[Peter Pallotta]

JK - in one sense you're right; but no one "going ugly early" is likely to be doing it for love....

SL - thanks; your post reminds me that, with each passing year, I understand more and more someone like Tom D's focus on and appreciation for a great set of greens.

Wherever and however and whenever you or I or anyone "misses", the one commonality is that we all want to get "the next one" onto the putting surface.

So I think that maybe the "trick" you mentioned involves/revolves around a) giving us all at least a chance to get our particular brand of "miss" onto the putting surface and b) having the real fun begin only after we've gotten there.

Best
Peter     

[K Rafkin]

If it can't be understand by the average player, then chances are its not very good GCA.

[Peter Pallotta]

If it can't be understand by the average player, then chances are its not very good GCA.

I don't know how many will agree with us, but I think you're absolutely right.

I think the subtle elitism that suggests great design can only be appreciated after multiple plays and in various conditions is just that, elitism; after all, who but private club members and/or the wealthiest of retail golfers would have the chance to play a great course that many times?

[Sean_A]

Pietro


It may be a bit of elitism to suggest some courses need multiple plays, but I don't think it changes that this is truism.  I just played Palmetto and can tell you that one play is not enough to get it.  The greens are very intricate and can only be figured out over time.  In my experience it doesn't happen that often, but there are most definitely courses where I would greatly benefit from multiple plays.


Ciao

[jeffwarne]

If it can't be understand by the average player, then chances are its not very good GCA.

I think there are MANY courses that can't be understood by the average player.
If they are only average at golf, why would we assume they automatically have high enough architectural skills to figure a course out?
Some will, some won't-doesn't make a course poor if everybody can figure out the challenge.


As Sean points out Palmetto is a perfect example.
Most average golfers LOVE nearby Sage Valley over Palmetto with its obvious cut and dried hazards, super green fairways and modern shaping.
They leave Palmetto wondering why they've scored so poorly after playing such an "easy" course,and talk negatively about the "unfair" greens and quirky holes

[SL_Solow]

K & Jeff;  with all due respect, your posts miss the point.  There are plenty of outstanding players who don't understand and approach of many tour players /or appreciate architecture.  The question presented was whether a certain level of skill is needed to understand architecture?  I suggest that the correlation is overrated or non-existent.  The good Dr. was not thought to be a very good player but I think he understood architecture very well.  The less than imaginative  approach of many tour players confirms that skill does not dictate architectural awareness.  But I agree that there are courses that require more than one play for a true understanding regardless of skill.

[jeffwarne]

K & Jeff;  with all due respect, your posts miss the point.  There are plenty of outstanding players who don't understand and approach of many tour players /or appreciate architecture.  The question presented was whether a certain level of skill is needed to understand architecture?  I suggest that the correlation is overrated or non-existent.  The good Dr. was not thought to be a very good player but I think he understood architecture very well.  The less than imaginative  approach of many tour players confirms that skill does not dictate architectural awareness.  But I agree that there are courses that require more than one play for a true understanding regardless of skill.

SL,
I understand the point.


I was responding to K Rafkin's post.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()