[Ronald Montesano]

This is a new thread, spun off "The Case For A Foxy Template" one [http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,63977.0.html]


so as not to further jack/poach space.


We really got into it on pages 3 and 4 of the original thread, and I decided to take it over here, but keep it architecture oriented. For reference, HH = high handicap; MH = mid handicap; & LH = low handicap golfers.


There are a few golf courses (Machrie, I'm told, is one) where unpredictable caroms are the norm and you just kinda accept them. There are many golf courses where zero caroms are the norm, and GCA-types ask what could have been done better.


That brings us to the majority of courses, where infrequent caroms distract excellent shots from their purpose. The best, LH, ground-game golfers have an idea where a carom should lead, but they cannot guarantee its ultimate repose with 100% certainty. Much of this falls under rub of the green and is accepted by golfers who understand that this is a part of the game.


I think that it is naive to ascribe such understanding to HH, MH or LH golfers as a generality. I know that, when I was a 90s shooter, I was also an immature young person and golfer. As I evolved in both life and golf, I came to understand that such bounces at best, resulted in an enviable outcome; at worst, they should be laughed at, and the next shot should be played. Whether you grow up on a links course in the Isles, or a burned-out muni in the heartland of USA, the shot selection is identical. Only the lush-course golfer has no sense of this shot.


Feel free to contradict or support this statement as you see fit.


RM

[Tommy Williamsen]

One of the joys of the game is to assess the ground for firmness, speed, and slope. I think that's why I enjoy courses where it is important to be precise with shots whether they require high shots that stop or or low running shots that need the player to guess how fast the ground is. I grew up on army courses that had little irrigation and not much sand in the bunkers. I've belonged to courses so manicured that there were never any bad bounces and courses that were designed with bad bounces in mind. I love them all. I became a single digit player in my teens. I have friends who don't understand a course that has bad bounces or blind shots. For them it is unfair. If you hit a good shot it should rewarded. Anything less and it is either poor design or poor maintenance. I don't enjoy playing with them. Most are only concerned with score. Some are single digits and some are somewhere south of twenty. There is no changing their minds. I know guys who don't even travel to other courses because they don't score well away from their home course. I have found, however, that well travelled lower handicaps are better able to score in all kinds of conditions and on all kinds of courses. Both Ballyhack and Musgrove Mill are difficult courses that punish poorly stuck shots. Higher handicap players don't fare well at either course. Poorer players don't enjoy either of them. My low handicap friends enjoy the challenge.

[Ronald Montesano]

Tom, I believe that you have played with Kevin Lynch at Ballyhack. If so, none of what I am about to write will surprise you (unless it does.)


Kevin is about a 9 handicap on the books. He has all the potential in the world to become an LH golfer, but weirdly, it would sap the game of fun for him. I have photos of Kevin at the top of the backswing, pointed properly and pointed a bit right and pointed nearly 90 degrees right of target (and he is an RH golfer.) In other words, his backswing varies like a sundial. Somehow, he finds a way to bring it back to ball, meet clubface at the proper time. Some days, he plays the draw; others, he plays the banana. Kevin sees the three dimensions of a golf course better than I see two. As long as the scorecard has been shreaded, you will be treated to some of the most unique shotmaking around when he gets to it. He looks for the kick plate, the carom, the nob, the slope, and he manufactures a shot to get to the hole. For a guy like Kevin, the scorecard is the enemy; golf for him is the equivalent of a shoot-around at the park. No result, no end game, just the fun of the execution. If he played basketball, all of his shots would come from the far side of the midcourt line, and they would be a blast to watch.

[Tim Gavrich]

Ron--


What you describe sounds more like performance art than the playing of a game, which is of course a find way to spend time with golf balls and golf clubs. Is it in the best interest of architects or golfers for courses to be designed with that type of golf in mind, or the golfer whose goal is to hole out in the least number of shots?

