(I wrote this about six months ago.)
This post is a response to a comment by Mike Young, who recently bemoaned the low barriers to entry into GolfClubAtlas, and our worldwide platform for making judgments about golf architecture. While it’s true anybody with reasonable credentials can join the site, a participant gains or loses credibility with the quality, quantity and insight of their observations.
My Dad worked at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), a two-mile long laboratory operated by Stanford University for the Department of Energy (DoE). Its purpose was to accelerate particles for high-speed collisions, to further understand the nature of matter. Dad was not a physicist; he was an administrator who worked closely with the physicists, mostly as a technical writer. One of his “claims to fame” was organizing an annual SLAC softball game between the two primary types of physicists, the Theorists versus the Experimentalists. Every spring I would be taken to the campus to play in the children’s game, and then watch the low key battle between the two competing factions of physicists, many of whom grew up playing cricket, with only a vague understanding of the rules of baseball. “Run! No! The other way!” Afterwards, everybody would go to Sid Drell’s house on campus for a party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Drell It occurred to me the terms “theorist” and “experimentalist” work well to describe golf architecture analysis. First, let’s take a fond look back at the important functions of our contributors.
Agronomists: The superintendents and agronomic specialists grow grass, combat grass disease, and select grass and sand types for new projects. They encounter a wide variety of environmental challenges to provide the best playing conditions. Thanks to Kyle Harris, Don Mahaffey, Anthony Nysse, and Dave Wilber, among others, for your insight.
Architects and Designers: Architects and course designers know all aspects of golf course design, theory and maintenance, and how the broad variety of player ability is accommodated. Thanks to Ian Andrew, Jeff Brauer, Mike DeVries, Tom Doak and J.C. Urbina, among others, for your great contributions.
(Photo) Essayists: Especially in recent years, photo essays with course analysis have become a strength of the website. There are hundreds of excellent course reviews. Many participants have submitted a course review with photos. Off the top of my head, Joe Bausch, Jon Cavalier and Kyle Henderson are among those who have created multiple course reviews. And GCA founder Ran Morrissett has produced an unparalleled collection of course profiles.
Proprietors: Course owners and operators lend fiscal sensibility to the conversation. Proprietors are rare and valuable contributors here at GCA. Thanks to Chris Cupit, Chris Johnston, Dave McCollum and Mike Young, among others, for your contributions.
Historians: Perhaps most impressive is GCA’s unofficial research department. The historical study of golf ’s evolution, especially in America, has been the subject for some of GCA’s most contentious arguments. The quantity of historical information is amazing. Among the many GCA historians are Thomas Naccarato, Sven Nilsen, Bob Crosby, David Moriarty, Tom Paul, Wayne Morrison, Joe Bausch, Tom Doak, Geoff Shackelford, Mike Cirba, and many others.
Many professional golf writers contribute. In addition are social and general commentators, annual gatherings and charitable outings. The majority of our 1500+ members, myself included, have no specific function. Fortunately, every member is an Experimentalist, and can be a Theorist.
Theorists and Experimentalists: According to Wikipedia, “Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.” In other words, theorists use existing physics to predict what will happen, whereas experimentalists conduct experiments, and make observations to draw conclusions.
In golf architecture, the terminology is appropriate. We are all experimentalists. We play golf and observe how the course interacts with golf shots. As we play and experiment with golf, we develop theories about what makes great golf. Some prominent theories about golf architecture concern:
Minimalism
Green size, shape and topography
Bunker design and placement
Length and width of golf holes
Orientation of golf holes to prevailing wind direction(s)
Progression of hole difficulty
Subjects like these are the source of my favorite GCA discussions. I’m not a history buff, except to establish the intent and design of the original architect, which is often superior to subsequent modifications.
I try to be a golf course theorist, looking for simple truths in course design. My proudest moments have been pointing out the importance of time spent watching shots, compiling a list of common biases in course evaluation, and suggesting that a good golf course should accommodate moderate types of common mishits, such as pulled and blocked tee shots. Two subjects that beg further discussion are:
1. An explanation of the physics behind how a golf ball interacts with the ground, a physics discussion any typical golfer can understand.
2. An analysis (survey) of the types of putt trajectories that please golfers most.
Back to Mike Young, who lamented how easy it was for Average Joe Golfer to offer authoritative opinions. In my opinion, the well-traveled, regular golfer is best qualified to evaluate golf courses, and draw conclusions about what makes golf great. However, this golfer must not be too self-centered about his/her golf; they must take a keen interest in the shots played by their playing partners, and have good eyesight to watch the results. I pride myself on being willing to try different types of shots, which helps me understand golf, but don’t consider myself to be the best evaluator. I am not as well traveled as many here, and I play most of my rounds with 0-5 handicaps, which means I only see a small percentage of rounds played by the larger cross section of average golfers in the center of the Bell curve.
A few years ago, I argued that better golfers are more qualified to evaluate golf courses, because they play more often, see more shots, and spend more time studying the game. This is not necessarily true. The primary requirement for understanding golf courses is an innate understanding of physics, plus a willingness to watch and study shots, and not just your own. Plus, seeing a wide variety of playing conditions — soft and firm, warm and cool, dry and humid — adds insight.
To summarize, the regular golfer, meaning the person who plays golf regularly, is best qualified to make authoritative opinions about what works best, assuming he/she is well traveled, and keenly interested in the golf games of his playing partners. And Mike, tell Woody that the best Kenny Rogers song has to be “Ruby, Don’t Take Your Love To Town”. The words just roll right off your tongue.