[Tim Fenchel]

[size=0pt]I feel like I am starting a duplicate thread, and if so, Mr. Moderator please feel free to merge my post with another.  I did some searches but could not find anything…so here goes.[/size]
It’s a basic question, really, but perhaps not as straightforward of an answer.
Can an average golfer truly see, understand, and appreciate the finer nuances and details of good golf course architecture?
Here is what I mean.  I play to about an 10-12 handicap. An 83 or 85 on your garden variety course.  Pretty much EVERY time I stand over a golf ball I have no idea where it is going. Left, right, low, high, whatever. So, if you really have no precision or consistency to your game, can you really understand GCA?
An example.  Sean is currently blessing us with nothing less than a stellar course review of Palmetto GC. Here is an excerpt from his review that really got me thinking about this.
[size=0pt] [/size]Many of Palmetto's greens have the curious effect of floating in the landscape.  Not only does the aesthetic work very well, but working out yardages is very difficult...especially when we consider the rather diminutive size of the greens and penalties for a miscue.  I notice three features which I think create a sense of unnattachment. 
[/size]I understand the first part and most people with a trained eye can recognize these features.  But CAN the average golfer really appreciate “penalties for a miscue”…when almost EVERY shot is a miscue!  Honestly…my thought process to such an approach shot is ALWAYS…”just get it near the green.”  It is NEVER…”try to hit the lower right corner of the green for a safe uphill putt.”  So when I DO have a “miscue”…it’s the norm…which doesn’t really allow for an understanding or appreciation of the dangers of the hole…because I am always experiencing them.[size=0pt]Am I making any sense?  There ISN’T and fine line between my hitting a good shot and a “miscue”.  That chasm is actually quite large.  So with the literally hundreds of little details and nuances of really good GCA, its seems to me that the average golfer may only have the ability to pick up on a handful during the course of a round.[/size][size=0pt]I often think of this when watching professional golf on TV.  These players are dialed in to literally inches of distances on clubs, landing areas, etc…and the strategic plays are often pointed out by announcers…which allows the viewer to see how critical even a mishit of a few feet can be.  But the average golfers mishit is often 10-15 yards (30-40 feet!) or easily more…neglecting any such ability to play strategic golf.[/size][size=0pt]Perhaps I could flesh this out further but I’d like some feedback and maybe better yet some examples or if I am completely half baked.[/size][size=0pt]Cheers[/size][size=78%]

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,


a very good question but one that I think is easy to answer. Just because I cannot play a musical instrument does not mean I cannot appreciate good music and understand why it is good. The same can be said about golfers and GCA but generally most players really do not care about the GCA. For most players it is about a bit of fresh air, social interaction, taking your mind off other things and ambience/setting.


Jon

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think all level players are pretty astute at figuring out how a course plays for THEM.....even if that has little to do with all the theory posted by architects over time.


Maybe its time for architects to ask if their theory really understands the needs of the average player?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - I'm even more of an average golfer than you, and I've come to believe that I can certainly *appreciate* great architecture (even just from photos); it's just that I can't *experience* it.
Peter

[Sean_A]

Tim

I tend to pick up on miscue penalties as I go along.  On many holes the penalties are quite obvious.  At Palmetto this isn't the case at all.  It would take me several plays before I could fully understand what is quite a basic concept...and that is where not to be.  At Palmetto the reason one play doesn't work comes down to the green complexes...they are damn hard to decipher from the fairways because they have this floating quality. 

I can certainly agree with you that miscues come often, but there are degrees of miscues and I think knowing the potential penalties does help (me at least) determine a strategy.  At Palmetto I often felt a bit lost in this regard.  The result is a less confident swing which results in more miscues (knowingly or not) and ever more pressure on the short game.  Not many courses leave me this confounded without having stupidly quick greens for the slope/contour....mind you my idea of stupidly quick is likely far less tolerant than most on this board 

Ciao

[Jim Hoak]

Tim, one other thought--Make sure you are playing the proper tees for your game.  Architecture can seem to appear clearer if you're hitting greens in regulation.  I think I'm a player about like you.  Normally I play from about 6500 yards on most courses I play.  With some friends yesterday, I played from 6000 yards.  I'm still glowing from how much more of the course I saw and appreciated.  (Not to mention the three birdies I had.)
The USGA had has its share of mistakes and problems.  The concept of Play it Forward is not one of them.

[Mike Schott]

Tim, one other thought--Make sure you are playing the proper tees for your game.  Architecture can seem to appear clearer if you're hitting greens in regulation.  I think I'm a player about like you.  Normally I play from about 6500 yards on most courses I play.  With some friends yesterday, I played from 6000 yards.  I'm still glowing from how much more of the course I saw and appreciated.  (Not to mention the three birdies I had.)
The USGA had has its share of mistakes and problems.  The concept of Play it Forward is not one of them.