[Peter Pallotta]

A big topic.
I think there is one more category to add to the HH, MH, and LH, i.e. the Scratch and Better (S&B).
My experience, being paired over the years with some self-described LHs, is that to a man every single one of them was (or played, that day) closer to a MH than to a S&B.
That is only my experience, of course; I don't suggest it has any universal validity.
I have only played with one true S&B in all my years, and it seems to me that the difference between the S&B and the LH is striking, and noticeable....well, noticeable at least to anyone who is not himself an LH 

[Kirk Gill]

I've always thought of this as the art vs science debate. Scientific - to know the distance you hit each club, know how far away you are from your destination, mentally note the wind direction and speed, the quality of the lie, the hardness of the landing area, etc. To figure out the shot that has the greatest potential for success, or that takes the high score out of play. For the majority of the people I know, this is how they think of golf. Know all that stuff, and then execute the shot required, with the goal always being the lowest score possible.


The artier approach - to not necessarily know or care about all of those specifics, to approach the game more from a creative point of view, with things like score and victory being secondary. It's like Ronald says about his friend Kevin - "just the fun of the execution." Seems like this kind of play is something we all do......on occasion. Some of us do it all the time !


One could say that maturity as a golfer might lead one in the direction of a more scientific approach, and a mindset less open to the invasion of things like the "rub 'o the green." Or maybe that's just a result of joy dying a little inside, and a "get off my lawn" mentality invading.


I like to think that joy can be had in different ways by different people......on the same golf hole.

[George Pazin]

I know that, when I was a 90s shooter, I was also an immature young person and golfer. As I evolved in both life and golf, I came to understand that such bounces at best, resulted in an enviable outcome; at worst, they should be laughed at, and the next shot should be played

Congratulations on being the exception that proves the rule.


On a more serious note, everyone on gca knows that it is dangerous to generalize. Having said that, I'd still agree with Peter - in my experience, MHs and HHs are more apt to blame themselves, whereas LHs are more apt to blame the course/design/architect. It surely doesn't always prove true, nor does the fact that LHs can still produce a lower score mean they get the architecture better; they are, by definition, better golfers, so one would expect they would handle challenges better.


That wasn't the question, however.


Maybe the better question is, does it even matter, this question about who evaluates a course more fairly, LHs, MHs, or HHs? Is it even possible to generalize accurately about that? If it is, wouldn't that mean the logical extension is that we should value Tiger's, Rory's, Phil's, Ernie's and Jordan's opinion far more than Tom Doak, Jeff Brauer, Gil Hanse, Dan Mahaffey, Ian Andrew, Mike Nuzzo, etc?


For you older, more experienced golfers out there, are your thoughts worth less now than 10-15-20 years ago, when you were a better player, at least as defined by score?


I personally don't even look at what a reviewer shoots, I look at clues within his post as to how he views the game. If he preaches a desire for fairness, any sort of formula (boxing the compass on par 3s, balancing short par 4s and long par 4s, etc), then I'm likely to value his opinion less. Conversely, if it's a poster I know and whose principles I tend to agree with, then I value it more.


And, I'd argue, that's what discussion groups on golf course architecture is all about: we all share opinions, we all evaluate others' opinions on our own.


I just tire reading the first comment upon someone shooting a higher score being, did you play the right tees? If that is ever the first question anyone is prompted to ask me personally, just do us both a favor and assume I did and respond to my thoughts, or just ignore my thoughts and go read your own personal bias confirmation posts by someone else...


-----


On a side note, I've been considering starting a thread for a long time now, asking if people really understand how they - and others - play golf. It's my own personal pet peeve, based on the dismissals of the ideas of someone who shoots in the 90s or whatever. I truly believe posters on here forget that shooting a 95 versus a 75 isn't as big a difference as it appears. It's a little more than 1 shot per hole - an extra putt after a less than stellar chip or bunker shot, missing a few extra greens or fairways a round, or just a couple more penalty shots because your shot was 20 yards offline instead of 15. Someone shooting a 95 isn't someone shooting a 130; the former is a high handicapper, the latter is a beginner. Saying one would like ground game options doesn't mean someone hits 50 yard wormburners all day long. You don't shoot 95 doing that.


Of course, as someone on here likes to note, that's just my opinion, your mileage may vary...


Happy New Year.


-----


Terrific post, Peter P! Only a LH would classify himself in the same class as an S & B.

