Is one of the best talents an architect can have, relying on the mind of the low

[Doug Siebert]

On greens with a significant overall slope, that slope is much more often back to front than any other. If going long leaves you a downhill putt, then it is a smart play to be short - all things being equal. At TOC that's not the case, but TOC doesn't have the common back to front slope. Golfers who are used to such back to front greens may see the slope of the front of the greens at TOC, which due to false fronts and generally more visible slopes in the front may look like short is better but that's not always the case. That's not to say that long is the best play either, on some greens left or right is the best play. There is no rule of thumb for where you should miss at TOC, which is one reason why course knowledge is more important there than at most other courses.

The reason why 4-6% (or whatever the actual figure is) of approaches go long is more because people play for the well hit shot more often than they execute the well hit shot. If you're between clubs you may take the longer club if you've mishit a few shots that day already, otherwise you might take the shorter club and hit a little harder. You can argue the latter is low golfing IQ, I call it optimism If you take the club you have to hit perfectly to get all the way to the pin, whether that is a bad decision or not depends on what awaits a short shot versus a long shot. If being short puts you in a nasty bunker or water, it is not a smart play unless you truly hit 90% of your shots perfectly (i.e. you are a pro or +5 amateur) If going short leaves you a 30 foot uphill putt, and going long leaves you a 30 foot downhill putt on a slick green, risking 'short' is clearly the smarter decision as it mostly takes three putt out of play, while the possibility is a lot greater with the slick downhill putt.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug,


Which of your clubs has a 20 yard distance spread ?


Very few modern greens have significant overall slope due to higher speeds at the time of construction.


Golfers go short on front hole locations because of flawed judgement not considered judgement.


Very, very few golfers elect to go short of a green that slopes from high Back to low front

[Keith Grande]

"Low IQ" golfers think they know how far they hit certain clubs, but in reality they don't, hence they come up short more often.  Ever look for a lost golf ball of one of these players.  They're always looking 20-30 yards further than where they hit it.

[Peter Pallotta]

...[W]e are only presenting them puzzles to solve, and I for one am happy to reward them for correct answers.

I hadn't thought about this before, but maybe one of the reasons many golfers seem to have low golfing IQs is because, over time, and after playing one too many banal golf courses, we've come to believe that the game is not worth the candle. That is, we have not seen/discerned many interesting puzzles, and those few puzzles that we have encountered seem either very easy to solve and/or provide neither a substantial reward (for a correct answer) nor a significant penalty (for a wrong one); and so we stop paying much attention, or pay just the bare minimum of attention, to the architecture *as* architecture, and instead simply start using a driver off every tee and firing at every pin. Maybe the many excellent and architecture-first courses that have been built over the last 15-20 years will begin to change that, as will the increasingly architecture-focused slant of many mainstream articles. If so, I think a virtuous circle will form, i.e. golfers will begin to believe that the game *is* worth the candle, which will have them paying more attention to the architcture, which in turn will help encourage the building of more architecture-first courses, and thus confirm for more and more golfers the importance of a higher golfing IQ, and so on.   
Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter, et., Al.,


Do you think that range finders have made golfers lazier and that they are a contributor to reducing the golfing IQ

[Tom_Doak]

...[W]e are only presenting them puzzles to solve, and I for one am happy to reward them for correct answers.

I hadn't thought about this before, but maybe one of the reasons many golfers seem to have low golfing IQs is because, over time, and after playing one too many banal golf courses, we've come to believe that the game is not worth the candle. That is, we have not seen/discerned many interesting puzzles, and those few puzzles that we have encountered seem either very easy to solve and/or provide neither a substantial reward (for a correct answer) nor a significant penalty (for a wrong one); and so we stop paying much attention, or pay just the bare minimum of attention ...

Peter:


I have watched golfers intently at a few of my courses and I think you're correct.  People just don't pay attention.  My two best examples:


a.  On doglegged holes where people can see the green clearly from the tee, they consistently miss almost straight toward the flag, because the last thing they picture on the tee is the flag and not the place they should aim; and


b.  On greens which slope away from the line of play, i.e. downhill from the front to the back, I see golfers CONSISTENTLY leave their putts 8-10 feet short of the hole, because their brains are wired to assume that a putt from the back of the green is going to be downhill and they need to hit it soft.


As to your conclusions, I'm not sure whether they will pan out or not, but I do know that there aren't many residents of St. Andrews with low golfing I.Q.'s. 

[Niall C]

Jeff


In fairness to Mike he said he could choose which which side to play for, he didn't say he got there !! Ditto for this 9 handicapper.