As a high handicapper these days I agree that you can appreciate the architecture better when playing the right set of tees but when a golfer like me cannot consistently put the ball in the fairway off the tee, using the strategy laid out in front of said golfer goes out the window. I can appreciate what the architect has done but cannot use the strategies very often. On top of that, when a round goes south, the ensuing frustration clouds the mind.


This is a reason I love many Ross courses. The picture is usually right in front of you and the strategies are clear.

[Doug Bolls]

So, I'll dive in here.  For me, hitting every fairway and finishing the round with the same ball I started with are pretty important.  I have done two things to help me accomplish this - I hit only a 3-metal off the tee and I moved up.  I can generally hit my 3-metal in the fairway and usually play one ball for 27-36 holes.
I appreciate the architecture more because I ask myself "What is the architect asking me to do here" and since I can control my ball, I frequently choose the correct option.
I am amazed how many golfers choose the "big tees" and drive it deep into the woods.

[John Kavanaugh]

I can appreciate a beautiful young woman. I can also appreciate a fit young twink. I find it more comforting just to stay home where I belong. Find comfort in what you have before you end up alone dreaming of what you could have been. In other words, go fuck yourself. Ugly has no home.

Funny thing, somehow tonight I ended up in a gay cigar bar and I have as much chance getting laid as if I were surrounded by super models. Oddly enough I don't go to bars to get laid. I go to get drunk. Mission accomplished. Bad golfers should be so lucky.

[John Kavanaugh]

Like the bad golfer who pulls off a great shot I just made a witty quip and received a pat on the shoulder from a mate at the bar. God forbid I mention how I recently saw Hamilton orchestra center. A blind pig finds an acorn. Really. I'm out of my element, or am I? Is this how a bad golfer feels after a lucky shot. I think I like it.

[Greg Gilson]

Tim, this may be a parallel thread to your parallel thread.

You ask the question about how talented golfers may need to be to appreciate GCA. Similar question is how proficient an archie  needs to be as a player to be a good archie. I'm not sure about the skill levels of the archies on the DG...hopefully they will chime in. I recall (fact check please!) that Bob Harrison (who did lots/most of the legwork on Greg Norman's southern hemisphere courses) played off 18 +/-. He & Greg won 2 majors between them, of course, but Bob is no world beater. He did lots of great work in spite of that and I do not think he's the only one.

[John Kavanaugh]

Damn, like the average golfer going for par from the fringe I find myself alone again. Truth is, the average can only learn from the stories of the excellent. As is life, is golf.  My ass will thank me in the morning.

[Garland Bayley]

Good architecture should mean you don't have to play it forward to appreciate and enjoy it. Bad architecture dictates play it forward.

[Sean_A]

Tim, one other thought--Make sure you are playing the proper tees for your game.  Architecture can seem to appear clearer if you're hitting greens in regulation.  I think I'm a player about like you.  Normally I play from about 6500 yards on most courses I play.  With some friends yesterday, I played from 6000 yards.  I'm still glowing from how much more of the course I saw and appreciated.  (Not to mention the three birdies I had.)
The USGA had has its share of mistakes and problems.  The concept of Play it Forward is not one of them.

As a high handicapper these days I agree that you can appreciate the architecture better when playing the right set of tees but when a golfer like me cannot consistently put the ball in the fairway off the tee, using the strategy laid out in front of said golfer goes out the window. I can appreciate what the architect has done but cannot use the strategies very often. On top of that, when a round goes south, the ensuing frustration clouds the mind.


This is a reason I love many Ross courses. The picture is usually right in front of you and the strategies are clear.

I start to see the architecture far better when I am out of position.  In my ideal world of architecture, the choice and type of recoveries is where the rubber hits the road. So no, I don't believe average skill negates the understanding of good architecture.


Ciao

[Tim Fenchel]

Thanks, gang for all the helpful responses. I see more clearly the error in my thinking...although I am still looking for a translator on John's thoughts.

[Duncan Cheslett]

...generally most players really do not care about the GCA. For most players it is about a bit of fresh air, social interaction, taking your mind off other things and ambience/setting.


Jon

Most players seem to want perfect conditioning, neat and tidy paths, no wild areas of nettles and/or dense undergrowth on view, fast greens which at the same time are receptive to a wedge from 100 yards no matter the player's skill level, pretty flower beds on tees, and consistent bunkers with fluffy sand.


Give the average golfer these things and he really couldn't care less about the architecture.