[Tom_Doak]

Maybe the better question is, does it even matter, this question about who evaluates a course more fairly, LHs, MHs, or HHs? Is it even possible to generalize accurately about that? If it is, wouldn't that mean the logical extension is that we should value Tiger's, Rory's, Phil's, Ernie's and Jordan's opinion far more than Tom Doak, Jeff Brauer, Gil Hanse, Dan Mahaffey, Ian Andrew, Mike Nuzzo, etc?


For you older, more experienced golfers out there, are your thoughts worth less now than 10-15-20 years ago, when you were a better player, at least as defined by score?


I personally don't even look at what a reviewer shoots, I look at clues within his post as to how he views the game. If he preaches a desire for fairness, any sort of formula (boxing the compass on par 3s, balancing short par 4s and long par 4s, etc), then I'm likely to value his opinion less.

Hi George:


I think the above is the meat of your argument.  Of course, Mr. Nicklaus and Mr. Player are already on record that the likes of you and I can't really evaluate courses or design them properly for great players.


When people question how I could possibly rate courses I haven't played, I don't generally say it, but I would always trust the opinion of someone who has only walked one of my courses than the person who has played it, but only one time.


When you walk a course, you see a nasty contour near a green and you may think, "that contour is too close to the target area," or, "that's a contour that I must avoid at all costs," but you only decide it's "unfair" when it affects your score on the hole after you hit a shot that you thought [from afar] was going to be good.


Also, people who judge a course by its scorecard are all too common.  Apparently they have never learned what they're intended to from the phrase about people who judge a book by its cover.

[Kirk Gill]

Let's say you're facing a long second shot into a green that angles away from front left to back right. There's a big, deep bunker in front of the green but the left front is open. It's set up with a sucker pin, front right, just behind the bunker. The very best S&B player might fly it right at the pin, or just behind, but for the HH or MH the best shot might be to aim left of the green, hoping to hit it hard enough to have a nice open shot left with the length of the green to hit on, and taking that nasty front bunker out of play for all but the most powerfully hacked slice.


So if the HH or MH in question throws it right at the pin, inevitably ending up in that front bunker, or worse - is that the result of ignorance? Stupidity? Naivete? Immaturity? A joyous search for exhilaration?


In my experience the person most likely to get hacked of at getting an unpredictable carom is the guy who just lost money because of it.

[Tom_Doak]

So if the HH or MH in question throws it right at the pin, inevitably ending up in that front bunker, or worse - is that the result of ignorance? Stupidity? Naivete? Immaturity? A joyous search for exhilaration?

In my experience the person most likely to get hacked off at getting an unpredictable carom is the guy who just lost money because of it.

Yes, but oftentimes that is the low handicapper who three-putts the hole you just described and loses to the "inferior" player who plays wide left and chips close enough to make par.

[Sean_A]

I know that, when I was a 90s shooter, I was also an immature young person and golfer. As I evolved in both life and golf, I came to understand that such bounces at best, resulted in an enviable outcome; at worst, they should be laughed at, and the next shot should be played

On a side note, I've been considering starting a thread for a long time now, asking if people really understand how they - and others - play golf. It's my own personal pet peeve, based on the dismissals of the ideas of someone who shoots in the 90s or whatever. I truly believe posters on here forget that shooting a 95 versus a 75 isn't as big a difference as it appears. It's a little more than 1 shot per hole - an extra putt after a less than stellar chip or bunker shot, missing a few extra greens or fairways a round, or just a couple more penalty shots because your shot was 20 yards offline instead of 15. Someone shooting a 95 isn't someone shooting a 130; the former is a high handicapper, the latter is a beginner. Saying one would like ground game options doesn't mean someone hits 50 yard wormburners all day long. You don't shoot 95 doing that.


Of course, as someone on here likes to note, that's just my opinion, your mileage may vary...


Happy New Year.


-----

Terrific post, Peter P! Only a LH would classify himself in the same class as an S & B.

Tackling the side note...20 shots is a mountain.  Your description of a few yards here and there and a missed tiddler here and there is fine to explain 5 shots...not 20.  Not that it matters.

A general observation....not knowing the exact yardage, conditions etc shoud not infer that a person without the "cheater" (to quote Shivas) aids can't estimate these aspects of golf to a high degree of accuracy...high enough to serve the purposes of the player.  I honestly don't care if people use these aids against me...in fact...I expect it to happen...even though I believe in the long run these cheater aids are eroding the game.  To me this is a far more pressing problem than any number of potential golfers who decide not to play the game.

