Golf Architecture and Lack of Talent

[Mike Hendren]

Of what relevance is golf architecture to the poor soul whose wounds on the course are self-inflicted?

[Peter Pallotta]

Of no relevance whatsoever, Bogey, save for (in the case of quality architecture) providing that poor soul with definitive confirmation and assurance that his wounds are indeed self-inflicted. A strong medicine that, and a bitter pill to swallow -- a slow road to perdition for those who refuse it, but for those willing to swallow it the sure and narrow gate to a fuller enjoyment of the game. 

Peter

[Mark Fedeli]

All the relevance in the world if it allows him to have a little fun on a regular basis. It's the only outside factor available that can make any noticeable difference to his game.

[JESII]

They still have to find a shot or two during the round that are exciting (and realistic) to pull off...

[Brent Hutto]

For me it always gets back to firm and fast conditioning being a prerequisite for me to experience any difference between outstanding architecture and mediocre architecture.

Absent the ball bouncing and rolling, all the architecture can do is basically make an already difficult and frustrating game moreso by throwing up additional obstacles to be overcome. Well, maybe not totally true but by and large on a soft/slow course (where the game is played entirely through the air except for putting and maybe chipping) the architect has plenty of sticks but not much in the way of carrots to offer the weaker player.

But firm up the turf and the game gets more interesting even if every third shot is a duff (about the average for my 19-handicappers game). Now an architect can offer angles or contours that can either punish or reward one of my better-struck shots, depending on whether the right choice is made in what shot is attempted. That's where poorly designed courses and great architecture show their true colors even when attenuated by those inevitable wasted opportunties and strokes.

[Jason Way]

It depends on where that poor soul is deriving their enjoyment from.  

If they love golf for the social component, then GCA doesn't really matter.  If they love the challenge of the shotmaking of the game itself, then great GCA gives them an opportunity to scratch the itch (a la Jim's comment).  If they love the natural beauty of it, more than the strategy and performance components, then great GCA gives them a glimpse of what man and nature can do in collaboration.

[Tom_Doak]

Of what relevance is golf architecture to the poor soul whose wounds on the course are self-inflicted?

Michael:

Aren't every player's wounds self-inflicted?  The only question is how the design of the course punishes those misplayed shots.  Better architecture gives the poorest players a way around the course they can manage.

[Mike_Young]

To add to what TD is saying about "better architecture",  IMHO architecture should never " lock anyone out" of a hole and so much of the stuff we see today makes it where a beginner can not learn the game and will give up before he "gets it".  I think that mau be a coming problem in some of the other countries where people have to learn the game at a later age.  And mostly done so that the course can out do the neighboring course both in difficulty and pizazz....JMO

[Mike Hendren]

This question was prompted by the fact that my recent scores are in a very narrow range notwithstanding the fact that I've played some very difficult courses (Ocean Course) and some that are rather accomodating (Lakeview - Callaway Gardens).

Bogey +

[Colin Macqueen]

Michael,
I was mulling over, I think,  a version of this question the other day. It struck me that as a 12 handicapper my golf with its "self-inflicted wounds" can jigger the strategic aspects of the hole that an architect creates.

I guess the frustration of this, for me, is that the architecture plays so much a smaller role. In this sense my play is not often good or precise enough to benefit from any architectural nuances and can in fact be poor enough to be well clear of any danger a dastardly architect may have inserted! I have often thought that to appreciate and utilise the golf architecture laid out in front of him/her that golfer pretty much has to be a single handicapper.

It is a comforting thought that better golf course architecture, as Tom D. and Mike Y. say, provides relief from "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" and my limited experience would bear that out.  Notwithstanding I still find it exasperating that my gowf ofttimes cannot take full advantage of the architectural creativity lying in the sward. I think I can see "the line of charm" but just cannot utilise it!

Unsurprisingly, then,I find Peter Pallotta's response very much in tune with my own.

Cheers Colin

[Carl Rogers]

Did Michael H mean a lack of talent for the game? or a lack of talent to design or create?  The lack of talent to create is unfortuanely to common across many design fields.

This thread brings back for me two threads from a good while back:
1. the various Ballyhack threads .... a course with many very very diifficult shots that the golfer must take on in order to just finish the hole
2. the various Tobacco Road threads  .... a visually intimidating and exciting course, but if the golfer can calm down a bit, the golfer can discover easy simple ways around all the problems (except the approach shot to the 9th hole)

[Carl Johnson]

My way of looking at it is that talent is relative.  From the architecture standpoint, it's just business.  If I developed a course, I'd think through the market.  Who do I want to attract to the course?  How do I do that, etc.  Personally, I shoot for the middle to lower end, since that's where the potential for "growing the game" and making money is.  I'd task my architect to build a course that's fun for the vast numbers at the top of the Bell curve to enjoy playing.  The trick would be to figure out what makes golf fun for the great unwashed masses.  Just a guess, but a course that plays relatively simply and looks nice and sort of sexy.  Now, there could be different business models.  Build a great championship course, one fit for a tour event, and rely on that prestige to bring in others, members or resort guests, who can pay the big bucks and not care a wit about the game, but only the "status" of playing my course.

