Fool Me Once, Shame On Me

[Mike Hendren]

In another thread Kevin Lynch refers to the nuanced golf course as "a mystery to be solved over time."    If that's true I'm compelled to ask:  Is it a mystery worth solving?

My game stinks, but having been a student and participant of the game for over 40 years now I can pretty much ascertain where to hit the ball and where not to and why.  Execution of course is another matter entirely.  

What percentage of the time are you architecturally duped?   For me, maybe once of twice on a course I'm playing for the first time.  Even then, the penalty can be easily offset by a nice putt.  So, what difference does it make?

I absolutely adore The Old Course, perhaps my favorite place on earth.  While many consider it the ultimate in nuance, in my opinion the key to scoring there is the ability to putt from distance in the wind.  

I distinctly recall driving my ball down the right side of the first fairway at Pacific Dunes.  As I watched in trundle into the right-hand fairway bunker, someone commented that I had been "Doaked."   Hardly,  -  I'd been "Bogeyed" and it was not unprecedented.  

Don't misunderstand, I love architectural nuances and obfuscation as much as the next guy and nothing is more fun than watching a ball do what it is designed to do - roll.  I just don't buy that architecture is in any way "mysterious."

Bogey

[Ronald Montesano]

Would you employ another adjective in its place?

[Doug Siebert]

In another thread Kevin Lynch refers to the nuanced golf course as "a mystery to be solved over time."    If that's true I'm compelled to ask:  Is it a mystery worth solving?

My game stinks, but having been a student and participant of the game for over 40 years now I can pretty much ascertain where to hit the ball and where not to and why.  Execution of course is another matter entirely.  

What percentage of the time are you architecturally duped?   For me, maybe once of twice on a course I'm playing for the first time.  Even then, the penalty can be easily offset by a nice putt.  So, what difference does it make?

I absolutely adore The Old Course, perhaps my favorite place on earth.  While many consider it the ultimate in nuance, in my opinion the key to scoring there is the ability to putt from distance in the wind.  

I distinctly recall driving my ball down the right side of the first fairway at Pacific Dunes.  As I watched in trundle into the right-hand fairway bunker, someone commented that I had been "Doaked."   Hardly,  -  I'd been "Bogeyed" and it was not unprecedented.  

Don't misunderstand, I love architectural nuances and obfuscation as much as the next guy and nothing is more fun than watching a ball do what it is designed to do - roll.  I just don't buy that architecture is in any way "mysterious."

Bogey

IMHO it's not about fooling, it's about discomfort.  It's easy to present something in a hole that will fool a golfer the first time, but as you say, it only works once.  A good architect can present something that makes that golfer uncomfortable time and again, even if he plays the hole all the time.  It could be as simple as choosing the path of the fairway or shape of the teebox in a way that makes it look like you want to aim somewhere other than where you should.

The parts of the green that are more easily visible can make it look like the fat part of the green is other than where it really is, or fool you in other ways.  Think about those greens that have pin positions that look like they're not even on the green when you're standing in the fairway.  That makes one REALLY uncomfortable, but a good architect may use that with a part of the green that may present little difficulty in getting up and down, causing golfers to aim well away from it and actually risking much worse trouble.

[David_Elvins]

In another thread Kevin Lynch refers to the nuanced golf course as "a mystery to be solved over time."    If that's true I'm compelled to ask:  Is it a mystery worth solving?

My game stinks, but having been a student and participant of the game for over 40 years now I can pretty much ascertain where to hit the ball and where not to and why.  Execution of course is another matter.

Bogey,

Surely on a great course, the ideal place to aim changes from day to day depending on how much your game stinks and which part of your game stinks?  

The mystery is as much in our games as the course.  The best courses highlight the mystery of our games and solving that puzzle is a never-ending task.  

[Ben Sims]

Don't misunderstand, I love architectural nuances and obfuscation as much as the next guy and nothing is more fun than watching a ball do what it is designed to do - roll.  I just don't buy that architecture is in any way "mysterious."

Bogey

Bogey (still weirds me out, Bogey is my dog),

I had a nice long conversation with the Emperor about this very subject today.  In fact, I might have said almost verbatim that quote above.  A ball interacting with features on the grounds seems like gravity to me.  Gravity isn't hard to understand.  Higher area flows to lower area and the ball generally follows.  Blind features or "hidden ground" doesn't seem so mysterious either.  The human eye sits at around 6 ft (average).  Make one area high, make another area well behind that high.  The ground in between can't be seen and therefore makes something seem closer.  Another example, something really big in the background looks the same size as something smaller in the foreground.  I could go on.

I don't intend to be haughty.  Honest.  But so many of these concepts that we admire as wonderful (and so many architects don't "get"), I look at as very simple and crucial to great golf.  I love interacting with these concepts, but they aren't smoke and mirrors.

That doesn't mean I have any clue how to find or build these features.  The more I hang out with guys that do this for a living, the more I know that I don't know a damn thing.  

