How important is the competitive aspect of golf to you?

[Peter Pallotta]

Hmm. VK's post made me think: I think I may have the very opposite experience to his. When I'm out by myself, I'm mostly passing time and getting exercise, and so don't really pay attention to anything golf/gca related in a focused way. I'm not 'present' to it, in a sense. In fact, I probably don't even *want* to be present to it: I want to rest my mind and my spirit and to lose myself in the sensory experience of a (quasi) natural environment. But if I'm playing golf with someone else, especially if we're roughly at the same skill level and have a beer/lunch riding on the outcome, something definitely shifts -- and then I'm present to *all* of it, i.e. not 'zoned in' to the level of a big time competitive athlete, but at least as zoned in as I'm capable of & willing to be when it comes to a sport. Then I pay more attention to everything: the architecture, and the shots I think I can hit, and my opponent's shots, and the wind, and how we stand in the match etc. I'm present to it, and want to be, and so everything comes/becomes more alive, including the golf course.
P

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. Doesn't really help me with what kind of prompted the thread, but your thoughts are much appreciated.

GP, I think I understand what you meant in saying this...that you hoped to elicit the competitive importance to evaluating GCA.


And in that manner, I think TommyW's early response portion sums it up for me, "When I competed, I never really thought about the architecture. I was always intent on scoring, I never thought about whether I liked the course; it didn't matter."


Moreover I feel like many responders in that "some" level of competition is necessary to enjoy any game (of golf, of Monopoly, of cards, or chess) ... but the precise fascination (or discrimination, or evaluation) of the course's architectural merits is something personal and tangent to the competitive aspects...the two are nearly divorced from one another when it comes to the actual playing and what I think about it.


If I come to a horrid or beautiful hole's tee, when I am playing with/against someone in either casual or even more honored competition, I'm only thinking how can I do this better than he/she/field is going to do it.

When I'm by myself and I'm only examining my own acumen (trying to improve or meet a score and ingrain a sound method of play) is when the architecture and its big statements and sublime nuances matter and I am actively evaluating them against other holes and courses.

Again I don't know if this yet gets at your inquiry, but my last contribution on it for this post is to say that Tom D's mention of watching play is an authentic third dimension of the perspective you seek...I know 90% of what I know about architecture because I watched some 5000 rounds of golf in my life as a caddie/fellow competitor for everything from US Open sectionals and regional Opens to Mr and Mrs Twatenheim's mixed Pinehurst 3rd place net finish. I've seen Buddy Marucci at age 50 who hits it no more than 265 playing young players who can hit the ball 350 yards at the Anderson and caddied for handicapped players who pick up at 7, still a hundred yards from the green and stop the moment the ball goes in a deep bunker....and everything in between. Seeing how players react in all sorts of lo-grade and hi-test competitions and how they are delighted, soured or otherwise stimulated is the proof in the pudding of whether a shot or a hole or a course is well-designed for me...why rankings are so meaningless as a paradigm/evaluative criteria.


cheers   vk

This is a terrific post. I wish I could claim that was my intent, but sadly, no. Not even close. And that sadly is directed at me, not you.


I've had many opportunities that arose from this site, and I'm beyond thankful for each and every one. But almost every time, I've had to forego something right from the start, when it was apparent I couldn't handle the competitive aspect of the game. I don't take it too personally, it's mostly due to the life I've led to this point, and that seems to be changing a bit, hopefully. But it does really suck when you know your partners want a competition, and you can't deliver.


I'm still curious as to whether people play competitive matches when visiting a new place. That seems both cool, and daunting, to me.


PP -


I'm probably closer to VK in how I evaluate a course. It's an interesting approach, for sure.

[Wayne_Kozun]

You have prompted me to mention something that has long struck me as curious (that I might otherwise have left alone). Without wishing to assume your location Garland, there does seem to be more of a focus on card and pencil golf amongst (some) north American golfers than would be the case amongst their European (or at least GB&I) brethren. On a few occasions in clubhouses around the Irish coast (Ballybunion being one and Portstewart at the weekend just gone another), I've seen US visitors diligently going over their medal scores after what I've assumed to be 'friendly' rounds; my impression being that the medal score itself is viewed as an important part of visiting / playing these locations (obviously not dog tracks). Obviously not criticizing this in any way - each to their own etc - just struck me as a small cultural difference.

This is probably (at least partially) because here in North America a golfer is expected to enter EVERY score into the handicapping system to maintain his/her handicap system.  The web site / mobile app used by my golf club reports what percentage of the time you have entered your score.


Personally I like keeping track of my scores permanently and I use an app on my phone to do so.  Occasionally I will download all of the score to a spreadsheet and analyze to see if any holes are giving me particular problems on an ongoing basis.  But then again, I am anal about statistics.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I'm still curious as to whether people play competitive matches when visiting a new place. That seems both cool, and daunting, to me.
...

