Does an intensity for course architecture hurt your game?

[Steve Strasheim]

Yes and it took a lesson from my 11 year old son to note it.

Recently played in Arizona and after returning home was talking to my son. He said that I was too negative about the course, its forced carries and how I didn't like the bounces and lies that good shots were getting. He reminded me that golf is a game of positivity and that viewing a hole in a less than favorable light was bound to add tension to the shot at hand. The more I think about his comment, the more I agree with him. Even when I am enamored with the course/hole at hand, that feeling can do nothing but distract from my visualization and concentration on the shot at hand.

What say you?

[Lou_Duran]

Yes.  I've had friends tell me that they don't want to hear about it (architectural flaws, issues with conditioning- F & F, walking vs. riding, etc).  I've also heard a number of raters comment that attempting to focus on evaluating a golf course doesn't mix with playing for a score.

[Brent Hutto]

The "judging" mindset is a destroyer of both performance and enjoyment when playing golf. The ideal mindset lets you accept a shot (after all, once you've hit it what's done is done) and move on to the next without any excess baggage carried forward. This mode of acceptance can not coexist on a moment-by-moment basis with the critic's mode of deciding whether each tiny little detail of the course is A Good Thing or A Bad Thing.

If you're out there with the purpose of forming a detailed critical impression of the course, it is just human nature to also be forming a detailed critical impression of your own performance. Unless you're a phenomenally strong-willed individual the nitpicking mind will win out and you both get in your own way, objective performance-wise, and make the subjective experience of your golf game be centered on your shortcomings.

[Kalen Braley]

Steve,

I think a better question would be...given the assumption that intensity for course architecture hurts ones games...how many GCA'ers care?

I for one don't care that much.  Sure I always want to put up a decent number, but I didn't break 90 in two playings of RCCC and I didn't care one bit...the course/environment/enjoyment of it all far outweighed putting up a good number.

But it'll be interesting to see how others chime in.

[John Kavanaugh]

You have to learn to walk before you need a crutch.

[Ed Brzezowski]

I think your son is wise beyond his years. I rate courses and you dont let what you score interfere with your evaluations.

Good job with the young man. Love those half full kids.

[Peter Pallotta]

Steve - I have indeed short-circuited my brain and body on occasion by focusing on the architecture.  That's because if I focus too much on the options/tests the architect has presented, I tend to forget that those options/tests weren't necessarily intended for me, and that therefore I don't necessarily have to respond/react to them at all, let alone in the way the architect hoped I might.  I think playing my own game sometimes means ignoring altogether the signs and hints and choices and suggestions by which architecture's concepts/principles are made manifest on the ground.  Luckily, most of the time I can have my cake and eat it too -- as those manifestations are often so obvious that i can't help noticing them (and admiring them) even if I'm not all that interested in what they're meant to do, i.e. even if I'm not interested in playing the game the architect has intended me to. After all, who cares what an architect wants me to think about or intended me to do?      

Peter

[Alex Miller]

Yes

I am able to derive enough enjoyment/wonder from this site that I don't feel the need to play as often as I used to. This hurts the golf game.

[Steve Strasheim]

Ed,

Thank you for that nice comment. Since I started playing with my son, my love of golf and it's lifes lessons has really come to be. I would have probably never found this place had it not been for him.

Kalen,

I understand your point, but if you play better, the experience is always better, correct? Don't get me wrong, I had an absoultely wonderful time on this trip playing golf. Loved the whole experience and I wasn't walking around bitching about the course, or my score.

Brent,

Exactly. You cannot really "accept a shot and move on to the next" while at the same time thinking "what a waste of a good shot, why did xyz architect do THAT?".

Lou,

That's a good point. Other non-architecturally intense players don't want to talk about those things, so you can also add tension and hurt your playing partners games.

[Jud_T]

It has hurt my game as I no longer have much interest in playing crap courses or decent courses in crap conditions.  Therefore I play about a third less rounds per year.  Of course I enjoy those rounds twice as much and have significantly more time for the family so on balance I'm ahead of the game!

[Jason Connor]

It would be unfair to my utter lack of talent to attribute my awfulness to anything else.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sort of a different take, since I don't rate courses (other than for the Dallas Morning News) but truly, when I golf my own courses or others, I can pretty well zone out and play, not rate or evaluate.  Sure, I mentally (or verbally) note a few things I like or don't like.

I guess despite number systems, when I rate, I rate on overall ambiance rather than some strict code.

[Ed Brzezowski]

I am new to this site but i am really rattled by those here who won't even consider playing a course unless it has a certain pedigree. I rate in the Philly area and we get a steady diet of less then perfect tracks. A few Philly munis fall into that pot but with the right group of guys we still have a blast. Got to love playing by a bridge while the smell of Tasteycakes is in the air.

I have hit perfect, caddies words not mine, drives at St. Andrews #2 and had them come to a rest in a Godawful bunker. I have hit absolute worm burners that have ended up in birdies, also St. Andrews. Almost killed myself at Merion when my ball ended up on top of another ball in the very deep rough. The underlying ball came up and took my hat and glasses off, parred the hole however. Almost peed myself laughing.

Get the right group of guys and almost any course, good bad and ugly, can be a blast. Yes there are some dog tracks out there, yes i love a well laid out course. But playing with some great guys makes the day.

[Tom_Doak]

I know that lots of good players have told me that they almost never thought about architecture when playing at the peak of their careers.

I can also tell you that I've watched Ben Crenshaw make a wreck of holes that he's previously told me he doesn't like, on more than one occasion.

