[John Kavanaugh]

Could it be because you understand the architecture better than your guests?

[Scott Warren]

Because I:

* Have putted the greens a bunch and know where there are breaks that aren't obvious.

* Know the good and bad places to miss.

* Know where there is more room than there appears to be and also less room that it might seem.

* Remember the clubs I tend to hit for repeat shots in given winds/conditions.

I'm not sure I'd say I necessarily understand the architecture better than a first-time player, but I know the course's tricks and quirks and I am familiar with the shots I'll face.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

The greens, the greens and the Greens

[Travis Dewire]

confidence

[Sam Morrow]

A sense of comfort.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

1     You don't have to rely solely on the visual signals the architect intended for your eye

2.    You have a refined sense of break and subtle factors on the green

3.    You know which club to hit irrespective of the yardage

4.    You know where he ideal positions are

[Tim Gavrich]

Is there a direct correlation between the size of a home course advantage and the architectural intrigue of a golf course qua the idea of a "members' course?"

[Cory Lewis]

I have a home course advantage because I know which pins to attack and which ones to stay away from.  Our greens are so firm that in certain places you have to land it on the front of the green just to hold the green, the key on those holes is to ignore the pin and just try to keep it on the green.  You probably wouldn't know that looking at the green.

[John Kavanaugh]

JakaB,

1     You don't have to rely solely on the visual signals the architect intended for your eye

2.    You have a refined sense of break and subtle factors on the green

3.    You know which club to hit irrespective of the yardage

4.    You know where he ideal positions are

Patrick, what about the above doesn't fall under the understanding architecture umbrella?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

1     You don't have to rely solely on the visual signals the architect intended for your eye

2.    You have a refined sense of break and subtle factors on the green

3.    You know which club to hit irrespective of the yardage

4.    You know where he ideal positions are

Patrick, what about the above doesn't fall under the understanding architecture umbrella?
probably # 1

[Steve Lang]

  'cause i own the place, but i can still shoot 39-49 if i don't keep some focus..

[John Kavanaugh]

Relying on visual signals is a sucker play.  It often takes a golfer who does not understand architecture years to over come these tricks.

[Scott Stearns]

I know where one cannot miss it.

I know the green speed (ours are a LOT faster than most are used to)

I know the impact of grain/slope on this speed--i.e. 12. vs. 9 at the extremes

Home course advantage is much less prevalent among elite amateurs and non existient among tour pros.  these guys look at a golf course and think abt where to miss it on every shot.  my high handicap friends look at the flag like a bull looks at a red cape. 

so yes,  i think the arch is the advantage.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Relying on visual signals is a sucker play.

Unless you're blind or play between 10:00 pm and 4:00 am, visuals are all you can rely on.
How do you aim and align yourself, if not with visuals ?

It often takes a golfer who does not understand architecture years to over come these tricks.

Course management is an acquired skill.  For some, it's a lost art.

[Doug Siebert]

A question I'd be more interested in asking is how little difference there is between first time around and 100th time around for a really architecturally knowledgeable and observant player.  I know why I'm better on courses I'm familiar with than those I'm playing the first time which Scott and Patrick summarized well.  But how how little of a difference would there be for say Tom Doak or Ben Crenshaw?

Maybe the first time is always a bit blind, but I'd bet if those guys played or even walked a course once they'd already be as good as they're gonna get on that course because they'd instantly know by simple observation of the lay of the land all those things us mortals have to learn the hard way!

[Scott Warren]

To an extent I agree Doug, but how often on pro golf telecasts do you hear a commentator predict a player will miss a putt because there is more/less break than it appears and everyone has been missing the putt on the same side.

As good as they are, they don't know the quirk of that putt.

Or on my course you can often land a ball short and bounce it on, except for a couple of greenfront areas that tend to be somewhat softer and hold moisture far longer than the others after rain. I know not to land a ball there and expect it to bounce on, whereas even an architectural genius, if he has been doing that all day long, is unlikely to be aware of that quirk of the hole without having been affected by it or seeing someone else affected by it.

Even then, he might assume it is a one-off instance and try it the next time he plays the hole.

There are factors not tied to architectural insight that cause us to play better at home.

Another is that I know obviously which greens I walk past early in my round at my home course belong to which holes, so I can make notes of the pin positions as I proceed through the round, whereas my first time at a new course, I often see greens and notice the pin position, but I don't know which hole it is a lot of the time and so the information is no good to me because when I get to that hole I don't know it's the pin I saw earlier from a different part of the course.

[John Kavanaugh]

Sounds like to me that course management and understanding architecture are the same thing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

Not really.

I know guys that are oblivious to architecture, yet, they play a conservative game, fairways and greens, content to stay out of trouble and plod along.  Accepting bogey while avoiding high numbers that their competitors are taking.

