[Blake Conant]

Absolutely.  The good stuff stands out that much more in a tight match, I just chose not to dive too deep into the details until after. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,


I tend to agree in that I typically design for the single digit, but not the plus guys or Tour Pros who are simply to talented.  You have to be able to hit shots to appreciate a course wide strategy.


That said, we design (and courses can be appreciated by) for decent players trying to balance holes that reward length, skill and accuracy, with emphasis on the latter two, because length is usually its own reward.  I think mid handicap players are astute enough to recognize when we give them features that play to their strengths, at least once in a while.

[Tim Gavrich]

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.

Blake--


You're a member of the creator class re: GCA, so this approach makes perfect sense to me, because studying courses in detail is important to the honing of your craft. In other words, you probably "digest" the architecture in a much different and deeper way than the rest of us do, and for good reason.


I think about a serious chef dining at someone else's restaurant, making an effort to be as a "normal" customer. I imagine it can be difficult as times. Do you play a lot of rounds, presumably on courses you already know very well, where you're able to divorce your GCA practitioner side and golfer sides?


(I'd also be curious to hear about this from Jeff Brauer, Tom Doak and any other members of the community of course makers on this subject.)


For those of us who are more part of the consumer class re: GCA, would you agree that what happens surrounding the rank-and-file golfer's "normal" processing of a course (playing a round or several rounds over a period of time) is the best test of the quality of the architecture?


Do you sometimes study courses in the reverse order to what you described: walking and taking photos and notes first, and then playing? I'm wondering if there's a potential benefit in getting the visual study out of the way, then taking the exam and seeing what you really needed to know vs. what might have been more peripheral information.

[archie_struthers]

 


Tim I'm struggling with this notion regarding handicap. However if this is true its just a couple more months of bad play before I can appreciate more as I bumble along.


Seriously ability helps to a point but analysis of site requirements and a vision for design aren't endemic to one level of golfer. Great players may have no clue and an average one (like Doak lol) may be incredibly good at GCA

[Mike Wagner]

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

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


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.

It's my experience that this paragraph is the opposite.  Most scratch and plus players think this way, while very few 7s and up actually do.

[Lou_Duran]

It's my experience that this paragraph is the opposite.  Most scratch and plus players think this way, while very few 7s and up actually do.

Mine as well.


Many years ago I played occasionally with a former Div. I All-American who typically managed his game around the course very conservatively.  He trapped most shots and flighted the ball low with a small hook and a lot of spin.  On the rare occasions when he had to get the ball up fast and cut it, he had no trouble doing it. But if he could instead add a bit of draw to hit it low around the obstacles, mainly fully mature hardwoods and spruces, he went with his strengths.  I once asked him how he approached playing a hole and he said that on the tee, his thought was how to make birdie without jeopardizing par.  The thinking was the same on every shot thereafter, except that when the first objective was no longer attainable, his thinking would shift to the next best possible outcome (how to make par without jeopardizing bogie, etc.).


Really good players see a lot more than we give them credit for.  They may just see the options clearer and faster, and are able to eliminate most of those they deem sub-optimal quickly.  I hear sometimes that today's tour players just don't have the shots of their predecessors.  Yet we see every week so many astounding recovery shots that would drive Rosie speechless.  I can see a considerable benefit in employing a great player like Koepka as Tom Doak did in re-designing the Memorial course, even if it was not destined to be a tournament venue.     

[James Brown]

I am unconvinced that handicap level is relevant.

Agree completely.  Playing level isn’t the right criterion.  There are great golfers that care nothing for architecture and hackers that appreciate redans. 


I would suspect that appreciation for the history of golf and the value of thinking around a course are better surrogates for appreciating architecture. 

[Carl Rogers]

ANGC - Women's Am.....,.I wonder how the architecture of the course will interface with very good golfers, but lack the club head speed to overwhelm the course.

[George Pazin]

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. 😉

I guess this is another one of the times I'm very different from most. I've played Pete Dye courses and hit plenty of good shots on them, but I struggle to remember them. I mostly just remember trying to find lost balls and trying to determine drop spots. I'm not certain a hole in one would make more not think about that.

[George Pazin]

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?