This is on evidence often here with Dixie Cup, Midwest Mashie, King's Putter, and Buda, etc.

[Dave McCollum]

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. Doesn't really help me with what kind of prompted the thread, but your thoughts are much appreciated.

GP, I think I understand what you meant in saying this...that you hoped to elicit the competitive importance to evaluating GCA.


And in that manner, I think TommyW's early response portion sums it up for me, "When I competed, I never really thought about the architecture. I was always intent on scoring, I never thought about whether I liked the course; it didn't matter."


Moreover I feel like many responders in that "some" level of competition is necessary to enjoy any game (of golf, of Monopoly, of cards, or chess) ... but the precise fascination (or discrimination, or evaluation) of the course's architectural merits is something personal and tangent to the competitive aspects...the two are nearly divorced from one another when it comes to the actual playing and what I think about it.


If I come to a horrid or beautiful hole's tee, when I am playing with/against someone in either casual or even more honored competition, I'm only thinking how can I do this better than he/she/field is going to do it.

When I'm by myself and I'm only examining my own acumen (trying to improve or meet a score and ingrain a sound method of play) is when the architecture and its big statements and sublime nuances matter and I am actively evaluating them against other holes and courses.

Again I don't know if this yet gets at your inquiry, but my last contribution on it for this post is to say that Tom D's mention of watching play is an authentic third dimension of the perspective you seek...I know 90% of what I know about architecture because I watched some 5000 rounds of golf in my life as a caddie/fellow competitor for everything from US Open sectionals and regional Opens to Mr and Mrs Twatenheim's mixed Pinehurst 3rd place net finish. I've seen Buddy Marucci at age 50 who hits it no more than 265 playing young players who can hit the ball 350 yards at the Anderson and caddied for handicapped players who pick up at 7, still a hundred yards from the green and stop the moment the ball goes in a deep bunker....and everything in between. Seeing how players react in all sorts of lo-grade and hi-test competitions and how they are delighted, soured or otherwise stimulated is the proof in the pudding of whether a shot or a hole or a course is well-designed for me...why rankings are so meaningless as a paradigm/evaluative criteria.


cheers   vk

This is a terrific post. I wish I could claim that was my intent, but sadly, no. Not even close. And that sadly is directed at me, not you.


I've had many opportunities that arose from this site, and I'm beyond thankful for each and every one. But almost every time, I've had to forego something right from the start, when it was apparent I couldn't handle the competitive aspect of the game. I don't take it too personally, it's mostly due to the life I've led to this point, and that seems to be changing a bit, hopefully. But it does really suck when you know your partners want a competition, and you can't deliver.


I'm still curious as to whether people play competitive matches when visiting a new place. That seems both cool, and daunting, to me.


PP -


I'm probably closer to VK in how I evaluate a course. It's an interesting approach, for sure.

George,


Sorry for the long quote.  I tried to edit it down to the essential, but lost patience. For me, about the only times I've ever played without a friendly wager is with members of this site who dropped by to see our course.  I so rarely get to talk about architecture, it seemed like a distraction, so I left it up to my guests to decide and no one ever has suggested a bet, probably out of politeness because they were my guests and left it up to me.  What generally happens is that we don't talk much about the course because I don't want to be a bore and influence their experience (ask them what they're seeing) and we don't have the fun of a match.  Next time, I think I'll suggest a game to add some interest.  Politeness can be like political correctness: boring.


Personally, I learned the game as a 45-year-old golfer playing money games for small stakes that I always thought of it as sort of a delusional attempt to add interest to spending significant time with friends and strangers I might never otherwise encounter.  I actually don't believe that golf reveals character, but I do believe it's an interesting barometer about a lot of other things, which may be more or less the equivalent.  Even when the occasional game involved a few Benjies, it was the same.  It didn't matter, but I could clearly see why if it did, then one needed to ask some questions about it.


Put me in the camp that a little friendly competition enhances both the social interaction and the pursuit of hobbyist's interest in GCA.  If you're asking for my wager on the question, I'd bet that most of us would say the same.                 






     

[archie_struthers]

 


George no disrespect meant in my original reply. Just personal distress that I'm not the player I used to be and never was!


Competitive goflf does bring out different strategies in attempting to shoot the lowest score. Laying up at the correct angle , not short siding pins, lagging putts when necessary .  I'm not sure architects see all the strategies in laying out a course , some just evolve as green speeds and firmness ramp up or down. In fact , the
maintenance meld (did Tom Paul coin this? ) reveals all kinds of subtleties in design.  Note Bellerive in its present state reveals very few subtleties.