Niall

[Niall C]

Re lack of IQ, maybe its not because we don't recognise the problem and therefore the solution but perhaps we go for the more challenging shot rather than the percentage shot. I tend to think either players over rate themselves or aim to play to their full potential all the time which even the very best rarely do over 18 holes.


I've no doubt I could likely better my scores by adopting a more conservative strategy at times but where's the fun in that ? It's like those computer video games when you were a kid. You were always looking to challenge yourself get to the next level. That's why I can't see the point in the wide and open is wonderful outlook. I want to be challenged and the very best courses manage to do that with great variety and fun.


Niall

[Steve Lang]

   Have we progressed from 1921?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Re lack of IQ, maybe its not because we don't recognise the problem and therefore the solution but perhaps we go for the more challenging shot rather than the percentage shot.
 
I agree with that, but golfers often overestimate their abilities, and attempt to meet challenges beyond their abilities.
 
Not so much with the guys who do it for a living.
They tend to be percentage players.
 
I tend to think either players over rate themselves or aim to play to their full potential all the time which even the very best rarely do over 18 holes.

But that equates to a low golfing IQ, unrealistic expectations can be a golfer's biggest shortfall.

I've no doubt I could likely better my scores by adopting a more conservative strategy at times but where's the fun in that ? It's like those computer video games when you were a kid. You were always looking to challenge yourself get to the next level. That's why I can't see the point in the wide and open is wonderful outlook. I want to be challenged and the very best courses manage to do that with great variety and fun. 
 
So, do you march to the back tees every time ?
 
The fun in being more conservative, or to play within your abilities is a better score, ergo lower handicap.
 
Isn't shooting the lowest score the inherent object of the game ?
 
My father always told me that there was no shame in taking a bogey, that the best players in the world take them.
 
The fault, he said, is turning a bogey into a triple because you tried a shot well beyond your ability.
 
He told me to accept a bogey and go on to the next hole, that you can recover, score wise and mentally from a bogey, but, a triple can kill, not just your score, but your outlook on the round.



Niall

[Thomas Dai]

My father always told me that there was no shame in taking a bogey, that the best players in the world take them.
The fault, he said, is turning a bogey into a triple because you tried a shot well beyond your ability.
He told me to accept a bogey and go on to the next hole, that you can recover, score wise and mentally from a bogey, but, a triple can kill, not just your score, but your outlook on the round.

Very astute Pat and very nicely summerised.


Lots of folk play 18-hole medals and have good rounds but it's amazing how many will blow-up if they have to compete over 36-54-72 medal holes.


atb

[Michael Moore]

Do you think that range finders have made golfers lazier and that they are a contributor to reducing the golfing IQ

The rangefinder enhances a golfers imagination and abilities.

"Now in the electric age of decentralized power and information we begin to chafe under the uniformity of clock-time. In this age of space-time we seek multiplicity, rather than repeatability, of rhythms. This is the difference between marching soldiers and ballet."  Marshall McLuhan Understanding Media

[Patrick_Mucci]

Do you think that range finders have made golfers lazier and that they are a contributor to reducing the golfing IQ

The rangefinder enhances a golfers imagination and abilities.
 
I see just the opposite, I see golfers focused solely on the distance they read on their rangefinder, to the exclusion of other important factors.
 
Rarely do I see a golfer, zeroed in on the flagstick, make the decision to hit their ball 5 or 10 yards long, right, left or short of the flagstick.
 
Often they fail to consider the surrounding features.
 
And, what's really laughable is that I see golfers using rangefinders from 50 yards and in.
 
Rangefinders produce tunnel vision in many, if not most golfers.


"Now in the electric age of decentralized power and information we begin to chafe under the uniformity of clock-time. In this age of space-time we seek multiplicity, rather than repeatability, of rhythms. This is the difference between marching soldiers and ballet."  Marshall McLuhan Understanding Media

[Bill_McBride]

Do you think that range finders have made golfers lazier and that they are a contributor to reducing the golfing IQ

The rangefinder enhances a golfers imagination and abilities.
 
I see just the opposite, I see golfers focused solely on the distance they read on their rangefinder, to the exclusion of other important factors.
 
Rarely do I see a golfer, zeroed in on the flagstick, make the decision to hit their ball 5 or 10 yards long, right, left or short of the flagstick.
 
Often they fail to consider the surrounding features.
 
And, what's really laughable is that I see golfers using rangefinders from 50 yards and in.
 
Rangefinders produce tunnel vision in many, if not most golfers.


"Now in the electric age of decentralized power and information we begin to chafe under the uniformity of clock-time. In this age of space-time we seek multiplicity, rather than repeatability, of rhythms. This is the difference between marching soldiers and ballet."  Marshall McLuhan Understanding Media

Agreed!