[mike_malone]

As the years pass and I play at least one great course a year and many between great and poor my architectural eye has changed.


 The main thing is that I try to find the uniqueness in each course and how that can be a source of joy.


 I still critique courses based on my fundamental value of preferring strategy over punishment but appreciate that each course may have a different goal.


I don’t believe that all courses are worth a walk but I try to focus less on the architecture when I can just enjoy the contest or fellowship.


I believe that the main change is to try to see new things on the courses that I play more than once a year. To look back or across holes for different perspectives.


Since my golf is indifferent the maturity of my architectural perceptions makes walking a golf course a great educational experience.

[Tim Martin]

It’s a demarcation point along the journey for most architecture fans that great conditioning does not necessarily equate to great design.

[jeffwarne]

It’s a demarcation point along the journey for most architecture fans that great conditioning does not necessarily equate to great design.

The real demarcation line is when ones changes their definition of great conditioning.

[Rob Marshall]

Isn't it hard to decipher how a great course is on one play? Especially when you are focused on your game? Just walking the course I can see it but I'm always trying to score and I'm sure I miss more than half of what I should be appreciating....

[Tom_Doak]

Isn't it hard to decipher how a great course is on one play? Especially when you are focused on your game? Just walking the course I can see it but I'm always trying to score and I'm sure I miss more than half of what I should be appreciating....

That's because you care more about your score than you do about the architecture.  Which is fine.  But some people are the opposite.

[mike_malone]

Isn't it hard to decipher how a great course is on one play? Especially when you are focused on your game? Just walking the course I can see it but I'm always trying to score and I'm sure I miss more than half of what I should be appreciating....

This is why lousy golfers can experience the architecture better.

[Tom_Doak]

It’s a demarcation point along the journey for most architecture fans that great conditioning does not necessarily equate to great design.

The real demarcation line is when ones changes their definition of great conditioning.

I guess the advantage of having played golf for 50 years is that I got used to "playable" conditions long ago when that's all most courses had on offer, and I never really cared about more than that.

[Tom_Doak]

Isn't it hard to decipher how a great course is on one play? Especially when you are focused on your game? Just walking the course I can see it but I'm always trying to score and I'm sure I miss more than half of what I should be appreciating....

This is why lousy golfers can experience the architecture better.

Ooof . . . that hit a little too close to home 

[jeffwarne]

It’s a demarcation point along the journey for most architecture fans that great conditioning does not necessarily equate to great design.

The real demarcation line is when ones changes their definition of great conditioning.

I guess the advantage of having played golf for 50 years is that I got used to "playable" conditions long ago when that's all most courses had on offer, and I never really cared about more than that.

I think a lot of the charm AND (perhaps) the skill of golf has been lost when the biggest variables are barometric pressure(if you're Bryson) wind and elevation, that one believes can be simulated by a rangefinder with slope and a trackman set on different settings.


Reading a bare cuppy lie, a side hilll lie, judging a flier, all are part of the skill of striking a golf ball.
I detest the sterility of thinking all skills can be learned, processed and experienced on a mat.
Seeing people roll their ball over out of habit in a perfect(or even an imperfect) fairway makes me vomit in my mouth.


Which is why "improved" conditioning of ever tighter/faster fairways is the opposite of improvement to me, as the ball simply won't stay on a slope of any significant challenge, and a higher handicap has zero chance of striking the center of the club, while the better player thrives on the reduced variability he has to factor in.

[Jake McCarty]

Isn't it hard to decipher how a great course is on one play? Especially when you are focused on your game? Just walking the course I can see it but I'm always trying to score and I'm sure I miss more than half of what I should be appreciating....

That's because you care more about your score than you do about the architecture.  Which is fine.  But some people are the opposite.

Turns out that one of my favorite courses of yours--and I've played most of the "big" ones--has lousy conditioning yet it's one of my favorites.

[Rob Marshall]

Isn't it hard to decipher how a great course is on one play? Especially when you are focused on your game? Just walking the course I can see it but I'm always trying to score and I'm sure I miss more than half of what I should be appreciating....

That's because you care more about your score than you do about the architecture.  Which is fine.  But some people are the opposite.

Agreed, which is why I think I would get more out of walking the course than from an architectural standpoint.


As Pat Mucci pointed out, I was an idiot for not noticing the bunker front left on 5 of the blue from the 4th fairway. I told him I was more focused on the second shot up the hill on 4 than trying to figure out the trouble on the 5th. Hence, I was an "idiot".

[Matt Schoolfield]

Isn't it hard to decipher how a great course is on one play? Especially when you are focused on your game? Just walking the course I can see it but I'm always trying to score and I'm sure I miss more than half of what I should be appreciating....