I disagree with the bolded part quite a bit. I've played with plenty of HHers who hit the ball long in the air and plenty of LHers who don't. I think golfers are pretty distinct in how they play, and what makes them the level of golfer they are.


Having said all that, I would guess as a general rule that Tim isn't far off, and JK is correct in saying Sean is the type of guy Tim means.

[V. Kmetz]

ANGC - Women's Am.....,.I wonder how the architecture of the course will interface with very good golfers, but lack the club head speed to overwhelm the course.

But yet playing at a sensible (for top womens am) 6300+... I'm very eager to see this, not only for my own personal curiosity, but because we talk so much about ..."Who's ANGC for; how much of Mackenzie value might remain for the everyday player... how to evaluate its meaninful GCA stature outside of the Masters...etc, etc?"


Quick Trivia (that might be really hard for anyone outside the board): What's the only other championship besides the Masters (and now this) to be contested at ANGC.


cheers   vk

[Pete_Pittock]

Which tour players are most affected by golf course architecture?  I'd rank them as  LPGA, European, PGA, Champions.


I don't think it is skill level as much as one's willingness to travel and play golf.


Inversely proportionate to ability to hit a high ball/ highball.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,


I tend to agree in that I typically design for the single digit, but not the plus guys or Tour Pros who are simply to talented.  You have to be able to hit shots to appreciate a course wide strategy.


That said, we design (and courses can be appreciated by) for decent players trying to balance holes that reward length, skill and accuracy, with emphasis on the latter two, because length is usually its own reward.  I think mid handicap players are astute enough to recognize when we give them features that play to their strengths, at least once in a while.

Jeff,


Thanks your comments. I don’t know if I stated the case as well as one might, but again, I do believe one can best appreciate golf architecture if one has the skill to hit demanding shots but not the ability to do so consistently.


A while back I played a round of golf with a guy who played on the Nike Tour ( or whatever it is called). His ball striking ability was amazing. But, it just didn’t seem like putting any thought into strategy was part of his game. He just was so good. He just knew where the ball was going.


Pete:


I completely agree that travel is absolutely necessary to appreciate golf architecture.

[Steve Lang]

  Pete P,


As a veteran road warrior, have you ever tallied up the miles travelled from/to Portland to play?  The last time to TX alone is probably more than most...


Steve


ps Ms Sheila says hi!

[Ian Andrew]

Sean's comments were excellent.
You learn the most by not thinking about the game and concentrating on the architecture of the course.

[John Kavanaugh]

You can't appreciate math until you stop trying to learn how to do it. Amateur golfers who are trying to learn about architecture in the middle of a round are like that girl in 6th grade who wouldn't give you a break while checking your paper. You don't even want to play with them.

[John Kavanaugh]

Note: Ian did a mega-edit which removes all context relating to my post. Basically he referenced the difference between an architect and an amateur hobbyist.

[George Pazin]

Well that's disappointing, as I'd like to hear what Ian has to say in that regard.

[jeffwarne]

golfers who are trying to learn about architecture in the middle of a round are like that girl in 6th grade who wouldn't give you a break while checking your paper.

priceless

[Craig Moore]

In my experience anyone with an open mind and no ego appreciates golf architecture the most.

[Ian Andrew]

George,

I'll work from Tim's post ... this wasn't my response, but it was what I was getting at.

1. Hitting shots and understanding architecture have nothing to do with each other. If you can see the alternatives and understand how they work, it doesn't matter whether you can execute them.

2. You see more by walking and watching others play, than you do playing yourself. You get a limited window into the architecture of the course based upon where you go. Being off line is often revealing.

I watched Dunhill Cup players come through and try solve a front pin on the 14th at the Old Course. The one that finally did played to place I didn't expect them too on the second shot. Then used a clever running approach that involved the mound and the angle he had set up. I would not have figured that out in one, two or even five plays. I walked in with that group to watch more of his play. That day I spent eight hours watching shots, I learnt more from that day than I did playing it a few times after.

3. The better you play, the less you observe, because the more score begins to matter to you. If it matters, you focus harder on your own game and the result. But, if you don't worry about score, you will learn more, because your more likely to try something to learn about the course.

