Do you have to be a bad golfer to be a good golf architect?

[Richard Choi]

The recent criticisms coming from European Tour and TW's comment brings up a good point.

Can an elite golfer truly become a great architect? Many elite golfer seem to believe that if they cannot get birdies by a bucketload, it is not a good golf course. They want soft, narrow fairways with big, flat, soft greens that will receive their bombs. They want hazards that are not really hazards and they don't really want to think on the golf course (just tell me what I need to do! Options - BAD!).

If this is a typical attitude held by top golfers (and something shared with scratch golfers as well), how could they build great golf courses?

Do you need to be a (relatively) bad golfer to design a great golf course?

[Scott Szabo]

Ben Crenshaw. 

[Padraig Dooley]

No, knowledge and observational skills are independant of an ability to hit a ball. Good and bad golfers can be good architects just as good and bad golfers can be bad architects.

[Ken Moum]

So we have umpteen tour-quality players out there putting their names on golf courses, and we have list of courses that people consider to be the best.

How many post-WWII elite players have designs on the list?

Crenshaw, Nicklaus and Weiskopf.

And only Crenshaw can claim a reall high-percentage of quality courses in his resume.

Maybe you are correct, bad players make better architects.

;<)

[Anthony Gray]

  I think it helps to see the game from the eyes of the average golfer who will be playing the course.

  Anthony

[Andy Troeger]

How many tour quality golfers have really even tried to be great course architects? Nicklaus is obviously prolific and Weiskopf has done pretty well, plus Palmer and Player who seem to be more noteworthy for quantity over quality. Crenshaw too of course. Greg Norman is a mixed bag from what I've seen and read, although Cornerstone and Red Sky in Colorado are both rather good.

Other than that, who else? The tour player adding their name as a marketing tool with one or two site visits doesn't count (sorry Fred Couples). I don't think you can compare career designers like Doak or Fazio to guys who did it on the side or as a second career like Lehman, Watson, Zoeller, etc. either.

[A.G._Crockett]

Bill Bergin played on Tour both in the U.S. and in Europe and is doing highly acclaimed GCA all over the southeast, in both renovation and new construction.  His design philosophy is one that very much takes into account lesser golfers, I assure you, and he can still play a little, too.

Just as there is no reason to think that a good golfer would automatically be a good architect, there is no reason to think a good golfer would be a bad architect.  I would assume that being a good GCA has more to do with aptitude, hard work, attention to detail, and good fortune, regardless of how well you play.

[Tom_Doak]

Most architects are (or have been) good players; that's how they get people to listen to what they say about architecture.

By good players, I don't mean Tour players ... the Tour is a different game and most Tour pros' attempts at architecture make that abundantly clear.  But, Harry Colt was a good player.  Tillinghast was a good player.  Trent Jones was a good player, until he got old of course.  Pete Dye was a good player.  And the list goes on. 

I'm not at the bottom of the list, but I'm closer to the bottom than the top.  To my credit, I have hung around good players enough to understand the differences between them and me, to hear what they like and dislike, and to know when they are full of crap.

Many in my generation of architects are VERY GOOD players:  Steve Smyers, Jim Engh, and Dana Fry, to name three I'm personally aware of.  I do not think it is an advantage to them as designers.  All designers tend to design for themselves, and what's fun for a two-handicap is sometimes impossible for a sixteen.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

You're a better golfer than 99% of the critics I have played with.

[Doug Siebert]

Its easier to become an architect if you're a great golfer.  Win a few majors and you'll have people busting down your door to have a course with your name on it.  They are selected purely on the basis of their golfing skill, so some will produce indifferent crap.

The guys who start at the bottom and work their way up as an architect have to have some talent for architecture to make it.  The guys who have golfing skill probably take their shot at the tours first, and by the time they give up that dream its too late to work their way up from the bottom as an architect.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I am as puzzled by this as the one on raters. I do not see where the skill to be a great player have much to do with the skill set to be a great architect. It is hard to be great at both given the time it takes to excel at either profession.