Choi Hypothesis: Enjoyment of GCA is inversely proportional to...

[William_G]

I thought the Choi hypothesis was that all courses bow down to Chambers Bay....

+1
LOL

[William_G]

Not even close.

You assume that "enjoyment of" and "analysis of" are synonymous.

Part of the joy (read: enjoyment) of good GCA is the ability to execute the required shot, be it dictated by the architecture or chosen by the player from the available options as a means to the end. Good architecture is not the size of the devil's asshole or the ability to hit out of it - it is the placement and fear of being in it in the first place because it would negatively impact your ability to post a good score.

Analysis might be enhanced by not keeping score, by hitting repeated shots 100 different ways, and I do this from time to time...and often re-hit shots that have multiple options (assuming it's a casual round and I have the time) but analysis is not enjoyment. Perfectly playing a 4th tee shot to a back left brings me far less joy than does hitting the same shot on my first try in the course of a scored round.

The object of golf is to finish the round in as few strokes as possible. Good architecture comes into play because it provides golfers of all skill levels various ways to accomplish that goal.

Put a back pin on a biarritz. You may get your jollies from the simple sight of seeing a bump and run go down into the valley and appear on the other side. I get mine because doing so gives me a chance at a birdie.

Not caring about score also takes the option out of play on many great holes. Many great holes are considered such because there are options available, and potentially risk-reward. If there is no score, then there is no risk. Why would anyone who is physically capable of making the shot in question ever choose otherwise if score was irrelevant?

Part of the genius of the 13th at Augusta National, for example, is precisely the assumption that you do care about a score. If you don't care about a score, there is no option. If you have 235 to the pin and the ability to hit it that far, why would you lay up if you aren't playing for a score? The option is out of play.

Think of it this way - if you hand me my clubs and put me in the 13th fairway at Augusta, 235 out and just said "Play the hole", I'd wail away at it without a second thought. How is that enjoying the architecture? The outcome doesn't matter.

But if you put me in that same spot, having just hit my tee shot there and I am -2 on my round to that point, then you'd better believe that I am presented with the decisions that were intended with the design of the hole - safe or bold, guarantee a 5 or go for a 3/4?

Caring about a score is the kindling that ignites good architecture. Without it, golf is a glorified driving range.

Well said, +1.

I would add that, some people get so focused on themselves and their score that they forget about the journey.
However, golf is always a journey, and that journey always brings you back to where you started, with a result in hand.

[Dan King]

Anybody that needs clubs, balls and scorecard to appraise a golf course lacks imagination, IMHO.

Cheers,
Dan King

Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
 --Oscar Wilde

[John Kavanaugh]

Anybody that needs clubs, balls and scorecard to appraise a golf course lacks imagination, IMHO.

Cheers,
Dan King

Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
 --Oscar Wilde

It is not the ability to appraise a golf course that is in question, it is the level of enjoyment one acquires while doing so.  I guess you like me pulls ones foot back when stepping in a pile of dung often not reaching the bottom.  I think both of us got lucky and pulled back before finishing the Choi Hypothesis.

[rjsimper]

The question was not about appraising (as I pointed out in my response). The question was about enjoyment and it's inverse proportionality to score.

Anybody that needs clubs, balls and scorecard to appraise a golf course lacks imagination, IMHO.

Cheers,
Dan King

Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
 --Oscar Wilde

[Dan King]

John Kavanaugh writes:
It is not the ability to appraise a golf course that is in question, it is the level of enjoyment one acquires while doing so.

and
Ryan_Simper writes:
The question was not about appraising (as I pointed out in my response). The question was about enjoyment and it's inverse proportionality to score.

Oops, my mistake. As long as people ahead of me don't hold me up, I don't much care how they enjoy the game.

I personally do not need a scorecard to enjoy myself. My best rounds I can tell you how I did without a scorecard -- I could tell you all about my best rounds a decade after they happened: anybody interested? My not so stellar rounds I don't need a scorecard to tell how I did. I can't remember the last time I played golf with a scorecard.

Cheers,
Dan King

I don't like #4 balls. And I don't like fives, sixes or sevens on my scorecard.
 --George Archer (asked if he had any superstitions)

[Richard Choi]

Dan, I completely agree with you. Most of the most enjoyable round I ever had, I did it without really paying attention to the scorecard. And whenever I play in tournaments, my awareness of the golf course architecture goes down and I am focusing so much on shot after shot.

My hypothesis is that the enjoyment of GCA is inversely proportional to caring about the score. That does not mean that you have to completely disregard scoring and it does not take risk/reward away. In most rounds I still want to score lower, but trying to figure out how to score lower and analyzing the hole over and over again in my mind and in my eyes is more fun and challenging than trying to actually achieve that score.

If you look at the other side of the analysis, where you care about the score and score only as you do in PGA Tour, I don't think those guys want any really interesting GCA when they play. They want something they already know (and know well enough to score well). They don't want any quirks, they don't want any surprises. They advocate some of the worst aspects of GCA (easy bunkers, flat fast greens, soft flat fairways) because those things make it easier for them to score and score is all they care about.

So, if that is true (where scoring is all anyone cares means GCA takes a backseat), shouldn't opposite be true as well?

[Richard Choi]

BTW, why were your feet swollen and blistered?  You need some better shoes...

I walked and carried 183 holes that week, so it is understandable. But I can still use some better shoes, and waiting for Rob...

[John Kavanaugh]

Next time we have a Golfclubatlas event lets pick a three hole stretch and have everyone contribute one dollar for each stroke taken towards the drink pool.  As the contributions range from $10 to $25 per person we will soon learn and enjoy more about the architecture of those three holes than the other fifteen combined.

[John Kavanaugh]

If you look at the other side of the analysis, where you care about the score and score only as you do in PGA Tour, I don't think those guys want any really interesting GCA when they play. They want something they already know (and know well enough to score well). They don't want any quirks, they don't want any surprises. They advocate some of the worst aspects of GCA (easy bunkers, flat fast greens, soft flat fairways) because those things make it easier for them to score and score is all they care about.

If you look at people who are failures in life and society they all have one thing in common.  They never know what they don't want until it is too late.  Even your premise above is flawed for the greatest successes on tour.

[Eric Smith]

Next time we have a Golfclubatlas event lets pick a three hole stretch and have everyone contribute one dollar for each stroke taken towards the drink pool.  As the contributions range from $10 to $25 per person we will soon learn and enjoy more about the architecture of those three holes than the other fifteen combined.

I nominate holes 8,9 & 10 at next year's Dismal River outing. Having Hooker's there at 10 will be convenient.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Next time we have a Golfclubatlas event lets pick a three hole stretch and have everyone contribute one dollar for each stroke taken towards the drink pool.  As the contributions range from $10 to $25 per person we will soon learn and enjoy more about the architecture of those three holes than the other fifteen combined.

I nominate holes 8,9 & 10 at next year's Dismal River outing. Having Hooker's there at 10 will be convenient.  

Eric,

That is a great idea as it will bring the architecture of number 8 into play.  It is easy for the pundits to say that it is a poor hole because everyone goes for the green much like the short hole at the Ryder Cup this year.  This summer during a tournament where we were playing best 3 balls out of 4 we started our round on number 8.  Not wanting to lose the tournament on the first hole none of us went for the green on our drive.  I think we made three pars and went on to lose the tournament by 30 strokes.

[Eric Smith]

To think what could have been with one of your tap in eagles to start the rally there. Blame the Dismal Devil for not doing his job while up on your shoulder.