For example, I hit every ball in my bag into the 13th at Fraserburg to try out all the ground alternatives from 150 yards. It was a 40 mph wind day, so the course was empty and I was curious on how all the slopes around and on the green worked. I collected them twice and went back to do it again. That's how you learn to make things work the way you want. You have to see them work and figure out what slopes you need to build to do that. I actually walked through on four holes that day and hit multiple shots on others to learn about slopes.


I guess my original point is I don't like the generalizations that this thread was based upon. Colt was an outstanding player, MacKenzie was not, Raynor never played ... three of the very best ...

[John Kavanaugh]

Architects and golfers are no more alike than pet lovers and veterinarians. When I change the cat liter I do not inspect the feces for worms. I love my cats as I love golf but when they love me back I'm not so concerned with how that shit was made.


This is a thread about how best to appreciate golf architecture, not how best to create it.

[jeffwarne]

George,

I'll work from Tim's post ... this wasn't my response, but it was what I was getting at.

1. Hitting shots and understanding architecture have nothing to do with each other. If you can see the alternatives and understand how they work, it doesn't matter whether whether you can execute them. You won't see the architecture. In my opinion, that is a far more valuable skill than being able to execute one of those options consistently.

2. You see more by walking and watching others play, than you do playing yourself. You get a limited window into the architecture of the course based upon where you go. Being off line is often revealing. I watched Dunhill Cup players come through and try solve a front pin on the 14th at the Old Course. The one that finally did played to place I didn't expect them too on the second shot. Then used a clever running approach that involved the mound and the angle he had set up. I would not have figured that out in one, two or even five plays. I walked in with that group to watch more of his play. That day I spent eight hours watching shots, I learnt more from that day than I did playing it a few times after.

3. The better you play, the less you observe, because the more score begins to matter to you. If it matters, you focus harder on your own game and the results. But, if you never keep score at all, you will learn more, because your more likely to drop a ball and try something to learn about the course. For example, I hit every ball in my bag into the 13th at Fraserburg to try out all the ground alternatives from 150 yards. It was a 40 mph wind day, so the course was empty and I was curious on how all the slopes around and on the green worked. I collected them twice and went back to do it again. That's how you learn to make things work the way you want. You have to see them work and figure out what slopes you need to build to do that. I actually walked through on four holes that day and hit multiple shots on others to learn about slopes.

I guess my original point is I don't like the generalizations that this thread was based upon. Colt was an outstanding player, MacKenzie was not, Raynor never played ... three of the very best ...

Great post and i agree that no one handicap level is better than another for appreciating great architecture.


I will quibble with the one quote"But, if you never keep score at all, you will learn more, because your more likely to drop a ball and try something to learn about the course"

I'd change that to-"if you are not keeping" score,
rather than if you NEVER keep score.

1. The quote would eliminate all golfers who ever keep score from being able to appreciate architecture
2.Surely learning all about a course and its nuances, slopes, angles has something to do with finding the best way to play on a hole for a lower score-not always but generally. How fun would a side slope be if you executed the shot perfectlyand your ball rolled off into the water?
3. Most golfers are playing for the lowest score on a hole (or at least in relation to their opponent)-so every decision and observation is related to how to best navigate the architecture-pressure is a big component of this i.e. what options I choose based on what shot I feel I can I pull off (or if a teacher, caddie or partner-what shot can your subject pull off in this circumstance)
A.most consistently(stroke play)
B. at this moment (match play)

I would also quibble with the statement that "the better you play, the less you observe"
Of course if a player is in full on grind tournament mode sticking to his game plan he may not observe as much as he would otherwise, BUT chances are his entire game plan was conceived from exactly that-observations made during practice rounds and prior plays.(or God forbid a yardage book)
Additionally, a player such as Tiger Woods could go into full on architecture geek mode during a casual round and still play better than 99.99% of golfers. Why should his ability to play great golf be a handicap to observing other players, nuances of a course, sideboards,  angles etc. especially if he's dropiing the same amount of balls that you mention doing in your casual rounds.

So as you say, the less generalizations the better

[jeffwarne]

I think I have a question for Ran tomorrow........aaarrrggghhh

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,


I agree. The more I am concerned about the consequences the more I look for how the architecture influences the shot. I know this is old school but I don't believe we really learn until we suffer for our ignorance.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()