I don't think we can say any type of golfer is a better evaluater of courses or that a better evaluation will be made by walking/watching only VS playing/watching.  Everyone is different and I am happy to hear folks out until I think they have made a wrong turn many times.  That said, the really (and I mean really long cappers...so long they can't be capped) I know would always blame themselves and not the course...and of course they would be right...just as a +5 would be by blaming himself.  There can be no blame on courses...they just are and we should take them as we find them.  That doesn't mean we have to like them or play them again, but we should accept them for what they are. Being wing nuts most of us want to "make courses better" and this is the essence of our electronically created GCA world we call GolfClubAtlas.  But most of us realize its just talk until we escape from GolfClubAtlas and actually do something.  What I don't think most of us realize is that there is incredible little difference quality between good and great and that 99% of courses we dicuss here are either good or great.


Ciao 

[George Pazin]

Tackling the side note...20 shots is a mountain.  Your description of a few yards here and there and a missed tiddler here and there is fine to explain 5 shots...not 20.  Not that it matters.

But it does matter. And I'm not saying there isn't a mountain of difference in those 20 shots, I'm saying that those 20 shots cause people to NOT recognize or understand how people play golf.


I played a round back in '97 with an older Irish gent; he was in his mid 60s, I was 30. At the time, I was not even carrying woods in my bag, as I couldn't hit them at all. He'd hit 3 wood off the tee down the middle, I'd hit a 4 iron right next to him. He'd hit his 3 wood up around the green, sometimes on. I'd hit a 7 iron up around the green, rarely on. He chipped and putted his way to a 75, I chipped and putted my way to a 93. Someone walking along, observing only our full shots, would assume I was the better golfer. I surely wasn't. And it was just a little different, hole after hole after hole. On a tougher course, the difference would have been even more pronounced - my pretty, towering 8 irons and his laser-like 3 woods - my slightly greater miss being in the gunch, his much better chipping resulting in an easier putt and much lower score. There would be a mountainous difference in our score and skill, but a lesser difference in how we played. Even the gent and his buddies seemed a bit stunned when I told that what I was shooting on the 18th tee; they didn't seem to notice the extra shot here or there.


That's my point. HHs are treated by LHs (like Ron... ) as being not just lesser golfers, but idiots with their thoughts on the game. Some are, some aren't - just like LHs, MHs, and S&Bs.

[Thomas Dai]

 HHs are treated by LHs... as being not just lesser golfers, but idiots with their thoughts on the game. Some are, some aren't - just like LHs, MHs, and S&Bs.

A golfing life/career is not a straight line progression of improvement.
All golfers start out as novices.
Over time they get somewhat better, some better than others and this is usually reflected by a players hcp, even profession if really good.
Then time constraints and age catch up - shots don't go as far, the number of mishits increase, physical limitations occur, wobbly hands take over in putting and gross scores (hcps) increase once more. Sometimes canniness and experence mean the increase is slow, sometimes not.
Atb

[Ronald Montesano]

Tim,
As you know, there is a limited number of performance artists who capture and preserve our attention. KLP is one of those, and his canvas is a golf course. He is a unique and valued example/asset, I'll admit. Let me read the remaining posts and I'll return to your posit as promptly as possible.


RM

Ron--


What you describe sounds more like performance art than the playing of a game, which is of course a find way to spend time with golf balls and golf clubs. Is it in the best interest of architects or golfers for courses to be designed with that type of golf in mind, or the golfer whose goal is to hole out in the least number of shots?

[Ronald Montesano]

YES!!


I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.


I am that golfer. I am a 4 index and most days, I play like an 80s shooter. There are two handfuls of days each season when I play like a scratch and I cannot explain it. Perhaps this erratus identifies the genesis of my thread; I am both LH and MH.


