[Tim_Weiman]

IMO 7-8 HCP is the best skill level to appreciate golf architecture. Fundamentally, I think it comes down to balancing two things:[/font]

1) enough ability to hit some really good (maybe even hard) shots[/font]
2) not so much skill the player knows he will always pull off the shot[/font]


That means a player has to think before playing a shot that is just on the edge of his skill level. The golfer has to stay positive in his thinking, but also has to “manage”, that is make a realistic assessment of whether he is likely to execute the shot properly. In short, the golfer has to think risk-reward given a number of considerations that might effect his score, e.g., his lie, the stance, the distance, the wind, the penalty for missing right or left, long or short, etc.[/font]

Yes, the expert player, a plus man, has to also think about such things, but not to the same degree, I believe. Such I player isn’t simply more able to hit really good shot, the probability of him doing so is much greater.[/font]

What about the 15-20 handicap player? Obviously, such a player will not be too consistent like the expert player. There is something good about that, IMO. However, the 15-20 handicap player also probably doesn’t have the skill to play really challenging and fun shots that the hole design might call for.[/font]

Thus, as I see it, the 7-8 handicap is the sweet spot. It is the skill level best suited to appreciate golf architecture.[/font]

[Kalen Braley]

Tim,

I think this is an interesting topic and one worthy of discussion.  My only point of clarification would be to replace Appreciate with "Interface" or "Interact with"

As a highcapper myself, I'm pretty convinced I have the ability to appreciate golf architecture even if I lack the ability to do something about it most of the time. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Before I got OLD I was a 2, now about 6. I played 1000 rounds with a guy who was always around 18. I was amazed how much he saw, even though he could not hit the shots required. Often he saw more than I did. It could say something about me, but I am not convinced that handicap always makes a difference.

[SL_Solow]

I am with Tommy on this.  I think the great architects had a variety of skill levels.  Colt was an excellent player, Dr. Mac not really.  There is a wide variety among the current "greats".  Yet across this spectrum there is the ability to both appreciate strategic and aesthetic possibilities and to translate them on the ground.  Similarly, i suggest that a wide variety of players can appreciate the differences in architecture regardless of their ability to solve the problems presented with their respective games. 

[Cal Seifert]

Didn’t C.B MacDonald say Seth Raynor couldn’t differenciate a tennis ball from a golf ball?

[Peter Pallotta]

It's an interesting question.
I tend to agree with Tommy and
SL; but implicit in Tim's question is the important difference between 'appreciating' gca and appreciating just about any other art-craft form you can name.
I mean: you don't have to be able to whistle a tune to appreciate great music, or be able to draw a basic stick-man to appreciate great art, or be able to jump over the Sunday NY Times to appreciate Michael Jordan, or be able to identify quality hardwood to appreciate a Shaker desk.
But if gca is an art-craft that is meant to create exemplary fields of play, if it is primarily (and by far most importantly) a *participatory* art-craft, one that only serves its true function as a shared experience when golfers are there to play it, then what does it mean for a high handicapper (or any golfer who can't with reasonable and fairly consistent proficiency hit the shots he's thoughtfully identified as best, for him, on that day) to be able to 'appreciate' great golf course architecture?
To put it too bluntly: what's the point of him 'seeing' great golf architecture if he can't meaningfully engage with it during an actual round of golf? 
He might as well stay home and 'appreciate' it from afar, like I do 

[Tom_Doak]

I am with Tommy on this.  I think the great architects had a variety of skill levels.  Colt was an excellent player, Dr. Mac not really.  There is a wide variety among the current "greats".

Not really.  Dr MacKenzie was an outlier as a 10-handicap, as am I.  Most of the best architects are or were very good players, as that is why people think they must know something about golf courses.  In smaller venues (such as Alex Russell in Australia or Javier Arana in Spain), where nobody knows anything about design, the local champion is by default the design expert.


The problem is, players like that usually do not relate to the 50-90% of golfers who aren’t out there to grind out their best score, but simply want to enjoy their time outdoors at play.  Average golfers can appreciate strategy just fine; the issue is that a lot of excellent golfers can’t appreciate there is more to golf than just that.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I would be surprised if there is one handicap range that is best to appreciate the architecture of any and all golf courses. It would mean that all golf courses were built for the same target audience.