If you are playing golf purely for fun you might not worry about how best to navigate your way to a score . Guess I bemoaned the fact that score means too much to me in general .  That's why sometimes a walk around a beautiful golf course sans clubs is so calming.

[George Pazin]

No worries, Archie, I knew what you meant and thought it was very funny.


I do think your last paragraph, heck, the whole post, is important and very thoughtful.


Dave, thanks for the thoughts, that too is an excellent post.


Garland, you're right about the big get togethers, but I'm referring more to people who visit somewhere as a single and still strike up a game. I'm hoping as my son learns, I'll get to play more and experience this side of the game.

[Garland Bayley]

George,

People like that are nuts. A person  playing senior events i played told of visiting Vegas and agreeing to play for 5 a side and 5 for 18. He played well and they each handed him $1500 on finishing. They insisted he play the next day. He figured it best if he play and return the money.

[Tim Gavrich]

I don't think I understand how it's possible to evaluate GCA outside of a competitive context.


The project of getting a golf ball from the tee to the cup in the least amount of strokes is the whole point of the game. If you're not concerned about that project, you're just sort of hitting a ball around a field, not playing golf.


Not that there's anything wrong with hitting a ball around an open field (or bashing the ball from a driving range mat). But if there are no consequences to the swings you're making, then the only thing I can see someone being concerned about is losing a ball. If you're standing on a tee box not caring if you make a 4 or a 7, who cares how the hole is laid out? It has no bearing on what you're up to.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - your post brought several things to mind for me:
- the none-too-subtle digs at the 'card and pencil set' (of which I am a member)
- the related preference for match play over stroke play among experienced, well-travelled, mid-to-lowish handicaps (with exceptions among the rare genuine scratch golfer)
- and the patina of sophistication that's associated with finding 'fun' in 'trying different shots' over 'great architecture' in a 'match play' setting.
There have been countless threads about courses/architecture best suited for match play, and yet I think there is more to be said/explored re: how modern greats and restored golden age classics fit/are so well aligned to the sensibilities of today's modern retail golfer
Peter

[George Pazin]

Yep, I get all that, don't really disagree with it.


How do you square it with Raynor not playing golf and The Good Doctor not being an especially proficient golfer? I don't know much about today's archies - I get the feeling on here that TD has a pretty solid short game, but I know nothing about Gil's game, Mike Devries' game, David Kidd's game, etc, etc.


I did have the good fortune of playing 2 rounds with Don Mahaffey, and I would trust that guy with just about anything - my course, my business, heck, my daughter!Of course, I don't have a daughter, only a son, so he's spared that.



But I think you can observe things and think about things without being intimately involved yourself. Maybe I'm kidding myself - JK would probably think so - but I don't think that necessarily matters. Does it make any less sense for a non-competitive golfer  to evaluate how a course plays for the best, versus a tour pro evaluating how a course plays for the average joe? Who plays more rounds on a course (overall, I mean, not the tour pro versus a single average joe)?

[Edward Glidewell]

I don't think I understand how it's possible to evaluate GCA outside of a competitive context.


The project of getting a golf ball from the tee to the cup in the least amount of strokes is the whole point of the game. If you're not concerned about that project, you're just sort of hitting a ball around a field, not playing golf.


Not that there's anything wrong with hitting a ball around an open field (or bashing the ball from a driving range mat). But if there are no consequences to the swings you're making, then the only thing I can see someone being concerned about is losing a ball. If you're standing on a tee box not caring if you make a 4 or a 7, who cares how the hole is laid out? It has no bearing on what you're up to.

I mostly agree with this.


I don't really get to play much actual competitive golf -- I play with a work friend a handful of times a year and we usually have a small bet, and when I go back to my parents' I usually play in team gambling matches with my dad and his golf buddies. Other than that I'm typically playing non-competitive rounds with a couple of friends or I'm out playing by myself.


But even when there's no money on the line, I still look at it as a competitive round -- I'm just competing against myself or the course, however you want to look at it. I want to shoot a lower score than I did last time. I'm not really interested in just going out and hitting the ball around without any purpose.

[Tim Gavrich]

Peter--


Yeah, I've always bristled a bit at the snark about people who enjoy affixing a score to their own impressions of how they played a round of golf. I love match play and I love stroke play - it is very okay to enjoy both, IMO.


It's definitely a lot of fun "trying" non-obvious shots, e.g. bump-and-runs from 80 yards off the green, etc. I find real value in practicing that stuff from time to time, because I've been faced with all kinds of situations on the golf course, including in competition. Plus, it exposes a golfer to the true range of potential legitimate golf shots. Anyone who cares about his or her game should set aside a few range balls every session for some out-of-the-box shots: super-low, super-high, super-hook, super-slice, chip shots with 6 irons, etc.


