How important is playing ability in understanding or designing a golf course?

[Steve Okula]

Mike -

At my course in ATL I had a different experience. As Green chair over the last couple of years I have discussed a number of course changes with the members. (We try to preview things to head off surprises and get feedback early, which can be quite helpful actually).

At the outset our scratch players believed that their views were entitled to great deference. And they told me so. In no uncertain terms. They are an influential caucus at our club and can be intimidating.

The scratch crowd had lots of funky ideas, but what really surprised me is that they opposed lengthening our courses. They thought they were plenty long enough. From the tips one plays about 6900 (72) and the other 6600 (70).

The great mass of our players were agnostic about lengthening. They weren't playing from the tips anyway. Their concern was money. Why spend big $$ on back tees that will be used by very few players.

The core advocates for new back tees turned out to be - to my surprise - the architecture group we hired and our head pro. After hours and hours of meetings with them, their root concern seemed to be the reputation of our courses. Their argument was that we gotta have a scorecard with a '7' handle or we will not be considered a top flight club in a very competitive Atlanta market.

Our green comm disagreed. While lengthening a number of holes is still in our master plan, it has been moved to the back of the bus among our priorities.

At the end of the day the pressure to lengthen came from professionals in the industry who were more concerned with fairly crude markers of course quality (i.e. overall length) and much less concerned with the harder architectural issues like playability and strategic interest.

The skill level of players didn't seem to correlate with views about course changes. What did seem to correlate was whether or not you worked in the golf industry. At least at our club.

Bob  

Bob

[Steve Okula]

Mike -

At my course in ATL I had a different experience. As Green chair over the last couple of years I have discussed a number of course changes with the members. (We try to preview things to head off surprises and get feedback early, which can be quite helpful actually).

At the outset our scratch players believed that their views were entitled to great deference. And they told me so. In no uncertain terms. They are an influential caucus at our club and can be intimidating.

The scratch crowd had lots of funky ideas, but what really surprised me is that they opposed lengthening our courses. They thought they were plenty long enough. From the tips one plays about 6900 (72) and the other 6600 (70).

The great mass of our players were agnostic about lengthening. They weren't playing from the tips anyway. Their concern was money. Why spend big $$ on back tees that will be used by very few players.

The core advocates for new back tees turned out to be - to my surprise - the architecture group we hired and our head pro. After hours and hours of meetings with them, their root concern seemed to be the reputation of our courses. Their argument was that we gotta have a scorecard with a '7' handle or we will not be considered a top flight club in a very competitive Atlanta market.

Our green comm disagreed. While lengthening a number of holes is still in our master plan, it has been moved to the back of the bus among our priorities.

At the end of the day the pressure to lengthen came from professionals in the industry who were more concerned with fairly crude markers of course quality (i.e. overall length) and much less concerned with the harder architectural issues like playability and strategic interest.

The skill level of players didn't seem to correlate with views about course changes. What did seem to correlate was whether or not you worked in the golf industry. At least at our club.

Bob  

Bob,

This fits exactly with my lengthy experience as a superintendent. A lot of people in power to make decisions are most concerned about the distance and par on the card and the subsequent effects on marketing, and not at all bothered about the integrity of actual design or the benefits in relation to the cost. (The same holds true regarding green speeds, but that’s another topic.)

I have argued long, hard, and unsuccessfully for decades that golf is first and foremost a word-of-mouth business, and if you give people an entertaining venue they will return and bring more with them, regardless of the numbers on the card.

[Gib_Papazian]

Mike,

I got a chuckle out of the question because we both know that you are a very good player with a full arsenal of shots in your bag. That stated, I've come to believe that a player's handicap in designing a golf hole is not as important as the ability to visualize shots using different ball flights. I'm sure you'll snort with laughter as it sounds a little far-fetched, but bear with my line of reasoning:

Jack Nicklaus tended to hit the ball very high and with a soft landing. I rarely if ever saw him hit a truly creative shot along the ground in an artistic fashion; he never needed to. Some golfers (like Jack) are very straightforward in their approach to the game and find it difficult to grasp the brilliance of a Redan Hole (for example). His courses reflect his bias.

There is also a astonishing number of working designers who seem to look at their art as more of a craft and an exercise in landscape architecture. Everything looks good and proportionally in concert with the surrounds, but with little soul; a demonstration of competence, but well within the boundaries of accepted parameters. Or perhaps that is what the client demands.

The contrast between Brad Bell's wonderfully creative effort at Coyote Moon vs. the terminally antiseptic flash at Cache Creek Casino comes immediately to mind. This is counter-intuitive as Indian Casino courses generally are a bit more edgy (Barona, Talking Stick, Sevillano Links etc).        