RM

A big topic.
I think there is one more category to add to the HH, MH, and LH, i.e. the Scratch and Better (S&B).
My experience, being paired over the years with some self-described LHs, is that to a man every single one of them was (or played, that day) closer to a MH than to a S&B.
That is only my experience, of course; I don't suggest it has any universal validity.
I have only played with one true S&B in all my years, and it seems to me that the difference between the S&B and the LH is striking, and noticeable....well, noticeable at least to anyone who is not himself an LH 

[Ronald Montesano]

I positively need to golf with George in 2017, if he will have me. I feel like a villain in a Johnny Cash song, one who has compelled HH golfers to an eternity of self-doubt. I must make amends.

[Sean_A]

Tackling the side note...20 shots is a mountain.  Your description of a few yards here and there and a missed tiddler here and there is fine to explain 5 shots...not 20.  Not that it matters.

But it does matter. And I'm not saying there isn't a mountain of difference in those 20 shots, I'm saying that those 20 shots cause people to NOT recognize or understand how people play golf.


I played a round back in '97 with an older Irish gent; he was in his mid 60s, I was 30. At the time, I was not even carrying woods in my bag, as I couldn't hit them at all. He'd hit 3 wood off the tee down the middle, I'd hit a 4 iron right next to him. He'd hit his 3 wood up around the green, sometimes on. I'd hit a 7 iron up around the green, rarely on. He chipped and putted his way to a 75, I chipped and putted my way to a 93. Someone walking along, observing only our full shots, would assume I was the better golfer. I surely wasn't. And it was just a little different, hole after hole after hole. On a tougher course, the difference would have been even more pronounced - my pretty, towering 8 irons and his laser-like 3 woods - my slightly greater miss being in the gunch, his much better chipping resulting in an easier putt and much lower score. There would be a mountainous difference in our score and skill, but a lesser difference in how we played. Even the gent and his buddies seemed a bit stunned when I told that what I was shooting on the 18th tee; they didn't seem to notice the extra shot here or there.


That's my point. HHs are treated by LHs (like Ron... ) as being not just lesser golfers, but idiots with their thoughts on the game. Some are, some aren't - just like LHs, MHs, and S&Bs.

George


I don't worry about how HHs treat others..don't care.  Its all just opinions and can be easily discarded just as loads of folks discard my opinions.  It doesn't matter to me because this is all small beer.  I am in my 50s..my opinions about architecture are probably 75% set.  It doesn't matter to me if a LH has an opinion which is vastly different from mine...chuck him out with the bath water because its not a question of right or wrong...just different ways of being happy playing the game.  I didn't really have thoughts about courses when I was young...just played and accepted what was in front of me.  For two years I have been trying to see courses this way again.  Its not been a totally successful experiment because now I value my time and money.  When I was a kid time was cheap and my parents' money cheaper. 


Ciao

[George Pazin]

I positively need to golf with George in 2017, if he will have me. I feel like a villain in a Johnny Cash song, one who has compelled HH golfers to an eternity of self-doubt. I must make amends.

No worries, you have nothing to feel bad about. I simply disagree with your belief that LHs are more cognizant of architecture than HHs. You're sure not causing me or likely any other HHs to have self doubt.


Sean -


I don't care what Ron or any other LH thinks about me. What I do care about is how architects think about HHs, MHs, LHs, and S&Bs - and even beginners, to an extent. I simply don't believe that HH's interaction with a course is that much different than a LH's. Sure, there are definitely some instances in which the choices are more clear - long carries over water or other hazards, assessing one's likelihood of pulling off a recovery shot, etc.


But I think that, in general, the decisions anyone other than S&B's face are remarkably similar. I can carry a ball plenty far with my 7 iron, and I'm sure many other HHs can as well. I simply don't do it as consistently as a MH, who doesn't do it as consistently as a LH, and so on. Maybe I'm a poor example, because I hit the ball ok when I do strike it well, but I doubt other HHs are really that much different.


Do you think a HH would make much different choices on the tee at ANGC #12? Sawgrass #17? Even Sawgrass #18, which looks to me like a hole designed to torture me personally, I probably wouldn't make that much of a different choice than many or most LHs.


In other words, I don't believe it's the choices that lead to the higher scores as much as the execution. If I were playing Sawgrass 18 and someone said, I'll wager you $1,000 you can't bogey this hole, I'd change my thinking a little - I'd probably go 7 iron off the tee, 7 iron layup, then wedge and hope to one or two putt. The thing is, as a HH, it's just less likely I can string together 3 solid hits. I can do it, sure, but I'm also likely to chunk one, or hook one into the water, etc.


