6 new holes that are being built in the dunesland at Dornoch for its Struie course.

That's a lot of onsite/in-process experience, at least for me!  I also had the opportunity of playing a lot of golf with people like yourself, Gib Papazian, Neil Meagher, et. al. who can, did and do try to explain architectural subtleties to me while I play.  So, the answer to your question is, of course, yes--I am interested in how golf courses get built.

That being said, I am far more interested in how they play and evolve than how they are created.  And, I have only a passing interest in how they used to look, except in the context of how they have evolved.  I get bored very quickly looking at pictures of old bunkers, or even new ones, but to each his own!

Does this solve your dilemma?  Any other questions?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Yes, it very much does solve my dilemma (DK, I got it right) about how you look at architecture, and thank you very much for that, particularly the last paragraph!

I believe we are crystal clear and no more needs to be said--no problem at all!

As I said above, ultimately golf architecture is there to be played on, and again, and even more apropos; "Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there's room in it for everyone."

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

Couple of minor clarifications.  I prefer to look at GCA from the point of view of the finished product in part because I understand, largely from my time on this site, what an incredibly complex job it is to create a golf course.  I am competent to comment on how a bunker plays, so I do, but not how it has been made, so I do not.  Also, if Bill Coore wre a particiapant on this site, he would be among the 1% I would prefer to talk about GCA with over Johnny Miller.

[TEPaul]

Well, thanks for that too! It's nice to have my main mentor recognized in such an elite percentage.

[THuckaby2]

I know this was directed at Rich... but since my name was mentioned also....

TEP - my take is not that different from Rich.  The playing of a course is always gonna be my top priority, as proven by what I did the last day of my east coast trip last fall:  it was not even a thought - playing Yale took priority over looking at ANY golf course or landform.  

The difference for me though is that IF it's not a choice - that is, IF playing isn't an option - then heck yeah I'd love to tour Mr. Bakst's lil ole development, or Rustic before it were built, or your Androssan Farm, etc.... but those are some pretty HUGE names and areas, to me anyway.

I'm also still "awestruck" enough that to tour ANY landform that's going to be a golf course before it's actually in such form would be a thrill for me.  I just haven't done that much at all and it would be just plain "cool" for me to see.

But the minute someone says "we can play X" instead, give me my sticks and off we go.  Looking is always gonna be secondary to playing.  Just realize that the things you mention are VERY high up there in what might make me NOT play instead!

As for the history, I am a bit more into that than Rich, just because I do like to read and I was a college history major after all!  But trying to figure out WHY the bunker on 16 at Pasa is what it is now as opposed to 1929 isn't ever gonna thrill me - I leave that to people in the business who really know.

And TEP, if you have gotten this far, did you read my questions above re playing "what the hell" golf?  I'd be VERY interested in your take on that....

TH

[TEPaul]

TomH;

As to playing "what the hell golf" I can't seem to make myself do that unless playing alone. A lot of my playing has been  alone in the evenings and such, that's how I've always practiced on course real situations, instead of on the range and that's where almost everytime I try things (and sometimes what seem like "what the hell" things) that if functional, sane enough and reliable enough have become part of my serious or tournament repetoire.

And I'll tell you something else! About five years ago those things that I might have called "what the hell things" before, changed significantly with my increasing understanding of architecture to a whole new set of "what the hell things"!

The difference basically is I really picked up, I believe, some important understanding of the differences between very aggressive play, very moderate play and very defensive play and what it really meant and how it all played out over a round or a tournament!

One of the results of all this is I started using far less drivers and far more irons off tees (although I never hit driver long anyway). All this was predicated by safety off the tee first and secondly where I felt my comfort zone ended with my approach irons.

I always felt like if you can get yourself just cruising along in a round (or a tournament) after a while good things just start to happen although you might not even be planning on them. It also seemed to be a sort of calming thing where you could almost start to dial back on a lot of active thoughts!

I realize Tom, that when you mention "what the hell" golf you're very probably talking about the end of the spectrum of very aggressive golf and golf shots. But I might mention that I'm talking about the other end of the spectrum!!

Most of my tournament golf was at stroke play and in match play I may have gotten too much out of that format and too much into the stroke play format and I realize in retrospect it was hard to get myself out of my management mode and react to things I probably needed to in match play.

It's off the subject of "what the hell" golf but one of the interesting things I think I've learned in basic course management (and am still trying to perfect) is the whole issue of visualization.

I believe on approaching greens, for instance, that 95+% of amateurs concentrate on the flag almost exclusively as the last thing they see and focus on before the shot is away. That I believe one should learn to absolutely whip from their eye and mind's eye! The same in putting, maybe more so. Pick a spot and that's where the eye and mind's eye needs to remain up and until the ball is away. Probably 99% of amateurs still have the hole in their eye and mind's eye as the last thought and last vision.

[THuckaby2]

VERY education, TEP - thanks!

This doesn't surprise me that a truly "competitive" player like yourself, and by that I mean, one who has played a huge amount in competitive situations, uses solo rounds or what Rich would call "bounce" rounds for a purpose - to test out theories later to be used in competition, and to practice.  So no "what the hell" golf for you, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that!  That's how I find myself, though in a more limited way given my far more limited competitive rounds these days and far lesser skill!

But these thoughts re staying in the comfort zone are like manna to me.  That's EXACTLY what I try to do, in competitive situations.  Very "confirming" for me to hear it from you.

And yes, I do understand you have a whole new set of things to look at these days also, given your continued study of architecture!

Great thoughts too re visualization also.  I am working on that most definitely.  In our recent round at Pasatiempo, many of the pins were in VERY tough spots (#1, for example, at least from my angle on the right) so I was indeed actively focusing on the area of the green to which I was trying to get the ball.  This is indeed a VERY tough thing to master, even for me for whom it might be more ingrained than most.

Very interesting, Tom - thanks!

TH