All of this stated, those of us who "see" shots along the ground as a first option have a clearer understanding of the geometry and strategic content in front of their eyes. Simply blasting a tee shot high in the air and then pulling a stick to fly it to the pin is really just an exercise in Point A-to-Point B mathematical calculations - using the shortest linear path possible. Thus, everything in between becomes little more than a decoration aside from hazards, which are either something to carry or an irritant to narrow the landing area.

However, those of us who have to tack back and forth, wriggling and writhing towards the target using the contours of the ground to deflect or direct our ball intrinsically have a far greater ability to identify and create landforms - and their potential use in strategic arrangements.

When Neal and I are standing in a fairway trying to decide what to do about a particular hole, his first thought is always as an architect and mine as a golfer - i.e., "so here I am in the fairway, how can we inspire and appropriately challenge the shorter hitter to totter his ball to the same spot as the guy who hits towering approach shots that drop out of the sky?"

That is the essence of strategic architecture when stripped naked. When I was a child, the game "Chutes and Ladders" had a particular appeal to me - in large measure because it involved alternate ways to get to the same spot. Golf courses with charm and quirk - in my view - nearly always inspire me to think completely outside normal boundaries of the modern game and invent something on the spot.

Perhaps I'm thinking too much again - something our ex-Green Chairman at Olympic sneered at me of more than once - but architecture that presents a series of questions with no strictly definable answer is the essence of what I hold dear. This may explain my undying love for links golf courses and/or places like NGLA and Garden City.

Incidentally, the most important thing to possess when dissecting and trying to reassemble a golf course is first and foremost EXPERIENCE. All of this theoretical analysis is only valid in a vacuum; conjuring up and core-dumping a string of ideas on how to design (or redesign) a golf hole is a far cry from actually being able to execute the idea in the dirt with shapers and a construction crew.

One thing I learned a long time ago is that I do not know shit. You can read all the architecture books in the world (I have) and pontificate  pedantic drivel in books, magazines and newspapers (I have); but without the guidance of a REAL architect with practical experience in the field, all the understanding in the world is nothing more than a bunch of theoretical bullshit.

You know it. I know it. Neal knows it. Forrest knows it. Doak and Urbina know it - and even Tommy Naccarato knows it.                              
  

[Mike Nuzzo]

The core advocates for new back tees turned out to be - to my surprise - the architecture group we hired and our head pro. After hours and hours of meetings with them, their root concern seemed to be the reputation of our courses. Their argument was that we gotta have a scorecard with a '7' handle or we will not be considered a top flight club in a very competitive Atlanta market.

Why would the architecture group be more concerned with an outsiders opinion of the course vs. the memberships?
Cheers

[Gib_Papazian]

Mike,

Because the next job is not going to come from the membership, but an outsider looking at the handiwork and deciding who to hire.

 

[Ulrich Mayring]

I don't think playing ability is strictly necessary for GCA work, but it correlates to a point. What is absolutely necessary is a deep love of the game, I think even Raynor had it. And if someone loves the game of golf, he is bound to play whenever he can, which will likely lower his handicap over time (and he will take lessons to get better). That is the reason why 25 handicappers generally do not know much about golf architecture, they just don't care enough about the game. But there are exceptions in people having started to play golf late in life. They'll never get below a certain threshold, but may still develop a love for the game and become interested and knowledgeable in GCA matters.

I would therefore not look at people's handicaps when they make an inane statement about how to change their home course. Often their handicap is not the cause of their ignorance, it is the effect.

Ulrich

[David Beeney]

Knowledge of the game and strategy is more important than playing ability. You don't have to be a great player to be a great coach or caddy and I would say the same goes an architect although it does help.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sort of OT, but what are the greatest myths of gca marketing?

Always thought it was tour pros with little design experience, but who "remember every hole they ever played in competition worldwide."

I always thought it was a great way to suggest you could design the best holes based on memory, rather than design skill.  JN was an early adopter of this, and proof its not part of design.  While he has done some great work, I don't see anything other than modern style, and none of the subtlties that make some of the old holes great.  So, does it really translate, even if we presume they can do it?

BTW, the OP presumes perhaps that there is only one way to design a course or one level of player to aim the design at.  Not true, although you do have to understand how ALL golfers play (not just your type of golf) if you are a designer.

And David makes a nice contribution in his first post above - why, if in sports the best players so rarely make the best coaches, would the best players make the best architects?  The personality types involved in design and sports are two totally different things.

[John_Conley]

Suppose someone plays miserably, but loves the game and is a whiz on video games like Golden Tee, Links, or Tiger Woods....

