+/- 5

[Pete_Pittock]

I was reading Richard Mandell's tome on Pinehurst and it mentioned George Fazio as being the first very good player of prominence in the golf design business (I guess this meant in the previous 30 years or so).


Putting aside any specific architects and their golfing pedigree, would you prefer to play on a course designed by a +5 handicap or a 5 handicap golfer. I know there is no right answer.

[archie_struthers]

 

I think the Park Bros. might dispute that no good players were architects prior to George Fazio. As an aside I'd love to discuss George F in detail when time permits.

It probably doesn't matter to me the handicap of the architect, just the finished product. It might be hard  for the plus 5 to understand how bad some of us can hit it at times though.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

RTJ was a good player.

Old Tom was a good player.

Ben Crenshaw and Jack Nicklaus were pretty good, I've heard.

Raynor didn't even really play, right?

And so on.

I don't think the handicap of the architect is in the top 30 things I'd care about.

[Pete_Pittock]

I have to agree with you, as I did point out that the statement was only valid is you only looked at the previous 30 years.


      For my tastes I would tend towards the five handicapper, who is closer to my game. Architects at either end of this spectrum certainly have a capacity to design for all golfers. For the +5 designer, who probably has spent years developing their own aerial game, would have that game in the forefront of his mind. The ability to accommodate all styles and abilities is key for any successful architect.
     

[Matthew Rose]

Pete and Alice Dye.

[Thomas Dai]

More the person and what's going on between their ears than their personal golfing ability.
Harry Colt was a fine player, Dr MacK' much less so.
As to best player turned architect, I suggest James Braid must be close if not top of any such list.
atb

[Mark Pearce]

More the person and what's going on between their ears than their personal golfing ability.
Harry Colt was a fine player, Dr MacK' much less so.
As to best player turned architect, I suggest James Braid must be close if not top of any such list.
atb

Braid is certainly at one end of the spectrum.  Is he the only player/architect who was genuinely one of the very best at both?  I'd argue that Willie Park Jr. doesn't quite squeeze into the very top echelon of architects (though it's close).

[Adam Lawrence]

Colt was plus four when he became secretary at Sunningdale.


Fowler was scratch. Willie Park was twice Open champion. CBM was the first US Amateur champion. Braid won five Opens.



Rich is a friend but if that's genuinely what he wrote he's talking rubbish!

[Jaeger Kovich]

Rich is a friend but if that's genuinely what he wrote he's talking rubbish!

Good thing he sponsors the highway cleanup in Pinehurst!       

[Ben Hollerbach]

One would think that a long time player at a certain skill level would really only have a good understanding of the plight of a player from that same skill level.


I would not believe that a player of a supreme skill level would inherently have a better understanding of the plight of a player from a lesser skill level. The same could be said of a player from a lesser skill level inherently understanding play from a more superior level. While the objectives of the game may be the same, a +5 plays the game dramatically different than a -5, who plays the game different than a -15. I would imagine what matters most is not someones playing abilities, but rather their ability to recognize the challenges faced by players at a variety of skill levels and designing for those individual groups in a equitable way.

[Tom_Doak]

Those of us who are not great players -- I was a 5 at my best, nowhere close to that now -- are used to hearing great players diminish our work because they think we can't understand their perspective.


Of course that's rubbish, and probably most of them know it's rubbish.  It's just a way to sell themselves and their opinion as being more valuable than ours.


Hitting golf shots and designing golf courses are two different things.  You don't have to hit the shots -- you just have to understand what you're asking players to do.


The hardest thing for most great golfers is to understand that a drive ten yards farther is not necessarily "better".  They have that bias in their own games, but then they try to extend it to players with different limits.  If you're used to thinking that 280 carry is a good shot that should be rewarded over 270, your courses are going to be very penal for guys who can only carry it 260, and irrelevant for the ones who carry it 300+.

[David Ober]

Those of us who are not great players -- I was a 5 at my best, nowhere close to that now -- are used to hearing great players diminish our work because they think we can't understand their perspective.


Of course that's rubbish, and probably most of them know it's rubbish.  It's just a way to sell themselves and their opinion as being more valuable than ours.


Hitting golf shots and designing golf courses are two different things.  You don't have to hit the shots -- you just have to understand what you're asking players to do.


The hardest thing for most great golfers is to understand that a drive ten yards farther is not necessarily "better".  They have that bias in their own games, but then they try to extend it to players with different limits.  If you're used to thinking that 280 carry is a good shot that should be rewarded over 270, your courses are going to be very penal for guys who can only carry it 260, and irrelevant for the ones who carry it 300+.

Tom,


A large percentage of competitive players, be they professionals or amateurs, love "difficult" golf courses. This has been discussed here ad nauseam, of course. But why? Because the separation between their talent and the talent of the mid-capper is magnified on difficult courses. They simply hate shooting 71 on an "easy," "playable" track and getting waxed by the 8-capper who shoots 75 that day!


Those kinds of things happen all the time on easier, more open, and even more "interesting," "better designed" golf courses. They rarely happen on truly difficult golf courses with high slopes -- especially if conditions are tough and almost never when greens are firm.


 "Great" players love the challenge of hitting shots that they know "other" players are simply not capable of hitting. They lick their chops at those opportunities because it gives them a chance to show you just how good they are! Perfect example is at my old home course, a truly difficult -- and nigh unplayable for the 20-capper (especially in the fall and spring when the greens are 12 - 13 and firm) -- early, Nicklaus design.


