What's more important to you--architecture or golf?

[BHoover]

What I mean is, are you more interested in golf course architecture or actually playing golf? For myself, it's a combination of the two. I certainly appreciate great architecture (that's th reason I'm here), but playing golf is more important to me. Ideally, I'd be playing on an interesting course, but if I had to choose between that and just playing golf, I'd rather play golf. For me, there's nothing better than the competition of a match or an event, even if it's just playing for something simple like a drink. It's even more fun when I get to play a match on a great or interesting course.

If I'm not playing for anything, it's tough for to stay interested, which is why I seldom prefer to play as a single, unless the course is really something special.

What about the rest of you?

[Sam Morrow]

What I mean is, are you more interested in golf course architecture or actually playing golf? For myself, it's a combination of the two. I certainly appreciate great architecture (that's th reason I'm here), but playing golf is more important to me. Ideally, I'd be playing on an interesting course, but if I had to choose between that and just playing golf, I'd rather play golf. For me, there's nothing better than the competition of a match or an event, even if it's just playing for something simple like a drink. It's even more fun when I get to play a match on a great or interesting course.

If I'm not playing for anything, it's tough for to stay interested, which is why I seldom prefer to play as a single, unless the course is really something special.

What about the rest of you?

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Steve Salmen]

Good question Brian.

For me it's not even close.  I would play on a crap track and not think twice about it if that is all I had.  I suppose I'm a golf snob according to my golf drinking buddies but that is because we have the luxury of many courses to choose from.  Obviously you're going to play the best ones.  However, if I had to live somewhere where there was only one lousy course for many miles, I would look forward to every round.  The game has given me far more than I can pay back.

[Jim Tang]

Brian -

I'm in your camp.  I certainly appreciate great golf courses and golf architecture.  It is a joy to have been able to experience some of the world's greatest courses and each year I hope to add a few more to my list.  But, ultimately, I took up golf as a kid because of the pure joy I received from hitting a ball around a course, any course.

As an adult, that really hasn't changed.  What most interests me now is not really where I am playing, but the company that the round is played with.  Golfing with my brother, or with life long friends, is more important than the architecture or the round itself.

[Steve Lang]

   only got into gca to be able to score better… not necessarily smarter, as I never met a sucker pin I didn't like.. its a fun game after 53 years of play and I look forward to several more decades experience…  

oh and learning something more about gca

[BCowan]

Hoover

    I agree with you for the most part.  The enjoyment of chasing a ball around is still the highest order.  I don't mind playing by myself, i think Golf is inner, but highly enjoyable with others.  I think some modest good arch and the atmosphere of the course and the company are what is most important to me.  I have it pretty good for I have great golf and good architecture so life is good!  

[Mac Plumart]

For me, it is always the people I'm playing with...and then simply playing golf.

BUT...there is a certain style of design that sucks the life out of the game and makes playing golf much, much less fun.  Overly penal with ball losing hazards...UGH!!!

[John Kavanaugh]

I love a beautiful view. Good thing all you silly bastards think that great architecture has one. 

[Tim Martin]

  I don't mind playing with myself

I can't say I'm shocked by that comment. Be careful or you could go blind. 

[Ken Moum]

Truth is, I got interested in GCA because of the writers.  As a writer, Shackelford's stream of quotes intrigued me, so I started reading the well-known books.

As much as anything, books like Anatomy of a Golf Course, Grounds for Golf, GCA in America, Spirit of St. Andrews, et. al, shaped how I feel about the courses I play and helped me better understand what golf course features affect my enjoyment of the game. The idea that someone can conceive of a playing ground over 100+ acres, with tees, greens, bunkers, water hazards, all arranged so as to challenge and amuse golfers.

It's made golf more interesting in several ways, but it is definitely a mixed blessing. As my wife likes to point out, knowing why I don't like a hole might cause me to approach it with a crappy attitude. I usually deny it, but she might be right.

It has also given me the opportunity to bean even more insufferable bore.

!

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

For myself it is very much about the playing. Naturally I am happier playing a reasonable layout than a hard-pan, oiled, sand-greens layout with little architectural merit but in the final analysis if the latter is all that is available there's where you'll find me.

I enjoy the good company that is invariably attached when playing a round of golf but I am also quite content playing on my lonesome as I enjoy the "innery" side of golf … fat lot of good it does me!