If you asked them if they noticed that the fairway pitches right to left while the green pitches left to right, they'd say, "huh"

They understand the limits of THEIR game, and play it, mostly ignoring the architecture, blunt or subtle.

[Jim Eder]

My sense is that understanding architect helps improve course management but it is not a prerequisite.

To me, I think Travis has it right, confidence is a big factor for me.  You have played the "right" shot before so you know how it feels. When you are confident it is more likely you will execute the shot.

You also know all the subtle breaks, how the wind blows and how it affects the shots, how the grade of a shot affects the playing distance etc.  All the great points made earlier.

I will say I believe understanding architecture is really important on playing a course for the first time.

[John Kavanaugh]

JakaB,

Not really.

I know guys that are oblivious to architecture, yet, they play a conservative game, fairways and greens, content to stay out of trouble and plod along.  Accepting bogey while avoiding high numbers that their competitors are taking.

If you asked them if they noticed that the fairway pitches right to left while the green pitches left to right, they'd say, "huh"

They understand the limits of THEIR game, and play it, mostly ignoring the architecture, blunt or subtle.

Wouldn't you say that a Fred Funk needs to understand the architecture of a course more than a JB Holmes?  I don't understand who these people are that stay out of trouble and score without seeing and reacting to the architecture.

Isn't scoring well always the result of exploiting the architectural features that fit your game? To exploit you must first understand.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

Not really.

I know guys that are oblivious to architecture, yet, they play a conservative game, fairways and greens, content to stay out of trouble and plod along.  Accepting bogey while avoiding high numbers that their competitors are taking.

If you asked them if they noticed that the fairway pitches right to left while the green pitches left to right, they'd say, "huh"

They understand the limits of THEIR game, and play it, mostly ignoring the architecture, blunt or subtle.

Wouldn't you say that a Fred Funk needs to understand the architecture of a course more than a JB Holmes?

I'm not sufficiently familiar with either's game, so I'm not qualified to comment

  I don't understand who these people are that stay out of trouble and score without seeing and reacting to the architecture.
they are guys I've been playing with for 45+ years, so I am familiar with their games[/size]

Isn't scoring well always the result of exploiting the architectural features that fit your game? To exploit you must first understand. .
No, some of these guys don't have the foggiest clue about GCA, they just tee off and try to get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible, to the exclusion of understanding the GCA.  Maybe that's why they're good, they don't get distracted by GCA

Do you think a guy who hits the ball 180 yards worries about the same things you do ?[/size]

[John Kavanaugh]

Do you think a guy who hits the ball 180 yards worries about the same things you do ?

Of course we think of the same things, just not always at the same time.  I will focus on different architectural features from the 7300 yd tees as opposed to the 6400 yd.  I'm sure the guy who hits the ball 180 yds considers angles, hazards and pin position just like anyone else who is interested in beating his opponent.

I personally have much in common with you short hitting friends considering my game centers around a low spin shot.  It is why I get so many good bounces.

[Bill_McBride]

Relying on visual signals is a sucker play.  It often takes a golfer who does not understand architecture years to over come these tricks.

That goes back to the Mackenzie bunkering schemes and camouflage expertise I was trying to explain to Mr. Mucci on another thread.  A big part of the architect's job is confusing the player about distance and line.  The more you play a course the less relevant those deceptions should become.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill McBride,

I think GCA transitioned away from deceiving the golfer some time ago, probably when the game transitioned to medal play.

Are there any relatively new courses, crafted in the last 20-30 years that as part of their core, try to deceive the golfer ?

I can't think of a resort course that would do that.
I can't think of a residential community course that would do that.
I can't think of a vacation course that would do that.

Perhaps a private course might attempt to deceive, and nothing deceives more than a blind shot, but, I just don't think modern architects have that as their mission statement or at the core of their creative process.

JakaB,

When fighter pilots were pursuing enemy aircraft, some had a tendency to narrow their vision solely to their intended target, to the exclusion of everything else.  They had to be taught to avoid that syndrome, as it resulted in their getting shot down by other enemy aircraft in the theatre.  The same is true of some golfers, their vision is focused narrowly.  They don't see the "big, broader" picture.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill McBride,

I think GCA transitioned away from deceiving the golfer some time ago, probably when the game transitioned to medal play.

Are there any relatively new courses, crafted in the last 20-30 years that as part of their core, try to deceive the golfer ?

I can't think of a resort course that would do that.
I can't think of a residential community course that would do that.
I can't think of a vacation course that would do that.

Perhaps a private course might attempt to deceive, and nothing deceives more than a blind shot, but, I just don't think modern architects have that as their mission statement or at the core of their creative process.

I would love to see some of our participating GCA's chime here and back me in my assertion that there is ALWAYS some effort to deceive the golfer, or at least tempt him into doing something foolish.   It may not be as plain as the nose on your face but it's there.

I agree that blind shots are out of favor, but there are many ways to skin a cat - or a leprechaun.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()