[Joe Hancock]

Would you rather play a course that demands a well struck shot all the time, or a course that sometimes allows a skulled 8 iron to end up by the hole? Of course, maintenance has as much to do with that as architecture, but still....

[Mike_Young]

The better older courses allowed for all types of players just by being able to change design features such as fairway width, green speed, closely mowed areas etc but so many of the more modern RE courses have built in features that will not accommodate such changes..

[Peter Pallotta]

If I plunk it into the water at Sawgrass' 17th, I could blame Pete Dye. If I miss the 1st fairway at Wolf Point, I'd know that it was because I'm no good. Sure, it's more fun to blame others than too see ourselves clearly -- but then with Pete I'd forever by chained by hate to my own ineptitude, while if I had the grace to listen to WP's message for me I might actually begin a transformation.

You guys really should read more Max Behr. I believe he had something like the above in mind when he spoke about an architect hiding the hand of man -- but of course the question then and now is whether he vastly over rated the maturity and integrity of most golfers.

[Lyne Morrison]

Of what relevance is golf architecture to the poor soul whose wounds on the course are self-inflicted?

Michael:

Aren't every player's wounds self-inflicted?  The only question is how the design of the course punishes those misplayed shots.  Better architecture gives the poorest players a way around the course they can manage.

The connection may be (frequently) overlooked but golf architecture impacts and influences all who participate - it is therefore very relevant.

MacKenzie posed (and answered) the question, "Should an ideal hole be ideal for the plus, scratch, or long-handicap player? As players of all handicap play golf, a hole should as far as possible be ideal for all classes."

As noted, course design has drifted from this ideal over recent decades with the misguided belief that 'a tough course is a good course' - meantime more and more clubs are challenged to maintain participation levels.

Mackenzie's thinking may be more relevant today than at any other time.

Lyne

[Frank Pont]

As Harry Colt said : " Design severe for the scratch player, but sympathetic for the bogey man "

[Carl Rogers]

My own observation is that golf courses train golfers.

A narrow tree lined course will eventually get the golfer to hit the ball straighter. 

Courses with demanding green complexes will train the golfer to read greens better and improve bunker play, pitching, chipping and approach putting.

Same with windy courses or hilly courses with sideways stances.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think it goes further than what TD said about giving a way around....I think (and starting about ANGC, Mac thought) it meant avoiding hazards in areas where only poor players were likely to be.

From the 1950's until the boom years, the mantra was to never place a bunker that wasn't in play for better bunkers, to avoid them in any area where the approach length from whatever distance meant the player couldn't hit the green, keep the green fronts open (poor golfers more often come up short) minimize hazards on the right side on both tee shots and approach shots, etc.

You know, all the practical stuff that anyone who participates here say ruined architecture.....

But seriously, for 90% of players, a ball in the air, somewhere within 10 degrees of the intended line and of reasonable distance (even if not all the way to the intended target) is a good shot, which they don't think should be punished.  Can you blame them?

[Mike Hendren]

Should arcuhitecture primarily influence the destination (i.e., score) or the journey?    While "both" is the obvious answer, please pick one or the other and explain.  Thanks.

Bogey
(soon to go by "Pick-Up")

[John Kavanaugh]

Great architecture gives raters, critics and writers a way into the heart of the game.  A course can't be great without you guys.  Most of this group would stay closer to home if they had to leave their cameras and sign a non discloser agreement on bragging rights.  Great architecture makes for great conversation no matter what your skill level.

[JC Jones]

Would you rather play a course that demands a well struck shot all the time, or a course that sometimes allows a skulled 8 iron to end up by the hole? Of course, maintenance has as much to do with that as architecture, but still....

Just the other day I hit an alcohol induced worm burning skull (never left the ground) from 155 yards on #15 at Kingsley with a 9-iron to ~6 feet.

I almost felt bad about it until I remembered I was getting a stroke on the hole.

[Steve Okula]

They still have to find a shot or two during the round that are exciting (and realistic) to pull off...

Not true. I have played entire rounds wihtout hitting a single, redeeming shot.

[Mike Schott]

Even the masochistic golfer, ie: those who play a course above his or her talent level, should be able to hit a decent shot that won't be overly penalized if they choose the right club and set of tees. This is why forced carries are abhorrent on resort and municipal courses. Of course if that 25 handicap player decides to play from the tips, they deserve to be flogged.

[Jud_T]

Funny how Most think only players as good or better than themselves can truly judge a courses worth.  If that were really the case there'd be one +13 on the planet who made all the decisions.  All but one are a hack in someone's eyes...