just a thought - is a course review from a 6 handicap more worthwhile than a 26?

[B.Ross]

new member here but something i have always thought about.  do you guys feel or trust a better player to comment on course design, architects, building et al than you do a hack who can't even hit it 220 off the tee or break 90? Personally, I do and if that makes me a snob or biased or pompous because I fall into the better player category, I apologize. Having said that, for those who trust reviews and opinions of lesser players, can you tell me why?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Having a low-handicap vs a high-handicap has nothing to do with understanding golf and course architecture, or providing intelligent golf course "reviews"; nothing at all. In fact, it's often more important to get input from golfers who play like the majority - that is, not down the middle of the fairway then onto the greens most of the time.

This subject reminds me of one of my favourites stories, too. Alister Mackenzie's playing a match at Leeds, about 1926. He mentions to his opponent that he's heading down to Australia to design some courses. Mackenzie plays terrible, gets killed by this guy in their match. Afterward, the victor asks Mackenzie, "Did you say you're going to Australia to design courses?" The Good Doctor answers, "Yes." The victor adds, "If I can give you some advice, don't let the Australians see you play golf."

We all know the results of Mackenzie's Australia trip - Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath, et al.

[corey miller]

What if I were to say I did not trust the opinion of a six-handicap and would only listed to a three handicap or below?  Or scratch?  The thoughtfulness of the reviewer is what matters. 

Is there a minimum competency for golf architects?   

[Tom_Doak]

This subject reminds me of one of my favourites stories, too. Alister Mackenzie's playing a match at Leeds, about 1926. He mentions to his opponent that he's heading down to Australia to design some courses. Mackenzie plays terrible, gets killed by this guy in their match. Afterward, the victor asks Mackenzie, "Did you say you're going to Australia to design courses?" The Good Doctor answers, "Yes." The victor adds, "If I can give you some advice, don't let the Australians see you play golf."

We all know the results of Mackenzie's Australia trip - Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath, et al.

Jeff:

The punch line is that I don't think he played golf with any of the Australians.  I could be wrong about that ... I wonder if Neal Crafter can answer whether he's seen any record of MacKenzie playing golf down there?

And don't forget, either, that Royal Melbourne paired up the Doctor with their club champion Alex Russell, to get in a little more of that "good player's" perspective.

Many people (I dare say the vast majority) still believe that "good players" know more about golf and golf course design than average players do, and certainly the majority of golf architects have been "good players", although there are exceptions to any rule.


BRoss:

As for reviews of courses, I would say that the best reviews for anyone to read would be from a player similar to one's own ability.  There is no right or wrong in such things:  a very good player may say that Carnoustie is the ideal test of golf, but for a 25-handicapper that is akin to recommending that he take his medicine.  Likewise, the 25-handicapper will enjoy many courses that the low-handicapper finds insufficiently testing.  The best reviews are those which can address mutliple viewpoints [and there are more than the two I've covered so far], but not many reviewers can divorce themselves from their own results on a given course.

[A.G._Crockett]

ALL other things equal, yes.

But ALL other things are seldom equal, so there is no way to make a blanket statement about this.  If the 6 is a dopey kid, for instance, or a guy who spends the whole round in a cart and much of it on his cellphone, his opinion isn't worth much, and so forth.

[Andy Troeger]

The answers to this question may very well give you an idea of all of our respective handicaps!

First, there's NO question in my mind that low handicaps and high handicaps look at architecture in pretty different ways. Its a generalization and not accurate 100% of the time, but I think you can look at the differences between the Golf Digest results (low handicaps only) and all the other lists (no handicap requirement) to see pretty significant differences. Some of this is the difference in looking at the game from a competitive standpoint versus a recreational standpoint. Those wanting to play golf for fun are in it for a different reason than those who primarily play for competitive purposes and are looking for competitive advantages. Obviously its not either/or and most will fall in the middle--they play competitively because they enjoy it.

Personally, I find myself most interested by those folks in the middle. I'm not interested in looking at courses as tests of execution for professional (or high amateur) level golfers, nor am I interested in reviewing courses from the perspective of someone who can't break 100 and thinks that courses should be hazard free to accomodate their lack of ability! (hyperbole intended).

More important than the quality of the golfer, IMO, is the ability of the golfer to see the game and the course beyond their own playing ability.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Further to Tom's post, the only thing that really matters in golf course architecture is positive drainage. Everything else is really subjective. A consensus of reviews has determined the world's best courses over time. But, no matter the handicap, who's individual reviews really matter anyway?!!

[jeffwarne]

The answers to this question may very well give you an idea of all of our respective handicaps!