I was drawn to the architectural side of things initially through being interested in the agronomical aspects of a golf course and this conflated with the writing of Darwin, P.G. Wodehouse, The Badminton Library and and an early edition of The World Atlas of Golf sealed my fate. I am enamoured with GCA, am a bit of a tragic with respect to it, and it has given me a far better understanding of what makes for good golf. So I see the architectural side of things as a wonderful extension of my love for golf but not my first love ….that's "the gem" itself

Cheers Colin

[Sean_A]

Both playing and architecure are important to me.  I don't play many courses which don't interest me.  In fact, I pretty much stopped playing in my village society because they picked courses which don't interest me.  I can't say if I could never play another good course (using my definition of good) that I would quit playing, I will cross that bridge if I ever come to it.  For now, its working out because there are plenty of courses which float my boat. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

It's made golf more interesting in several ways, but it is definitely a mixed blessing. As my wife likes to point out, knowing why I don't like a hole might cause me to approach it with a crappy attitude. I usually deny it, but she might be right.

K- I think she is right! Like you, I try to deny it -- but I've found myself literally 'turning my nose up' at several holes I've played....and then went right out and played them badly.

P

[Greg Taylor]

Of course I'd rather play somewhere with more merit, and no one on it but my group!

But the course is the means to the end. None of us would be on here if we didn' love hitting the ball first!

[Adam Warren]

Without a doubt golf is the winner here.  Like many, it is great if I can play a course with plenty of architectural merit, but I will generally play anywhere if my buddies are wanting to go there.  I am often considered the "golf snob" of the group, and getting to play some very nice courses for nothing from my time in the business has contributed to that, but I will always choose golf at a bad course over no golf at all.

[John Kavanaugh]

Looks like I owe all those people that I thought were access whores an apology. Sorry.

[Josh Tarble]

Truth is, I got interested in GCA because of the writers.  As a writer, Shackelford's stream of quotes intrigued me, so I started reading the well-known books.

This is very true for me too.  I would play on flat field with 5-gallon buckets for holes if I had a good group.  GCA is something I enjoy reading about and discussing when I'm not playing. 

[John Kavanaugh]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42584.0.html

If the course is good enough we can make new friends.

[Brent Hutto]

Put me in the not even close category. If I'm on the golf course it's to play the game. Fortunately I can notice a good bit about the architecture while I'm doing it. But the number of times I've been on a golf course primarily to make a study of some architectural or historical features I could count on the fingers of one hand.

[BCowan]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42584.0.html

If the course is good enough we can make new friends.

John, I'd be happy to host you at the worst dog track in Michigan...

[Thomas Dai]

What's more important to you--architecture or golf?

I'd rather play as a single at an architectural gem or otherwise interesting course than play a match or buddies game on a dog-track.

I would add a couple of other inter-linked categories that influence me - maintenance standards and location.

Maintenance standards - poor maint, especially greens = unlikely to play (unless with hickories)

Location - peace and tranquility and serenity = play, hussle and bussle and noise and distractions = unlikely to play

atb

[John Kavanaugh]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42584.0.html

If the course is good enough we can make new friends.

John, I'd be happy to host you at the worst dog track in Michigan...

To be perfectly honest. If I was already staying at Kingsley and the only way I could play Crystal Downs was with you I would accept your offer.  Keep me in mind.

[Tommy Williamsen]

It has changed for me over the years.  I am fortunate to belong to some wonderful golf courses and one mediocre course.  Unfortunately it is where we have a second home.  I will play it only a couple of times a year, and then only when asked by friends.  I'd rather not play than play a dog track.  There are other things I can do. 

[BCowan]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42584.0.html

If the course is good enough we can make new friends.

John, I'd be happy to host you at the worst dog track in Michigan...

To be perfectly honest. If I was already staying at Kingsley and the only way I could play Crystal Downs was with you I would accept your offer.  Keep me in mind.

Jkava, you are more than welcome to bring Nigel and come to my walking event at Indianwood (top 200 course) in Sept.  You aren't even forced to take a caddy, which you should be happy..  I value your honesty....

[Jason Thurman]

I wish there was a way to set up a wager on anything you wanted. For instance, I’d love to wager on which option a GCAer would choose if given the choice between rounds at Juniper Hills Municipal Course in Frankfort with three friends or Pine Valley as a single, assuming travel and costs are equal. Regardless of the odds I was given, I’d feel comfortable wagering enough to recoup and profit on whatever I had to spend to secure the tee time for an unaccompanied single at Pine Valley for sake of the bet, including the emotional costs of any favors I performed.

That said, I’m not sure you have to choose between architecture and golf. I love playing great courses, but I also love playing crappy courses. I can almost always find something that makes me smile on either. The architecture is invariably part of playing the game. To me, this is like asking whether you prefer cheese or pizza. The former is part of the latter, even if it’s possible to enjoy it on its own.

I’d always rather play a course than walk around studying its bones, which seems more like the choice being given by the title question. Architecture on its own can be interesting, and I enjoy learning about the history of different places, but it’s kind of pointless if you never get to bounce a ball across it.