I think the entire notion of multiple tees is based on a fallacy of how people actually play golf. I don't hit it 10% shorter than the MH, who hits it 10% shorter than the LH, who hits it 10% shorter than the ace. That's just silly, a grossly oversimplified way of thinking that bears little resemblance to reality.


And that's why I think it matters. I think too many architects simply think, I'll throw a few shorter tees in and that will "accommodate" the lesser golfer. And I think too many owners and too many better golfers fall into this mindset as well.

[Peter Pallotta]

George -

it sounds like you and I have very similar golf games, and you've done a very good job of describing those games. 

I can't agree with you enough about multiple tees. Not only don't they apply to us the way architects might think they do, but if architects do think they so apply then multiple tees almost ensure a worse (i.e. less interesting) golf hole instead of a better one. 

Since our games are so similar, I wonder if you also share this experience: I tend to play less interesting and/or less difficult golf holes worse than I do the better ones.

I've come to believe that there is a deep exchange going on the moment I step onto any tee, an (almost entirely, in my case, unconscious) exchange between me and the golf hole the architect has designed. 

And if the architect has designed a conventional and/or simplistic golf hole and littered it with a number of tees -- in short, if he has not cared enough to do something really good -- then I find that through/because of that exchange I don't care or try very hard at all either.

It's like I'm depressed or something, just going through the motions. In other words, I'm not engaged in what I'm doing, in part because the architect hasn't given me anything to be genuinely engaged about.

Now, I know this is my problem and I have to learn to deal with it and do better (and in fact, the only times I play a crappy hole well are on the rare occasions that I have a little money riding on the outcome). But I wanted to share one MH-HH's perspective, i.e.

many sets of tees don't actually do what they theoretically are meant to do, and when architects are obviously relying on this theory to make good golf holes that are 'playable for all' (god, I hate that phrase) they in fact do the very opposite. 

Peter

[Sean_A]

I positively need to golf with George in 2017, if he will have me. I feel like a villain in a Johnny Cash song, one who has compelled HH golfers to an eternity of self-doubt. I must make amends.

No worries, you have nothing to feel bad about. I simply disagree with your belief that LHs are more cognizant of architecture than HHs. You're sure not causing me or likely any other HHs to have self doubt.


Sean -


I don't care what Ron or any other LH thinks about me. What I do care about is how architects think about HHs, MHs, LHs, and S&Bs - and even beginners, to an extent. I simply don't believe that HH's interaction with a course is that much different than a LH's. Sure, there are definitely some instances in which the choices are more clear - long carries over water or other hazards, assessing one's likelihood of pulling off a recovery shot, etc.


But I think that, in general, the decisions anyone other than S&B's face are remarkably similar. I can carry a ball plenty far with my 7 iron, and I'm sure many other HHs can as well. I simply don't do it as consistently as a MH, who doesn't do it as consistently as a LH, and so on. Maybe I'm a poor example, because I hit the ball ok when I do strike it well, but I doubt other HHs are really that much different.


Do you think a HH would make much different choices on the tee at ANGC #12? Sawgrass #17? Even Sawgrass #18, which looks to me like a hole designed to torture me personally, I probably wouldn't make that much of a different choice than many or most LHs.


In other words, I don't believe it's the choices that lead to the higher scores as much as the execution. If I were playing Sawgrass 18 and someone said, I'll wager you $1,000 you can't bogey this hole, I'd change my thinking a little - I'd probably go 7 iron off the tee, 7 iron layup, then wedge and hope to one or two putt. The thing is, as a HH, it's just less likely I can string together 3 solid hits. I can do it, sure, but I'm also likely to chunk one, or hook one into the water, etc.


I think the entire notion of multiple tees is based on a fallacy of how people actually play golf. I don't hit it 10% shorter than the MH, who hits it 10% shorter than the LH, who hits it 10% shorter than the ace. That's just silly, a grossly oversimplified way of thinking that bears little resemblance to reality.


And that's why I think it matters. I think too many architects simply think, I'll throw a few shorter tees in and that will "accommodate" the lesser golfer. And I think too many owners and too many better golfers fall into this mindset as well.