First, there's NO question in my mind that low handicaps and high handicaps look at architecture in pretty different ways. Its a generalization and not accurate 100% of the time, but I think you can look at the differences between the Golf Digest results (low handicaps only) and all the other lists (no handicap requirement) to see pretty significant differences. Some of this is the difference in looking at the game from a competitive standpoint versus a recreational standpoint. Those wanting to play golf for fun are in it for a different reason than those who primarily play for competitive purposes and are looking for competitive advantages. Obviously its not either/or and most will fall in the middle--they play competitively because they enjoy it.

Personally, I find myself most interested by those folks in the middle. I'm not interested in looking at courses as tests of execution for professional (or high amateur) level golfers, nor am I interested in reviewing courses from the perspective of someone who can't break 100 and thinks that courses should be hazard free to accomodate their lack of ability! (hyperbole intended).

More important than the quality of the golfer, IMO, is the ability of the golfer to see the game and the course beyond their own playing ability.

IMHO opinion, it takes someone who observes how ALL players play the game and interact with the hazrds and rewards.

So a 26 who plays quite frequently with a pro and pays attention would would be as qualified as a pro who plays with a 26 and pays attention.
That said, the low handicapper would be likely to have had a wider range of golf and course experience, that's how he got to be a low handicap.
Therefore it's more likely there would be more low handicap golfers qualified to evaluate courses, but not always.

Caddies and Teaching Professionals would have a lot of insight about other people's games. Someone who only played with players of similar ability would have less.

Of course there's a certain amount of history, literature/education, and travel that would improve anyone's evaluation ability.

[ed_getka]

I find the most useful feedback from people who either like courses similar to what I like or give specific reasons why they do or do not like a hole or a course. I have seen low handicap players who are as dumb as a stump when it comes to golf course architecture as well as high handicappers with the same affliction. It is like anything else, if one pays attention and learns from others they can have something meaningful to contribute. For someone to start off a conversation by saying they only listen to low handicappers well that is their loss.

[corey miller]

What is Ran's handicap?

[Mark Pearce]

Most of the very good players I have played with aren't thinking about or even aware of the architecture.  They are concentrating on hitting fairways and greens and making putts.  I am always extremely dubious about a very good player's opinion of a course unless I know they are an exception.  A good player generally is far more concerned with conditioning than architecture.  Of those on this board whose views I really respect the majority are, I think, low teens handicappers.  There are exceptions (Mike Clayton, for one) who are both really excellent golfers and good critics but I'd take Sean Arble's opinion over Dustin Johnson's  any day.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have been everything from a low of a one to my present handicap of 6.  I play regularly with an 18. I am always amazed by what he sees. We can play a new hole and tell me how he should play it and how a better player should.  He is able to articulate his ideas about the course in a way that some low handicappers miss in their bomb and gauge style of play.

[Ken Moum]

Almost every time I talk about golf courses with a player whose handicap is middle to low single digits, I get the impression that they value conditioning, "fairness" and resistance to scoring in that order.

 If a course is tight enough to give them a more-than-normal advantage over lesser players, that's good thing.

None of which makes me value their opinions more than those of higher handicappers. Of course, lesser players are about as likely to hold similar opinions, so I don't necessarily think they are more reliable.

I do know that anyone who bitches about conditions, or who uses a term like "goofy golf" to describe a golf course isn't likely to be able to tell me anything useful about a golf course.

K

[Mike_Young]

With all else being equal as it pertains to GCA knowledge the I would say yes...if he had been a low handicapper at some point.  Not necessarily at a particular time.  JMO

[Garland Bayley]

Dostoyevsky wrote about the arrogance of the ignorant in The Idiot. How does a 6 handicapper thinking 6 handicappers give the best reviews play into that?

[Jud_T]

Reviews from well-travelled higher handicap players who have a clue about GCA are to be treasured because we're few and far between.    The more interesting question is between a 6 and a 16.  26 generally implies a lack of certain rudimentary skills.  I think it depends on whether you're a 6 or a 16 and what you're looking for in courses (fun, challenge or pretty).  One thing is certain.  Most 6 handicaps think that since they're better at scoring on the course they're by definition better at scoring courses.

[Brad Isaacs]

What is truth? What is the meaning of "is"?

All perspectives probably need to be taken into account, because without them a financial disaster is brewed. Just like thre are not enough 1%'rs to pay for everything there are not enough 6 and lowers to pay for everything, so those 26'rs are needed for the good of the game.

[Mike_Young]

What is truth? What is the meaning of "is"?

All perspectives probably need to be taken into account, because without them a financial disaster is brewed. Just like thre are not enough 1%'rs to pay for everything there are not enough 6 and lowers to pay for everything, so those 26'rs are needed for the good of the game.