Going further, where I do get confused and am laughably inept is understanding the routing piece.  I crack up when people say they drive through the sand hills and they see golf holes everywhere.  Sure, you see may see one golf hole.  Do you see 18?  Near each other?  With variety and crescendo and suspense?  Routing is straight magic to me.  

[Garland Bayley]

As I skier, I was interested in skiing different locations far more than I am interested in golfing different locations. Why? As a skier I could put myself at the locations on a slope that I decided I wanted to be. Therefore, I had to change ski hills to get new experiences.

As a golfer, I cannot regularly put my ball where I want it to go, so I experience so much more from the same course often times visiting unexpected places. What I have found is that there are locations that I have chanced upon that have sometime subtle, other times obvious advantages that most golfers could not ascertain by a few or many plays. We have a long par 5 where the best place for your second is at least 20 yards into the rough on the right. That is obvious once you have been there, but you would be hard pressed to find any golfers at the course that knows that. That's because it would not occur to anyone to try to get there in the first place. I think the hole could be improved by extending the fairway into that area and putting a bunker in the fairway to make you earn the reward from being there.

So Bogey, I think you've bogeyed this one.

Double Bogey

[Sean_A]

None of these fun lovin' elements on their own add up to much, but when many exist on the same 18, then throw in tiger and rabbit lines, blind shots and finally the wind, and yes, it can sometimes feel like boom, voila!  I also think that a major reason golfers travel to play is in part to find those boom voila! moments.  Even on my home club there are several shots each round I am not certain on.  I played Pennard a lot and that had even more.  Much of the adventure depends on how much insight a golfer as and how adventurous the golfer is.  One thing for me is certain, I know when I feel cheated in the boom voila! department.  It seems to me championship courses and wannabees are the main culprits of the courses I play. 

Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

Great responses gents.  I so wanedt to be wrong and suspected that was the case.  I just needed to understand why.  Thanks for the tutorials.

Bogey

[Tom_Doak]

Bogey,

When I was caddying at St. Andrews it became clear to me very quickly that most golfers could never decipher that course no matter how many times they played it ... but that once they took a caddie who really knew the course, much of the magic of it was gone.  Caddying for them was a much more interesting experience FOR ME than the golf was FOR THEM.  All they had to do was trust me, and aim at the right steeple!

But, the caddie has a different take on things than the player, because the caddie is realistic about the player's weaknesses.  The golfers are not realistic.  They could figure out the boring, safe line they really ought to take off the tee, but they can't make themselves take it, because they see something grander and they want to take that option instead.  That's why the key to golf course architecture is to give the player options, because he will keep trying to take them.

I know that some people think my courses are too wide off the tee and I'm not forcing the golfers to choose what they are trying to do, and that may sometimes be true; but only because I am trying to preserve their options for the subsequent shot.

[Peter Pallotta]

I know that some people think my courses are too wide off the tee and I'm not forcing the golfers to choose what they are trying to do, and that may sometimes be true; but only because I am trying to preserve their options for the subsequent shot.

Tom - as an average golfer, I've found that not being forced to choose what I'll try to do off the tee is quite often just as bamboozzling as being offered two clearer options (e.g. the safe, boring shot vs the bolder and more profitable one). You are trying (and rightly so) to preserve options for the next shot - but I think the immediate/in the moment challenge of width off the tee is not mentioned enough, given that most golfers are, by definition, average. If you don't give us a least a barn door, I find we often can't hit even that!!

Peter  

[Mark Saltzman]

Tom, I understand exactly what you're saying. For me, taking a caddie ruins the sense of discovery. When I play St Andrews, I played great. I shot 71 by just hitting it where my caddie told me. I enjoyed my round but got little out of the course.

[Mike Hendren]

I am trying to preserve their options for the subsequent shot.

Tom, fascinating comment that doesn't need to go un-noticed.  When I was a 5 handicap I was notorious for NEVER making a double-bogey.  I very much prefer the "advance and reconnoiter" approach to playing a golf hole. Just like you can't afford to route a golf course into a dead end, I try hard not to play into one either.  Now if I could quit smothering the damned ball off the tee (the quintessenital dead end) I'd be off to a good start.

Happy New Year.

Bogey

[Wade Whitehead]

Tom Doak:

Do you ever have designs on returning to The Old Course as a caddy, even just for one summer?

WW

[Jason Topp]

  The golfers are not realistic.  They could figure out the boring, safe line they really ought to take off the tee, but they can't make themselves take it, because they see something grander and they want to take that option instead.  That's why the key to golf course architecture is to give the player options, because he will keep trying to take them.

This quote is spot on with my experiences.  I know the options and I know what option I want to take even if it is the wrong choice. 

In college I used to play a tight desert course in Tucson called Fred Enke.  For 20 rounds or so, I would shoot astronomical scores because I would be aggressive and wind up in the desert repeatedly.  Eventually I finally succumbed to the obvious - that I needed to play as conservatively as possible all the way around - lay up off the tee and chip out when in the desert.  I hated doing so but was thrilled at finally being able to shoot a decent score on that course.