Ulrich

[Tom_Doak]

To put it too bluntly: what's the point of 'seeing' the great golf architecture if he can't meaningfully engage with it during an actual round of golf? 
He might as well stay home and 'appreciate' it from afar, like I do 

I once wrote that the secret of Pete Dye’s courses was that if you hit even one good shot, it was likely going to be so epic that you’d remember it for the rest of your life, and forget about the other 119 strokes you had that day.


That’s no less true of my courses, it’s just that the types of shots for whichyou might pat yourself on the back are different:  they include chip shots, long twisting putts, and 4-woods that land lay the left edge of the green and kick on.  They’re shots the 15-handicapper can engage with and feel clever about.  Of course, he has lityle more chance of pulling them off all day than he does on Mr Dye’s courses; but all it takes is a couple to make him happy. 😉

[Ira Fishman]

One of the reasons that I enjoy Ross courses is that with some thought the line of charm is discernible which gives me as a 15 a couple of chances on each hole to pull off the correct shot. And then when I fail, the green complexes so interesting that I get another chance when I finally get near the green.


Ira

[John Kavanaugh]

I play to around a 15 with one club. Recently played Cal Club with just a five wood and love the course even more because of it. Even so, there is little dispute that playing poorly makes me smarter through the exercise.


Of course, any 15 that plays as smartly as I do with one club would be a 10. What I can't stand are courses that don't punish the stupid player with little reward for the clever. There is a name for clever 15's...Sandbagger.


And just like Raynor could build a template some 15's can quote one. Now with 3D printing and Google neither is a definable talent.

[Steve Lang]

   Probably more like a 5-6... looking for the next key to going lower... long enough, fairly accurate, good short game


1-4 more interested in the present swing for the distance, not making mistakes, get upset when reality shows being a pro, is still not going to happen, big on the long ball, getting close and putting, or next bets....


7-9, big on trying to hit the long ball, scrapes it around, opportunistic, streaky half par, most days few blowups, expects to be breaking 80


but perhaps the skill level should be related to being able to hit both a draw and a fade around things??


or perhaps the mind that just asks why am I seeing this??


likely a TX 12 playing in Vegas..

[Joe Zucker]

I'm in agreement that players of all skill levels can appreciate good architecture.  That is one of the biggest things I've learned as part of this group.  I used to be in the camp that good players saw more than less skilled players.  I now think that is wrong.


Maybe the question can be rephrased to "What handicap does good architecture most reveal itself to?"  I think that is what the OP is really trying to get at.  A 7-8 can see most of the shots, but doesn't have the ability to execute them consistently, therefore they must think with a margin of error that a scratch player does not.

[Tim Gavrich]

I think the best avenue to "appreciate" architecture is the one along which a golfer also cares about becoming a better player. Golf being a game, I've always thought that architecture deals with the way(s) in which a golfer tries to get from tee to cup in as few shots as possible (whether in match or medal play).


If a player is interested in playing the course in ever fewer strokes, then it becomes important to learn how to overcome the obstacles the architect has laid out. If not, then a course just becomes something like a park or garden, and things that keep a golfer from making a score (against the course or against an opponent) start to lose their meaning, or start to get annoying.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think the best avenue to "appreciate" architecture is the one along which a golfer also cares about becoming a better player....

+many
You said better in one line what it took me a dozen to say. (You're a lower handicap writer!) 
I've spent time this winter at an indoor driving range, trying to get really comfortable and good at hitting both draws and fades with my woods and longer irons, and at punching/lowering the trajectory of my shorter irons.
When i think of the 2 or 3 courses I play most often and know/remember best, the architecture there has already come into much sharper focus without me yet stepping onto the first tee or hitting a single shot.

In other words: knowing that I can *hit* the shot helps me to better *see* the shot in the first place. Knowing that I can *play* the architecture helps me to better *appreciate* the architecture. 

Tom D - thanks, neat post there.
 

[Sean_A]

Tim

Call me an outlier.  I don't care at all about getting better and haven't very many, many years.  If I did, I would take steps to improve.  Yet, I never practice. I never take lessons. Truth is, every year I tilt more toward caring more about golf courses than I do playing golf courses.  Its to the point now, so far as playing is concerned, that I care very little about playing great courses (hence greatness is over-rated)...with some exceptions of great courses which really interest me architecturally, historically and culturally.   

