Tour Pros and Architecture

[Ira Fishman]

We have a number of threads with the theme that tour pros do not have a high level of interest in architecture and that those who become architects/designers generally do not produce high level courses.  Yet Riviera draws one of the best non-major fields of the year and the Pros tend to rave about the quality of the course.  How do we reconcile these two statements?  It certainly can be the case that pros-turned architects just are not very good at it, but it does seem they know good architecture when they see it.


Ira

[Brian Finn]

Correlation, not causation.

[Kevin Moore]

Correlation, not causation.

Certainly. And understanding something is certainly different than recognizing something. As numerous GCAs and authors on the subject have described, it's easy to fall into traps and patterns in golf course design. For a pro, it's especially hard to think outside of one's own game. That's very limiting with respect to creativity and understanding in design.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, we all watch the pros on TV and think we appreciate their games . . . but no one would think that meant we could hit the shots as well as they can!


Golf architecture is not just about ideas, it’s about execution.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom's last line (above) seems key to me.
I've long thought that the most boring, middle of the pack check-cashing plodder on the PGA Tour knows & understands more about golf course architecture than most of us here ever will -- but it's a kind of 'knowing' that is so 'real', so much on the level of actual engagement with the golf course specifically in terms of their own games and so much part of the thinking they have to do every single day, that the pros don't often verbalize their thoughts or talk about architecture as a concept/idea separate and apart from the playing of the game itself.
But that doesn't mean that they could turn around and find a viable routing or design a golf course or build a golf hole -- no more than the ability to type necessarily makes one a writer. The execution, on the ground, is what it's all about, and tour pros (even with their greater understanding of what gca) are no more likely than you and I to have the skills to create & execute in that tangible way. In fact, they may in some cases be less likely than us, but only because we at least have more humility in recognizing our limitations than they do.       
P

[Ira Fishman]

I concur with the execution imperative which is why my OP had the line about them just not being very good at it when they become designers, but in thinking about the event at Riviera, I do think that some of us on this board can be a little harsh in our views about Pros not caring about or understanding good architecture.


Ira

[Mike_Young]

Do you think perhaps some on this board try to understand architecture more than needed?  And if so, then perhaps the tour player is not that far off?

[Scott Warren]

One possibility is that they appreciate the architecture. But if that were true, I’d have thought one might have wondered out aloud WTF is going on with the 1st fairway.


Also possible, and IMO more likely, is that they have heard that Riviera is an incredible course so much that they know it’s the right thing to say, combined with the fact that there are 1,000 really cool things about the course, club and tournament beyond the architecture.


But as Geoff Ogilvy has said in a few podcasts over the past year or so, tour pros are (understandably) motivated to focus on the things that make them money. So deep diving into architecture and practicing a chip-and-run from 50 metres aren’t on their agenda.

[Tom_Doak]

I concur with the execution imperative which is why my OP had the line about them just not being very good at it when they become designers, but in thinking about the event at Riviera, I do think that some of us on this board can be a little harsh in our views about Pros not caring about or understanding good architecture.

Even that is harsh.  In all likelihood, quite a few Tour pros would be good designers, IF they devoted enough time to it.  Michael Clayton is a great example you are all familiar with. 


But, if a guy is still playing the Tour and only devoting a few days of his time to a design project [basically treating their fee like appearance money], then you are not likely to get a great result out of that, unless there is someone else behind the scenes who is very good at the execution part.

[Jim Nugent]

Here's a thought out of left field...
Tiger never won at Riviera.  Neither did Jack.  So maybe one reason pro's love the course so much is it gave them a better chance to win against the two guys who pretty much slaughtered the field at other courses. 

[Kalen Braley]

I don't think its that TPs don't care about architecture.  I just think they care about/want architecture that best suits their ability to score, reduce risk/luck, and ultimately be repeatable....which often comes in the form of boring, flat, and unimaginative features on the course.

They spend hours day in and day out on the range trying to reproduce the same shots on the range.  When they get on the course they want the same predictability....

[Ira Fishman]

I don't think its that TPs don't care about architecture.  I just think they care about/want architecture that best suits their ability to score, reduce risk/luck, and ultimately be repeatable....which often comes in the form of boring, flat, and unimaginative features on the course.

They spend hours day in and day out on the range trying to reproduce the same shots on the range.  When they get on the course they want the same predictability....

Kalen,


This is what I think I disagree with.  They flock to Riviera.  Tiger plays there regularly even though as someone pointed out, he never has won there. 


Ira

[Ira Fishman]

Do you think perhaps some on this board try to understand architecture more than needed?  And if so, then perhaps the tour player is not that far off?

Mike,


A great and very funny set of questions.