Agree.
The biggest difference in some of the opinions above is the phrase "all else being equal".  It seems some bristle up when someone says they think a they would listen to a six more than a 26.  Sure some are addicted to reading al they can regarding golf design and in the past 25 years there is no telling how much myth has been incorporated into golf design writings and will flow into the next period of golf design interest.  But WITH ALL BEING EQUAL there is something to be gained by listening to a critic who can actually carry the corner bunker instead of rolling three shots to get there or the person that has actually has to make a 4 foot sidehiller in competition vs the guy that tried it three times while he was practicing his "ground game" into a green with a three wood from 80 yards out.  AGAIN I'm saying with all being EQUAL.  I ALSO THINK THERE ARE CASES WHERE THERE MAY BE A 26 THAT UNDERSTANDS AND KNOWS MORE REGARDING GOLF ARCHITECTURE THAN A TOUR PLAYER.  Sometimes you have to admit this golf design addiction on this site is like a fantasy football league and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Josh Tarble]

Most of the very good players I have played with aren't thinking about or even aware of the architecture.  They are concentrating on hitting fairways and greens and making putts.  I am always extremely dubious about a very good player's opinion of a course unless I know they are an exception.  A good player generally is far more concerned with conditioning than architecture.  Of those on this board whose views I really respect the majority are, I think, low teens handicappers.  There are exceptions (Mike Clayton, for one) who are both really excellent golfers and good critics but I'd take Sean Arble's opinion over Dustin Johnson's  any day.

This is my opinion as well. I would almost rather receive the opinion of a high handicapper because the typical low handicap player is more concerned that all good shots end up where they should and the course is "fair." most high handicappers aren't quite as concerned with posting a low round and more focused on fun. That's the opinion I want

[Mike_Young]

Many very good players understand architecture much more than one would think BUT they don't know it...

[Sean_A]

I would give the benefit of the doubt to a very good player over a 20+ capper.  However, the proof is in what is said.  Just because a guy starts with a leg up doesn't mean his PoV will carry the day.  I would rather take each guy and his review on a case by case basis. 

A big part of a good review is managing one's expectations and that of the course reputation.  But to be very honest, I like the reviews which focus on the experience of the visit.  Sure, the course is the biggest aspect, but I have forever said that if the course was the only aspect I wouldn't bother to pay a green fee (besides, we have countless rankings which do the job of ranking - why try to copy it?).  I can learn more by watching folks for 4 hours than I can by playing, but then I would miss out totally on the most important part of golf, the fun factor.  So long as a course is good, I don't really care of it is top this or that.  I care about the enjoyment the course provides.  For me that is best demonstrated by being a good walking, pretty, well varied course over interesting terrain with some architectural flair here and there on display (especially over ground that is less interesting) and with a good maintenance meld - all for a reasonable green fee.  A cool clubhouse with views is a plus that I greatly enjoy as well.

Ciao

[Carl Nichols]

26 is a really high handicap, and in general is likely someone who rarely plays and knows little about the game. The same is not true of a 6. There are exceptions, of course, and there are 26s I know whose  views I would take over some 6s I know. So it's not *always* the case that I would value the 6's view over the 26's, but it's certainly more often than not.

[John Kavanaugh]

When Stephan Hawking takes up golf I will respect the opinion of a 26.

[Ronald Montesano]

John Kavanaugh brays like a donkey.

Is the title question akin to this one: Must a (insert professional sports league) coach have played in the (insert same professional sports league?

One would also need to know, how did the 6 become a 6? And, why is the 26 still a 26?

Jesse Haddock, a terrible golfer, coached at Wake Forest for many years, with much success. Jerry Haas, the current coach and a marvelous player (played for Jesse, matter of fact) has not approached Coach Haddock's record, despite having many fine players.

[John Kavanaugh]

John Kavanaugh brays like a donkey.

Is the title question akin to this one: Must a (insert professional sports league) coach have played in the (insert same professional sports league?

One would also need to know, how did the 6 become a 6? And, why is the 26 still a 26?

Jesse Haddock, a terrible golfer, coached at Wake Forest for many years, with much success. Jerry Haas, the current coach and a marvelous player (played for Jesse, matter of fact) has not approached Coach Haddock's record, despite having many fine players.

Here you go:


``I liked baseball and basketball when I went into school,`` said Haddock, who quit the basketball team to become equipment manager. ``But I liked the golfers; they were my friends. The performance of golfers interested me because it was not just a physical challenge.``

Haddock, a left-hander, had taken up golf by the time he became the coach and had become proficient, working to a 7 handicap.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1989-02-18/sports/8901090824_1_wake-forest-college-golf-college-football

No wonder you post under a fake name.