[Jason Topp]

One of the most interesting experiences I have ever had that relates to this topic was when I had a weeklong trial end midday Tuesday in Salem, Oregon.  I got in the car and drove straight to Bandon Dunes solo for the rest of the week.  I played seven rounds with different groups ranging in ability from a couple that did not sniff 100 to a few club professionals. 

It was interesting to see how some shots were simply impossible for the high handicaps - such as bunker shots.  I was also surprised to see that significantly undulating firm greens just brutalized the high handicaps.  They had no ability to either judge what a putt was likely to do or hit it where they intended.  They could not hit a chip solid so they had no chance to handle severe slopes on those shots.  We had several holes with balls ping ponging back and forth across the green or back to the feet of the person hitting the shot.

I had always assumed a course that was friendly tee to green but difficult once on the green would be a good way to make the course playable for beginners but a challenge to good players.  That week made me doubt that assumption.

While the impact of the course on different levels of player was interesting, it was far more interesting to watch the emotional reactions of people on a big expensive golf trip playing a new and challenging version of the game.  A sizeable minority made themselves miserable by not embracing the challenge of the wind and the firm ground.  Most loved the experience.  The difference had more to do with attitude than quality of play.

[George Pazin]

Deep thoughts time: People are different.

Some people need to experience something to learn about it. Some people experience something and never learn from it. Other people have stronger imaginations and can learn from reading or watching others. Others have strong imaginations and learn all the wrong things from reading or watching others.

Some archies can play, others can't or don't. Some of each group have built universally acclaimed courses and some of each have built near universally panned courses.

So I guess I'd say, Mike, it depends on the person...

Sorry if you wasted your time reading that. Some threads get resurrected in different forms every now and then. This seems to be one of them. I'd be curious if anyone ever changed or modified his position on this issue; sounds kinda like Ben Sims has. Chalk one up for his willingness to reconsider a position.

[Mike_Young]

George,
I agree with you.  I think I should have phrased the question as: "How Important is playing ability in comprehending the design of a golf course? 
I think there are so many small things that people that have not played never pick up.  For instance a bunker with a bottom that slopes more steeply toward the green on the outside; a back corner of a green with one outside edge of the complex gently sloping away and maybe a portion of the back side of the complex steeply sloping into a small hollow etc; or even a wide looking fairway where one third of the left edge will move the ball toward a water hazard quickly.  I'm not condemning either side.  I'm just saying that the little things are not picked up as easily if you don't play for a long time.  And, I think most archies here as well as others will agree that many architects don't even see these things.  I hope that doesn't sound wrong.

[Brent Hutto]

I think even hacks can appreciate a lot of those subtleties on their home course after they've played them 50-100 times a year for a decade. It may well take a pretty strong player to pick up on a lot of that stuff after one or two rounds.

[George Pazin]

I think there are so many small things that people that have not played never pick up.  For instance a bunker with a bottom that slopes more steeply toward the green on the outside; a back corner of a green with one outside edge of the complex gently sloping away and maybe a portion of the back side of the complex steeply sloping into a small hollow etc; or even a wide looking fairway where one third of the left edge will move the ball toward a water hazard quickly.  I'm not condemning either side.  I'm just saying that the little things are not picked up as easily if you don't play for a long time.  And, I think most archies here as well as others will agree that many architects don't even see these things.  I hope that doesn't sound wrong.

Excellent thoughts, doesn't sound wrong at all. I wonder if there is a correlation between the architects who miss the little things and playing ability? My hunch is no, but I could be very wrong.

I think a lot of it depends on what sort of golfer you are, and what sort of person you are. I'm not a very good golfer, but mostly because I rarely play or practice. I hit plenty of very good shots, I just don't hit them very often. Conversely, there are plenty of guys who have learned to scrap it around in fewer shots, but don't have much game in the sense of length or shot shape. Additionally, my work requires a high level of attention to design detail, so I'm pretty visual - but not nearly as visual as someone like Adam Foster Collins, a graphic designer who posts on here occasionally. And I'd expect that the supers on here would notice a lot of things that even the best golfers would miss (and the few supers I've met are pretty damn good golfers, too - any correlation there?)

And I'd surely expect Seth Raynor would understand his golf courses a heckuva lot better than most very good golfers, let alone lesser golfers like me.

So I'm back to, "It depends..."

[John Kavanaugh]

You don't need to get married to bake a cake but you do need a stiff dick to consummate one.

[Ulrich Mayring]

or even a wide looking fairway where one third of the left edge will move the ball toward a water hazard quickly

Which undoubtedly the better players will never notice, when hitting their ball long and straight down the fairway. Unless that punishing portion of the fairway is very far down there, in which case they will not find their ball and have learned nothing except that the course sucks

Ulrich