Ira

[Ira Fishman]

I concur with the execution imperative which is why my OP had the line about them just not being very good at it when they become designers, but in thinking about the event at Riviera, I do think that some of us on this board can be a little harsh in our views about Pros not caring about or understanding good architecture.

Even that is harsh.  In all likelihood, quite a few Tour pros would be good designers, IF they devoted enough time to it.  Michael Clayton is a great example you are all familiar with. 


But, if a guy is still playing the Tour and only devoting a few days of his time to a design project [basically treating their fee like appearance money], then you are not likely to get a great result out of that, unless there is someone else behind the scenes who is very good at the execution part.

Tom,


I did not mean to say that all former Tour players are not good at design. Just that the exceptions are relatively rare even when they know good architecture when they see it.




Ira

[Kalen Braley]

I don't think its that TPs don't care about architecture.  I just think they care about/want architecture that best suits their ability to score, reduce risk/luck, and ultimately be repeatable....which often comes in the form of boring, flat, and unimaginative features on the course.

They spend hours day in and day out on the range trying to reproduce the same shots on the range.  When they get on the course they want the same predictability....

Kalen,


This is what I think I disagree with.  They flock to Riviera.  Tiger plays there regularly even though as someone pointed out, he never has won there. 


Ira

Ira,

Tiger has been on tour since 96.  He's only played it 10 times, far less than half.  I also don't know if using Tiger is a good example as its his home area so he may have played there even less otherwise.


P.S.  Look at the At&T, they have a hard time getting guys to go there, with 3 terrific courses to play, all of em in the top 60 on Golf Digest list.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  Look at the At&T, they have a hard time getting guys to go there, with 3 terrific courses to play, all of em in the top 60 on Golf Digest list.

Lots of players skip the AT&T because of the pro-am format.


If you are a big enough name to choose your own partner, it's great.  If you just have to play three rounds very slowly with a random CEO, there are a lot of players who would rather skip that.

[John Kavanaugh]

The only evidence I have seen that the pros do not make great architects has been presented by recreational golfers. Just recently a bunch of high handicaps told me that Harbour Town can't compete with Ballyneal. Go in any locker room on the PGA Tour and that argument may not hold up.

[Ira Fishman]

The only evidence I have seen that the pros do not make great architects has been presented by recreational golfers. Just recently a bunch of high handicaps told me that Harbour Town can't compete with Ballyneal. Go in any locker room on the PGA Tour and that argument may not hold up.

John,


I was about to cite Harbour Town as another course that draws a good field even though it is the week after the Masters. But your post does seem to leave out that Nicklaus did not do the work by himself.


Ira

[Mike_Young]

P.S.  Look at the At&T, they have a hard time getting guys to go there, with 3 terrific courses to play, all of em in the top 60 on Golf Digest list.

Lots of players skip the AT&T because of the pro-am format.


If you are a big enough name to choose your own partner, it's great.  If you just have to play three rounds very slowly with a random CEO, there are a lot of players who would rather skip that.

I's not just one or two....many don't care to do it...

[Kalen Braley]

P.S.  Look at the At&T, they have a hard time getting guys to go there, with 3 terrific courses to play, all of em in the top 60 on Golf Digest list.

Lots of players skip the AT&T because of the pro-am format.


If you are a big enough name to choose your own partner, it's great.  If you just have to play three rounds very slowly with a random CEO, there are a lot of players who would rather skip that.

Tom,


I don't doubt that, but the premise was Tour Players like playing at top notch courses. Throw in a Pre-Tourney round at CPC or MPCC Dunes, and I can't imagine any other week on Tour coming even close to that.

[Tom_Doak]

The only evidence I have seen that the pros do not make great architects has been presented by recreational golfers. Just recently a bunch of high handicaps told me that Harbour Town can't compete with Ballyneal. Go in any locker room on the PGA Tour and that argument may not hold up.

Where's the evidence that they do make great architects?


I guess James Braid was a great architect.  And Willie Park, Jr.


You could make a case for Jack Nicklaus, too.  But Harbour Town as an exhibit would probably be thrown out of court.

[John Kavanaugh]

You can't discount Donald Ross as a professional golfer. His record in the US Open speaks for itself.

[jeffwarne]

The only evidence I have seen that the pros do not make great architects has been presented by recreational golfers. Just recently a bunch of high handicaps told me that Harbour Town can't compete with Ballyneal. Go in any locker room on the PGA Tour and that argument may not hold up.

I'd guess that Ballyneal would fare very well if you polled TPs who had played both...

[John Kavanaugh]

That depends on the questions asked.

[JESII]

Tour players by and large love golf, evidenced by the assumption that you cannot play at that level without loving it...


But...


It’s also their job, and the job is to shoot the lowest score possible and what we consider good/great doesn’t help them shoot lower scores.