And I've experienced the same thing Jeff Brauer has -- I play well on my own courses, which I attribute to having visualized successful approach shots so many times in my head.  When I hear stories about how well someone has played the 16th hole at Cypress Point in their only visit, I think it must be the same phenomenon.

[Bill Brightly]

Another different take: my intensity for golf hurts my study of architecture. I try to play golf at a high level, so when I play a course for the first time I try to score,focusing on each shot as it is presented, so much so that I know I miss many features. After the round I rarely can remember many of the holes and their numbers. Obviously, I notice much more after repeated plays. But I have found that I do most of my "study" when walking a course, looking at photos, or spending time here.

[Joel_Stewart]

Yes.  I've had friends tell me that they don't want to hear about it (architectural flaws, issues with conditioning- F & F, walking vs. riding, etc). 

Glad I'm not the only person.  I know a guy who belongs to ten clubs, most in the top 100 and he won't play with me anymore.

A few years ago I was playing with Sandy Tatum who was at the time probably 89.  He's played every course in the world, dabbled in architecture and knows every architect.  We were on the 8th hole at Harding Park and I complained about the green contours and he lit into me about just playing the course.

I've tried to tone it down.

[Bill_McBride]

Yes.  I've had friends tell me that they don't want to hear about it (architectural flaws, issues with conditioning- F & F, walking vs. riding, etc). 

Glad I'm not the only person.  I know a guy who belongs to ten clubs, most in the top 100 and he won't play with me anymore.

A few years ago I was playing with Sandy Tatum who was at the time probably 89.  He's played every course in the world, dabbled in architecture and knows every architect.  We were on the 8th hole at Harding Park and I complained about the green contours and he lit into me about just playing the course.

I've tried to tone it down.

Did he refer to it as the "f'ing course?"   

I have an unpleasant memory of that hole from the '60's.   I had just bought a lovely clean white visor.   Striped a 2-iron into the middle of the green!   Walked off the front of the green, and was shat upon by a seagull who had just finished a fish dinner.   This was most unpleasant.   

[jonathan_becker]

The first time around a course that I'm really excited to see about 75% of the time I don't play up to my potential.  The last few years I've enjoyed taking photos and I try to pay attention to everything that's out there in a broader sense.  

At least for myself, it's tough to play well when that narrow focus isn't there.  But I don't really care what I shoot anymore at courses of interest for me.  It's all about just enjoying the day, the course, and the playing partners.  Most times now I just save the scorecard and pencil for my home course.

[Steve Strasheim]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

It appears unanimous that the answer is yes. I find it very interesting that architects have an advantage when playing "their own" courses. It would seem the "previous positive visualisations" out-weigh the "intensity of observation". When someone has visualised a shot dozens, or hundreds of times, there is clearly much more chance of success. This is consistent with what the best teachers suggest, but in my case I'd probably being paying much more attention to my baby than my score. Obviously, I have to work on the mind training part of the game.

[John Kavanaugh]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

It appears unanimous that the answer is yes. I find it very interesting that architects have an advantage when playing "their own" courses. It would seem the "previous positive visualisations" out-weigh the "intensity of observation". When someone has visualised a shot dozens, or hundreds of times, there is clearly much more chance of success. This is consistent with what the best teachers suggest, but in my case I'd probably being paying much more attention to my baby than my score. Obviously, I have to work on the mind training part of the game.

It is not unanimous, didn't your read my post?

This question has been around as long as golf critics have found an ear.  I have met few golfers who get worse and don't look for reasons why.  Saying it is because you love architecture is simply a crutch.  Being a worse golfer does not make you a bad person.  It may however require your ego to find a substitute, and what better substitute for skill than intelligence?  You are a worse golfer but sooooo much smarter.  A win/win...we get it.

I'm kind of a self loathing guy myself so I like to fall back on my obesity.  Plus, who wouldn't rather eat than study.

[Terry Lavin]

There's no question that there are certain holes that I just don't like.  So I go ahead and confirm my dislike by playing them like an absolute pig.  Whether this loathing is attributable to a hole "not fitting my eye" or one that seems badly conceived by the architect is I suppose an open question.  But there's no doubting that a negative opinion about a hole can negatively affect the way one plays it.

[Mike Tanner]

A deficit of skill hurts my game, while an intensity for course architecture keeps me from quitting. OK, there's also the hours spent outdoors in a (usually) beautiful setting, the camaraderie and the alcohol consumption to consider.

[Steve Strasheim]

It is not unanimous, didn't your read my post?

This question has been around as long as golf critics have found an ear.  I have met few golfers who get worse and don't look for reasons why.  Saying it is because you love architecture is simply a crutch.  Being a worse golfer does not make you a bad person.  It may however require your ego to find a substitute, and what better substitute for skill than intelligence?  You are a worse golfer but sooooo much smarter.  A win/win...we get it.

I'm kind of a self loathing guy myself so I like to fall back on my obesity.  Plus, who wouldn't rather eat than study.

John,

I think one of the points is that even though you are an obese guy, if you study your food too much you won't enjoy eating it as much. That banana wasn't anything special, it had a bruise the size of my palm. The rib-eye for dinner would have been so much better if was bone-in. The number of calories in that mac n cheese is ridiculous. With golf, thinking like this will affect your score, thus your enjoyment of the game is lessened.

Thanks for clarifying your initial post. I thought about it for a few seconds, but couldn't be certain what you meant, so I did not reply. Perhaps you are right and I am just looking for another weapon in my arsenal of excuses.

[paul cowley]