Don't be that guy....Part Deux

[David_Elvins]

David

I am sorry my friend but your statement seems rather blind to the whole game. GCA can very much be enjoyed while playing competitive golf but from a young age I have embraced each Hole and each course I have played. I have been made aware of the way to navigate the terrain and hazards, to accept the challenges before me be it through the efforts of Man or his Gods.

One of the most exhilarating experiences of my golfing life was to play alone on new sites that I had never played before. To navigate the Holes for the first time, to look for options and the traps to what is surely one of the greatest parts of playing the game. Then return that afternoon to replay the course opens one’s eyes to what was missed in the morning as well as seeing the different light playing its part to help illuminate the real intricacies of land, course and GCA.

Competitions may indeed assist but surely, no to the same extent after all you are concentrating in winning so the mind looks but just see what is its priority, getting to that pin with the fewest shots possible. That in my experience blocks out a larger part of GCA, just focusing on the pin each time.

Perhaps if you keep losing that might explain why you see more.

Melvyn

All good points, Melvyn.

[Phil McDade]

Phil McDade,

If you are playing to enjoy the company of your friends, that is all well and good, but only a competition (even a friendly competition) can bring out the architecture of the course to it's fullest.  

If you are really interested in architecture, you should be interested in competitive golf.  If you are interested in competitive golf, you should be interested in how far you have to the hole.  

David:

I believe exactly the opposite.

Ask a really good player -- say, someone on the PGA Tour -- and they tend to ignore the architecture. They are interested, solely, in scoring, and getting from point A to point B in as few strokes as possible. Tom Lehman -- who is doing some interesting architectural work in Nebraska -- once said as a pro that he pretty much ignored most architectural elements, and instead just focused on how to best get to where he needed to be for this next shot, be it off the tee, or from the fairway, or on the green.

Besides, as a sub-standard golfer, I get to see more of the architecture of a course than most players.

I'd use this course as a pretty good litmus test as the dividing line for how people view golf architecture and playing the game:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39987.0.html

[Brent Hutto]

I believe a good player wants to eliminate as much of the "architecture" as possible so he can focus on execution of point A to point B as much as possible.

I think mediocre architecture can be totally ignored by elite players and poor architecture can be ignored by players of even more modest ability.

Which leads me to the idea that great architecture imposes itself in way that even the strongest players ignore at their peril. That could even be one criterion for judging great architecture, the degree to which a good player much make "strategic" decisions rather than just putting his head down and A-to-B'ing it one correctly executed simple shot at a time.

As Pete Dye said, if you can make them dudes think then you've really got 'em.

[jeffwarne]

Phil McDade,

If you are playing to enjoy the company of your friends, that is all well and good, but only a competition (even a friendly competition) can bring out the architecture of the course to it's fullest.  

If you are really interested in architecture, you should be interested in competitive golf.  If you are interested in competitive golf, you should be interested in how far you have to the hole.  

David:

I believe exactly the opposite.

Ask a really good player -- say, someone on the PGA Tour -- and they tend to ignore the architecture. They are interested, solely, in scoring, and getting from point A to point B in as few strokes as possible. Tom Lehman -- who is doing some interesting architectural work in Nebraska -- once said as a pro that he pretty much ignored most architectural elements, and instead just focused on how to best get to where he needed to be for this next shot, be it off the tee, or from the fairway, or on the green.

Besides, as a sub-standard golfer, I get to see more of the architecture of a course than most players.

I'd used this course as a pretty good litmus test as the dividing line for how people view golf architecture and playing the game:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39987.0.html

Phil,
When a PGA Tour player formulates his plan from A to B, does he not have to consider the architecture?
For instance, laying back for a level lie, laying back to 100 yards, busting one to try to get to a speed slot, Hitting a hybrid off a tee because it's too narrow for a driver, or wanting to leave a full spinnable shot in.
Going for a green in two,knowing where to miss (even if that's a bunker)..........
Hitting to a certain side of a green for a good angle in, not shortsiding themselves.....

Granted many of the PGA Tour sites and setups have lacked imagination, but every decision off every tee is based on architecture (or lack of it),even if the architecture isn't overwhelmingly subtle and is "all out in front of you"
Just because he doesn't know a Redan from an Eden, doesn't mean he doesn't figure out what shot is needed, even if a lazer gives him the info where he figures out where to land it the second time around.
Just because many pros don't like certain features (blindness, greens running away) etc., doesn't mean they don't consider them when formulating a game plan.(they may not be educated or patient enough to like it,but they consider it)


Totally agreed there are many pros who like courses where all they need is a number and a target, but the same can be said for many bad golfers too.
In other words I'm disputing that pros "ignore" the architecture, even if they don't embrace it.
That said,many modern courses and/or setups are so narrow and uncompelling that "down the middle" becomes the strategy which is the decision for the entire day, not each individual hole

I really like the pictures of the courses you posted and wish there were more of those as they demand a different kind've course management,but rest assurred a TOUR player would figure out how to play it in a few plays,
Caught in a firm and fast mode, it would make for great viewing in a tour event.

[Phil McDade]

I believe a good player wants to eliminate as much of the "architecture" as possible so he can focus on execution of point A to point B as much as possible.

I think mediocre architecture can be totally ignored by elite players and poor architecture can be ignored by players of even more modest ability.

Which leads me to the idea that great architecture imposes itself in way that even the strongest players ignore at their peril. That could even be one criterion for judging great architecture, the degree to which a good player much make "strategic" decisions rather than just putting his head down and A-to-B'ing it one correctly executed simple shot at a time.

As Pete Dye said, if you can make them dudes think then you've really got 'em.

Brent:

Well, Plainfield is viewed in many quarters as the epitome of a classic Ross course restored to its original design intent:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/plainfield/

...and that didn't stop Dustin Johnson from torching it for -19 in three rounds last year on Tour. I don't know whether or not Johnson ignored much of what many here might view as good architecture, but it didn't seem to bother him too much.

Jeff:

I'd distinguish between architecture and set-up regarding courses played by the touring pros. Many interesting architectural elements (placement of traps near fairways, speed slots in landing zones, hazards on the line of play, green slopes) are denuded by narrowed fairways, back tees, and the notion that greens must role at a certain Stimp to challenge the pros. See Merion's 12th green for the extension of this approach at its most absurd.

As for those Wisconsin photo tours, I hope to continue them shortly.