Some of clubs in my area with the highest levels of membership have the dullest courses from a GCA point of view. Meanwhile some of the "better" courses struggle to attract members,

[Garland Bayley]

Golf after all is a game. Going out and having a game with your friends is what you do whether it be golf or basketball. I prefer to play basketball on hardwood over asphalt, but a game is a game. Only Lynne Shackelford gets to play Pauley Pavilion and St. Enodoc.

[SL_Solow]

The question that always comes to mind on threads like this is "Does the "average golfer" aim his shot?  In other words, if he hits the shot well, is there a spot that he wants it to land?  Additionally, if he is concerned about a miss-hit, does he consider where he wants that miss to go?  If the answer to either of those 2 questions is affirmative, then he is considering the strategy of the hole.  If not, then the golf course has become a driving range.

[Peter Pallotta]

The question that always comes to mind on threads like this is "Does the "average golfer" aim his shot?  In other words, if he hits the shot well, is there a spot that he wants it to land?  Additionally, if he is concerned about a miss-hit, does he consider where he wants that miss to go?  If the answer to either of those 2 questions is affirmative, then he is considering the strategy of the hole.  If not, then the golf course has become a driving range.

Well said, and a terrific/correct answer. As referenced in my earlier post: I look, I analyze,  I ponder,  I chose,  I aim...but more often than not I miss, and so don't often *experience* or get to *complete* the puzzle that I can so enjoy and *appreciate*. Many of you might not realize it, but that appreciation-without-experience can start to be a real drag - an ever more frustrating taunt, as it were. I sometimes think that it is the average golfer who came to the game late who loves the game most -- that many of you low handicap, started-when-you-were-nine types would quit golf pretty quickly if that game proved consistently so frustrating. I admire (albeit from afar) the wonderful work that many of today's architects seem to produce every single time out, and greatly respect their talent and hard work; but I don't think the end result - the golf course, *any* golf course -- is all that complicated or difficult to figure out and appreciate. What's difficult -- for me at least -- is the *actualize* the potential engagement and interactions that the top-flight architects have designed into the course, and to *re-constitute* in the playing of the game the great golf course they envisioned being played.
Peter
     

[Mark_Fine]

Understanding of good GCA is much more closely aligned with one's level of interest in understanding good GCA than one's skill level in playing the game. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Every aging male golfer needs to crash a gay bachelor party. When midnight strikes and you find yourself alone you quickly learn after all these years that's it's not the women in the world, it's you. As is golf, it's not where you are playing....you're just not getting it.

[David Davis]

Every aging male golfer needs to crash a gay bachelor party. When midnight strikes and you find yourself alone you quickly learn after all these years that's it's not the women in the world, it's you. As is golf, it's not where you are playing....you're just not getting it.

JK,


Many years ago a British buddy of mine, non-golfer, shared with me his key to not being alone at midnight, whether your in your favorite gay bar or country line dancing local. "Go ugly early!" Don't overestimate your ability. This could apply to golf as well.

[David Davis]

Tim,


Two things I'd like to add.


Sean is a solid player, but he's a scratch observer and writer.


As to the original premise, I would say it doesn't have to but in most cases it does. There are exceptions to the rule, many of which are members of this website.

[SL_Solow]

Peter;  David Feherty once explained to an outing I was involved with that all golfers "suck", its just a matter of degree. (The story was much longer and funnier but its for another time).  In any event, I think it relates to your post.  All of us, regardless of skill, fail to hit the shot we intended more often than not.  As I recall Hogan claimed to hit no more than a handful of shots in any given round that satisfied him.  So all of us have a "plan" and all of us come up short to varying degrees.  We then adjust and how we are required to adjust depends, in part, on how we accounted for the possible misses in our plan.  The real problem for the architect in this regard has been recognized by the better practitioners from the time people first began to consider these issues; how does the architect make the game interesting for the wide variety of players given their discrepancy in skills?  It seems that many of the courses we love manage to create varied challenges that create interest for multiple levels of play.  Many of the "championship" courses that are often criticized here, are focused on the "good" player (however that is defined) to the exclusion of the lesser player.  Others are too bland for the skilled player.  The trick is finding a way to interest multiple levels of ability.

[John Kavanaugh]

Every aging male golfer needs to crash a gay bachelor party. When midnight strikes and you find yourself alone you quickly learn after all these years that's it's not the women in the world, it's you. As is golf, it's not where you are playing....you're just not getting it.

JK,


Many years ago a British buddy of mine, non-golfer, shared with me his key to not being alone at midnight, whether your in your favorite gay bar or country line dancing local. "Go ugly early!" Don't overestimate your ability. This could apply to golf as well.

Isn't the real lesson in all this that we shouldn't judge why one person loves another or even a golf course for that matter.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()