Of course execution is the problem!  That said, bad choices more often then not leads to bad execution for HHers. What I can say is the decisions shouldn't be that similar if the HH is using his brain....that is playing conservative golf to make his best score.  If consistency is the problem, then the HH should not pressure his game and instead use his alloted shots a bit more wisely...looking to make a good net score and not worry about the gross score because the concept of par is not for the likes of him.  The sooner the HH realizes this the better he will be.  Trust me, I am a MH and rarely do I turn down a challenge even though I know that in the long run my score takes a hit. I am willing to make that sacrifice because I don't much care about my score...hitting good, thrilling shots outweighs the card in my hand...which explains why I have a disdain for pencil and card golf. 

That said, I understand what you are saying.  I am not a proponent of multiple tee sets creating course yardages from 5000 to 7500 yards to "even" the game.  For the most part tees should be based on width/angles and cover a far lower course yardage range....maybe a 1000 yards at most.  So the archie has to figure out if he is building an advanced course using max yardage (say 6500-7500), or a modest course of  5500-6500 or a very modest course of say 4500-5500 etc.  How does an archie create 18 quality holes of 5000 yards and 7500 yards in a sensible manner that can be walked and is not a nightmare to maintain?  I know you don't believe length is an issue, but I disagree.  Length adds pressure to every shot and reduces choices in the mind of golfers using par as a measuring stick.  Since most players cannot drop the concept of par as  a measuring stick, they would do far better to learn how to score well on shorter courses before moving onto longer courses.   

Ciao

[Ronald Montesano]

I believe that George's 2 examples of penal par 3 holes (Golden Bell and Island From Hell) are extreme. As indicated in prior comments, consistency of execution allows the MH and LH to have a better chance at success than the HH. On holes such as the aforementioned, luck contributes more than skill to the outcome. Why? No options. Hit it or else. There are no backstop nor sideboards on IFH at TPC Sawgrass, and there is no safety anywhere on GB at ANGC. Hit the green at IFH or drop zone. Hit long at GB and you face a downhill recovery, toward the water, with no fronting bunker to save you.


Neither hole offers a kickplate, a ground-game option, or a bail-out area. Neither hole, in my opinion, has anything to do with positive and proper, golf course architecture.

[George Pazin]

I believe that George's 2 examples of penal par 3 holes (Golden Bell and Island From Hell) are extreme. As indicated in prior comments, consistency of execution allows the MH and LH to have a better chance at success than the HH. On holes such as the aforementioned, luck contributes more than skill to the outcome. Why? No options. Hit it or else. There are no backstop nor sideboards on IFH at TPC Sawgrass, and there is no safety anywhere on GB at ANGC. Hit the green at IFH or drop zone. Hit long at GB and you face a downhill recovery, toward the water, with no fronting bunker to save you.


Neither hole offers a kickplate, a ground-game option, or a bail-out area. Neither hole, in my opinion, has anything to do with positive and proper, golf course architecture.

They may be extreme, but they were chosen because they are holes everyone is familiar with. Feel free to offer other suggestions, if you'd like. Keep in mind that I don't have much in the way of a catalog of holes I've played or seen.


Peter and Sean -


For me, my execution has zero to do with my interest or my choices. There simply isn't a strong reason for me to play very conservative, as I'm as likely to flub the conservative shot as the riskier one (I'm not talking about foolish, through the trees recovery shots, or silly, I can hit this 3 wood 230 yards over that pond shots).


Maybe it has to do more with why someone is a HH golfer. For me, it's primarily because I can only find time - or make time, as others have pointed out - a few times a year to tee it up or get to the range. So I'm wildly inconsistent, and playing conservative does little to lower my score.


Maybe I'm weird like that. But I suspect more HHs are like me than one would think. And lest anyone misunderstand me, I'm not advocating that any designer actually try to plan for players like me. I'd simply like a bit more latitude to find and play my flubbed shots. I prefer the notion of shot accommodation versus shot options. I fully expect a poor shot (through execution or choice doesn't matter which) to face a difficult next shot; I'd simply prefer to play that difficult next shot, versus figuring out where my drop should be.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()