A round at Dooks a couple weeks ago stands out in my memory. It was by a solid margin the firmest conditions under which I'd ever played golf. The normal range of golf shots was not sufficient when landing shots 25 yards short of certain greens was too close to hold them. Of the two people I was paired with, one of them embraced the challenge and had a blast like I did, while the other one became irreparably flustered on about the 8th hole and spent the rest of the round complaining about how "stupid" and "unfair" the conditions were. Of course, the real problem was entirely his - he was just unwilling to try and adapt his playing style to suit the conditions, which surprised me because he is a skilled player and definitely had the talent to at least try. Maybe if we had been playing a match, he would have been more engaged!


George--


It is fascinating to me that Raynor was not a golfer, or much of one. Nevertheless, his mentor in GCA was Macdonald, himself a skilled player. Maybe he's an exception that proves the rule?


I'm aware Mackenzie was not a particularly good player, but he was still a player. It's not necessary to be a skilled golfer to have an appreciation of architecture, but I do believe it's pretty much necessary to at least be avid and observant about the game.


I will say that I've run into a conflict, occasionally, where someone pooh-poohs my thoughts on a golf course because I'm a lower-handicap player who doesn't mind playing the tips on most courses. I don't quite get that one. I was a bogey player once, too; I don't believe I've forgotten what things make a golf course playable for higher handicappers.

[Jeff Johnston]

You have prompted me to mention something that has long struck me as curious (that I might otherwise have left alone). Without wishing to assume your location Garland, there does seem to be more of a focus on card and pencil golf amongst (some) north American golfers than would be the case amongst their European (or at least GB&I) brethren. On a few occasions in clubhouses around the Irish coast (Ballybunion being one and Portstewart at the weekend just gone another), I've seen US visitors diligently going over their medal scores after what I've assumed to be 'friendly' rounds; my impression being that the medal score itself is viewed as an important part of visiting / playing these locations (obviously not dog tracks). Obviously not criticizing this in any way - each to their own etc - just struck me as a small cultural difference.

This is probably (at least partially) because here in North America a golfer is expected to enter EVERY score into the handicapping system to maintain his/her handicap system.  The web site / mobile app used by my golf club reports what percentage of the time you have entered your score.


Personally I like keeping track of my scores permanently and I use an app on my phone to do so.  Occasionally I will download all of the score to a spreadsheet and analyze to see if any holes are giving me particular problems on an ongoing basis.  But then again, I am anal about statistics.

that certainly makes sense as a reason Wayne. Does that (logging scores) apply to even casual rounds? Potential to be a bit of a drag surely if so.

[Mark Pearce]

Golf is a sport.  It always has been.  If what you score on a hole doesn't matter, you aren't playing golf.  I'm a crap golfer.  Six years ago I had a few brief months as a single figure handicapper.  But every time I play I'm trying to beat someone.  No point if I'm not.  I have 36 holes of medal play tomorrow, in a club comp with the tee fully booked from 7am until 4pm.  I'm playing to win.  I love golf course architecture.  I love great courses.  But if I'm not playing to win, how can I really appreciate how to use that architecture to my advantage, or curse how it defeats me?

[Wayne_Kozun]

that certainly makes sense as a reason Wayne. Does that (logging scores) apply to even casual rounds? Potential to be a bit of a drag surely if so.

Yes, every score is to be entered, including casual rounds.  The only time that you are not to enter rounds is if you are playing lift clean and place, or outside of the regular golf season which is approximately Apr 1 - Oct 31 in Toronto.  Or if you are playing a format where you don't have your own score, like Scramble, alternate shot, etc.


It is not an issue for me as I like to enter everything in my GolfShot app.  I also like the fact that this let's you keep track of all of the course that you have played and how many times you play per year.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - I think your last line/question is spot on, and in two ways:
1. If you're not playing for your lowest possible score, you're neither playing golf nor engaging with the architecture, and
2. If the architecture neither offers the engaged golfer a possible advantage nor leads a foolish one to his ruin, it isn't worthy to be called architecture -- it's merely a 'backdrop' and bits of scenery.
P

[Sean_A]

Mark - I think your last line/question is spot on, and in two ways:
1. If you're not playing for your lowest possible score, you're neither playing golf nor engaging with the architecture, and
2. If the architecture neither offers the engaged golfer a possible advantage nor leads a foolish one to his ruin, it isn't worthy to be called architecture -- it's merely a 'backdrop' and bits of scenery.
P

To me this stance is extreme.  Its not exactly a question of playing for the lowest possible score. It is more a matter of...

1. Taking chances by going for the lower percentage shots just for fun.

2. Can't be bothered to properly concentrate.

3. More interested in seeing the architecture than hitting the shots.

..for me anyway.

Ciao