[Padraig Dooley]

Isn't this the biggest misinterpretation in golf?

How many think the goal of golf is to hit the ball, and to hit the ball well as opposed to the actual goal which is to get the ball from point A to point B in the least number of shots?

The golfer who thinks golf is about hitting the ball will find fault with any situation where the ball is hit well but doesn't end up in an ideal location, such as a divot in the fairway, a centreline bunker, an awkward stance etc and also look for proportionality, as in if the golfer doesn't hit the ball well they should be punished and if the golfer hits it close to the hole the putt should be flat and easy.

The golfer who sees the game as it is, which is to get the ball from the tee to the hole in the least number of shots, will see hazards, no matter where they are and what they are, as obstacles to be avoided and unexpected lies and stances as obstacles to overcome and are more interested in function over form.

Are most golfers in the first group? Are most posters here in the second group? Are most architects in the second group and one of the big tasks they have is to get golfers to realise they should be in the second group?

[Thomas Dai]

Cracking question Padraig.
An old conundrum, how does a player who doesn’t swing the club in orthodox fashion nor even seem to make quality contact with the ball still shoot good scores whereas a player who has textbook technique and is thought of as a good ball striker shoots higher scores? There are other aspects of course like short game and putting skills and the use of the 5.5” between the ears but it usually seems to be the full swing that players, both amateurs and pros, are judged on.
How or how many?
Atb

[Anthony Gray]

 
My goal is to escape life for five hours. But this is an outstanding question. Hitting the sweet spot is one of the little joys of life. I’ve often said “that felt great, I don’t care where it goes”. But I guess the ultimate goal is score. I’ve golfed with many players that after the round had posted some great scores but did nothing remarkable or memorable throughout the round.


 

[Tim Martin]

The player less consumed by score is usually more accepting of the “rub of the green” and more likely to fall in the second group. The player that always feels the need to announce that they caught a bad lie or bad break more likely falls in the first group. To witness an unconventional style along with an acceptance of “play the ball as it lies” is always a pleasure.

[Peter Pallotta]

Padraig,
Yes.
But the trouble is, when we say to Group 1 golfers "Don't play 'target golf', it's like being on a driving range", they can say back to us, "You play 'target golf' too, just to different targets, which you miss by wider margins".

[Tom_Doak]

Padraig:


When I worked for Pete Dye, he had to place a cart path on the 18th hole at the TPC of Connecticut.  If he put it out of play for the Tour players, every member would have to walk a long way down a hill to play their second shot, and back up to their cart afterward.  If he made the path convenient for members, there was a chance players would hit it.  Mr. Dye decided it was too tough a walk for the members, so he put the path where it should be for them, and said he'd take the blame.


He said to me, "If I were a Tour pro, and hitting that path with my drive might give me a bad bounce and cost me $25,000, I would treat that path like it was a hazard and be sure I didn't hit it.  But today's players will just hit away and if they hit the path, they'll blame me for it."

[Philippe Binette]

I remember reading jack nicklaus book where he was explaining the key shots of his 18 major championship...
Great book but the best thing was that most of his key shots were "ugly" but efficient shot...
Often, it was his famous 1-iron in a strategy like this : I (jack) had to hit that fairway, so i took my 1-iron put it back in my stance a little and I knew it would produce a low cut that would go 212 yards in the air... and roll a little...
It was a no miss shot

[Rick Sides]

I have found in my years of playing that you need to figure out strengths and weaknesses.  I heard a recent story about Jack N saying if I can't pull that shot off 80% of the time, I'm not hitting it.  I have found that pulling a driver out on almost every par 4 or par 5 does not make sense all the time.  Golf  is like chess, a thinking mans game!

[SL_Solow]

A very interesting post.  I come at it from a slightly different perspective.  I agree that one can become overly concerned about scoring.  I also agree that one can be overly concerned about how they hit the ball and are overly troubled when a good strike or swing does not get a corresponding good result.  But if the objective of the game is to start on the tee and get the ball into the hole in the least amount of strokes, then ignoring the score subverts the underlying premise of the game.  This is true whether one is only interested in "experiencing" the course or in hitting the ball.  One can experience the course by taking a walk.  Hitting the ball can be measured on the driving range.  Thus getting the ball from A to B is the essence of golf.  How does this impact architecture?  The architect is tasked with the job of utilizing the land to create interesting and fun challenges for the player as he/she attempts to get the ball from A to B.  In so doing the architect should try to use natural beauty to enhance the experience and should try to create a variety of challenges.  But fundamentally, the objective of the game cannot be ignored.  It may be impacted if the preferred form of the game is match or stroke play but that is a nuance. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Good post, Shel.
It reminded me of the quote Michael W uses as his tagline that suggests gca is all about 'solving the riddle/paradox of proportionality'.  But to borrow from your post, what I think gca may really be about is allowing, in a charming and challenging way, all golfers to get their ball from point A to point B -- while at the same time not subverting the underlying premise of the game.
Mission accomplished and you have a 10. Mission not accomplished and you have either a slog or a pandering -- the latter often being rated/ranked quite high upon opening but then sinking down the lists as the years pass.

[Tommy Williamsen]

For most of my life hitting the well and scoring went hand in hand. It isn't true anymore. I don't hit the ball as well as I used to. Now I have to figure out how to get the ball in the hole. I don't hit high majestic shots. I have to use the ground more and the slope on the greens make more of a difference. I played a match with a friend this summer. We hadn't seen each other in many years. After the game finished he added up my score. It was 77. I said, "It didn't look like 77 did it?" "Nope it sure didn't."


I don't care how I get it in the hole. IO just have to get it there. Hitting the ball well though is great fun.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()