There are several holes there that -- during the months when the greens are firm -- are just beastly for virtually all mid-cappers (especially older ones with limited clubhead speed). They simply lack the ability to execute the shots necessary to even come close to holding certain greens with certain pins from, say, 175ish ... or even as close as 125 on certain holes. The mid-capper plays the 6,410, 71.9/138(!)) tees, hits a driver to 175, and are then asked to hit a shot that they literally can't hit. And there's nowhere to miss!


The pro plays the 7,190, 75.9/149 tees, hits a 2-hybrid to the same place the 12-capper hits driver, and then lofts a gorgeous 8-iron that lands near the pin, skips past (the greens are very firm) and then puts on the brakes to leave him a 15-footer. The 12-capper, meanwhile landed on the green, skipped long into rough, hits his pitch a bit firmly and rolls back down into the (super deep) front bunker (nice snowman, buddy!)



All as the +3 congratulates himself for his excellent shot: "Now THIS is a golf course!"


That said, there is something fantastically rewarding about pulling off those types of shots when you are a handicap player. Being able to stop a 175 yard shot downwind to a very firm, elevated green with a green that pitches away at the front, is very, very gratifying for anyone. It's just that it's a 1 in 20 shot for the mid-capper, and it's a 50/50 proposition for the +3.


I've been as low as a +3/+4 in my 30's and 40's, and can still get it around as a 0 to +1 in my 50's (when my back cooperates), and I can tell you that I do love extremely difficult golf courses (as long as they aren't toooo long!), and even ones that are one-dimensionally difficult (lots of forced carries, etc.). But I now much, much prefer playable gems like Rustic Canyon and Soule Park to more penal designs.


Tom, I've yet to play any of your gems, but I am heading up to Bandon on Wednesday. Will play all 5 courses in better-ball competition with my son. My back is worse than it's ever been, and I'm only able to take 1/2 swings, if I can swing at all, but I hope to bunt it along and manage. Hoping to shoot in the high 70's from the green tees, wind permitting. Will definitely report back!

[Tom_Doak]

David:  my challenge to a good player is the opposite approach - if you're so good, show me by beating a higher handicapper on a course where separating yourself is hard to do, instead of depending on the golf course to beat him for you.


Which is not to say I don't throw some really tough shots at you, too.  You'll find a bunch of those at Pacific Dunes.


I know I've won the battle when a player complains that the course is too easy and that certain shots are unfair.  To me, that's balance as described by a frustrated golfer.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm enjoying the turn this discussion just took.

I don't play against people much these days, but if my game is off a little bit I can tell much more easily on the "easy" courses. On the "difficult" courses it's tough to say whether I missed the shot a little, or whether the difficulty just got me. On the "easy" course it's obvious that I missed the shot.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Like Tom Doak, I was only a single digit handicapper for a short time (Thank you, Dave Pelz 1 day Short Game School)


I think I got my knowledge of how to design for average players from my mentors.  Knowing what they didn't know, from their (and then my, since they wouldn't listen) time with Jim Colbert about how good players played and felt, I often worked with pros and tried to really understand their perspective, eventually adopting most of it.  And, I was fortunate to team with those with average talent (for that level player) who really did believe they had to think their way around to be competitive with the Nicklaus, Norman, and other bombers of the world.


The funny thing is, many design features can be arranged to proportionally affect top players more.  The biggest is using lateral bunkering (because pros miss wide, but not short) rather than frontal green or carry tee shot bunkering (because average players miss short a lot, but only about 25% in width more than top players, according to the USGA Slope study, but which Colbert and other pros seemed to have understood almost implicitly).  While we lament the infrequent use of carry bunkers off the tee, in fact, there was a really legit design reason to do so.


I may have learned more from Jim Colbert's old partner, Ron Fogler, who really ran clubs in maintenance and other items.  Besides teaching me what was really hard to maintain, one comment of his really stuck with me.  I was then 35, and he was in his 60's.  I had built an elevated tee on flat ground for a better view, including a fairly steep climb.  He commented, "I wish I could be around when you are my age to see if you don't lower those tees several feet because your knees are sore from walking up that slope."

In reality, the gca has to balance more than good player vs. average ones.  He has to balance maintenance, age groups, wider golfer types (i.e., the current forward tee movement) and even the environment, safety, public perception, water use, etc. etc. etc.

I am sure no one can argue that my combination of training and experience hits the absolute sweet spot for architectural perspective, right?

[David Ober]

I am sure no one can argue that my combination of training and experience hits the absolute sweet spot for architectural perspective, right?

How could one possibly take issue with such an airtight presumption??? 

[David Ober]

David:  my challenge to a good player is the opposite approach - if you're so good, show me by beating a higher handicapper on a course where separating yourself is hard to do, instead of depending on the golf course to beat him for you.


Which is not to say I don't throw some really tough shots at you, too.  You'll find a bunch of those at Pacific Dunes.


I know I've won the battle when a player complains that the course is too easy and that certain shots are unfair.  To me, that's balance as described by a frustrated golfer.

And I happen to agree with you, wholeheartedly, Tom. Much, much more fun and interesting to have to actually play golf, execute, and make a few putts of consequence(!) than to sit back and watch while the golf course destroys your opponent for you.