To be honest, I think there is more to be learned about architecture by watching what happens to players who are out of position.  All the stuff between the goal posts is for the most part, dead obvious. That doesn't mean it isn't good or interesting, just obvious.  Thats why its very cool to come across holes (and this is very rare), which are not obvious when standing on the tee or in the middle of the fairway.

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

Sean,


As we age improvement isn't so much getting better as not getting worse. Eventually just getting worse less fast is the best day of all. I know your game. You're not an outlier.


As s matter of fact you are exactly the guy Tim was talking about.

[Jeff Schley]

Great discussion and if there was a true easy answer I guess there would be separate forums for those who are "qualified" via the handicap requirement and the rest of us.

As I think of this the big distinction between a low and mid/high handicap is their ability to carry the ball in the air as far as the low handicap.  The high handicap may exclusively play the ground game.  So I 100% agree that the low handicap player can evaluate a course for a championship/competition of scratch/pro golfers better than mid/high from the tee to the green.

However, once around the green or putting I think all players can evaluate the green complexes and their surround equally.  We all face a 20 foot putt that we want to make.  By contrast a 225 carry over water to a front pin isn't something the mid/high handicap player is even considering (haha I foolishly think I can sometimes).  Thus the shots to pull off for the low handicap player are just so very different considering the skill set.  But, when we get around greens it is normalized. 

We have different sets of tees based on handicap for a reason, however there are NOT two sets of greens by handicap.  I have often thought it would be novel to have one green for the low handicap player and another for the mid/high.  We tend to separate their skills only by how long the hole is.  I know Desert Mountain uses the alternate flags on greens quite a bit.  What do think of this? 

[Sean_A]

Sean,

As we age improvement isn't so much getting better as not getting worse. Eventually just getting worse less fast is the best day of all. I know your game. You're not an outlier.

As s matter of fact you are exactly the guy Tim was talking about.

Sadly, my game has deteriorated quite a bit since you saw me. I don't see my game getting better, but maybe my attitude will improve as I figure out how to cope with my "new" game.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

Hell no.


See my signature.

[Blake Conant]

At my best I played to a 4, but that's when I was focused on getting better and not paying much attention to the architecture.  As my interest in architecture grew, so did my handicap, but on the flipside playing golf became more fun.  I began to worry less about score and more about trying different shots with different clubs or playing multiple holes with one club. 


My girlfriend is just now picking up golf, and it's been interesting to watch how addictive the game is, but also how intimidating it can be.  Also, seeing how terrible beginners are is eye-opening.  Either I underestimated that struggle, forgot how hard it was for me, or lack the capacity to empathize altogether.  Either way, her experience makes me appreciate a good set of forward tees and a lack of penal cross hazards that much more.


Maybe I'll take up the game left-handed so I can have that experience for myself. 

[John Kavanaugh]

It is simply not true that an increased understanding of architecture leads to poorer play. It has more to do with the apex of your shot being inversely proportional to the advancement of age. In that, understanding architecture allows you to tack the ball around the course in a way that has been commonly known as old man golf.

[Thomas Dai]

I am unconvinced that handicap level is relevant.
As to the general understanding of architecture, and indeed golf as a whole, imo one of the best ways to enhance knowledge is to play with equipment from previous eras, not just hickories but blades and persimmon too. In a great many cases it’ll show why things were done they way they were many decades ago. A study of yee olde day construction techniques will also help.
Playing with or at least closely observing, players of all ages and standards, from novices/beginners through to elite TV players is also an aspect that should not be ignored.
I would suggest though that such aspects are merely the tip of the iceberg and that there are many more areas that need consideration in what may be described as a giant jigsaw puzzle.
Atb

[Blake Conant]

John, I didn't mean to imply those two things correlate, but I don't have the ability to focus on a match and digest the architecture at the same time.  I've found out I end up half-assing both if I try.  (and also it's incredibly annoying to play with someone who keeps you waiting on every tee because they're busy taking photos).  An ideal situation would allow me to play the course, then go have a walk around and take photos after.  Not often does time allow for both, though.

[John Kavanaugh]

Blake,


I have to think that when you focus on a match you are calculating where best to miss the ball and adjusting your risk reward accordingly. That is understanding architecture and the reason that most better players understand it best. We are all 15's before we start calculating our risk vs reward.


I have a friend that thinks he is the worst putter in the world because of his constant three putting. Truth is, he is the worst wedge player in the world because he is always out of position.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()