I too have and extremely hard time fully appreciating a course the first few times I play it. First impressions seem to be a combination of conditioning (often lipstick on a pig) and how bad the course kicked my ass (often because I lost the plot). Still, I think my biggest issue is that it's easy for me to see the problems with the course, but it's much harder for me to sus out the virtues.

Like the second time through of a novel or film, you see the foreshadowing and themes more clearly. Playing with a local/member/caddie has really helped me understand courses sooner.

E.g. #14 at Lincoln Park GC: I thought it was entirely badly designed until I saw a member play the hole in entirely backwards: mid-iron off the tee, playing away from the green and lengthening the hole... completely counter-intuitive until you see it done. My respect for the much derided "Stinkin' Lincoln" has grown significantly because the strategies on many holes are so subtle, it took me a dozen playthroughs to see them. It's not a good course, but it has a few architectural gems.

When I think of the ideal/template holes from my life, many are based on the quirks I find on a course I initially don't like.

[Bruce Katona]

The first time playing a new place can be a challenge - knowing where to attempt to miss, where not to be etc.  I'll always come away with a least one "What the heck is that (insert your choice) bunker/tree/pond/pinch point doing here?"  A second go round helps to understand what & why obstacles are placed where they are; mostly.


The appreciation of a hole/holes/a 9 hole routing, etc. are part of the fun in experiencing a new venue.  Sometimes the aesthetic site line takes away from how the hole is designed and balanced, sometimes not.  Since my game is/and has never been bomb & gauge play; I get the opportunity to see each room/space a designer (provided I hit the ball where its supposed to go) installs on each hole and see if it tickles my fancy or if I missed something.


Remember individual golf holes are rooms with smaller rooms inside them for the GCA to let you know what you're supposed to see and feel, if you've played point to point golf.


Just BK's $0.02.

[Jim Hoak]

A related topic would be how ability affects perception.  Being better at golf changes how you see a course and appreciate its architecture.  The features do not loom as much, I bet.  The routing chosen may be different.  Etc.

[Rob Marshall]

A related topic would be how ability affects perception.  Being better at golf changes how you see a course and appreciate its architecture.  The features do not loom as much, I bet.  The routing chosen may be different.  Etc.

Better or longer. At 61 I'm still a pretty good player but I play against guys hitting it 50+ yards longer than me when we play the same tees. They are playing a different course than I am. The bunkers seem to be in my wheel house and they don't even notice they are there.

[John Kavanaugh]

Ugly people are better in bed if that’s all that will date you. The myth that bad golfers understand architecture was created by a bad golfer.

[Tom_Doak]

Ugly people are better in bed if that’s all that will date you. The myth that bad golfers understand architecture was created by a bad golfer.

SOME bad golfers understand architecture.  Most do not, just like most good golfers do not.


Understanding golf architecture can, however, be of more use to bad golfers than to good golfers.  The good golfers can go over a lot of the obstacles and make them moot.  The bad golfer can't go over them, so it helps him to understand how to approach them.  Whether he can successfully execute on his strategy, though, is an open question.

[Thomas Dai]

Understanding golf architecture can, however, be of more use to bad golfers than to good golfers.  The good golfers can go over a lot of the obstacles and make them moot.  The bad golfer can't go over them, so it helps him to understand how to approach them.  Whether he can successfully execute on his strategy, though, is an open question.

For bad golfer add young, old and infirm players who are also players who frequently can’t go over obstacles and for whom some architectural nous therefore helps.
Atb

[mike_malone]

Isn't it hard to decipher how a great course is on one play? Especially when you are focused on your game? Just walking the course I can see it but I'm always trying to score and I'm sure I miss more than half of what I should be appreciating....

This is why lousy golfers can experience the architecture better.

Ooof . . . that hit a little too close to home 

Tom,
I wrote that before seeing your post

[mike_malone]

I meant your experience over years playing many courses not really playing a course multiple times.


  I always have observed how trees affect architecture but now pay more attention to bunker placement then before.

[Charlie Goerges]

Mayday's original question is totally worthwhile about personal evolution over time. But I thought the idea that skill level had anything to do with architectural understanding or ability had been long laid to rest. It clearly doesn't matter how good a player you are. If you're observant and interested, your knowledge can grow and be useful. If golfing ability is what mattered, Johnny Miller's architectural accomplishments should be far superior to Dr. Mack's. (or if being bad was important, I know some dudes who should be far outpacing Mack as well.)

[Matt Schoolfield]

I always have observed how trees affect architecture but now pay more attention to bunker placement then before.

What I've gained the most through experience is "seeing" wind. The way wind can open up some shot shapes and makes them flutter and fall, or knocks down other shapes, is so interesting to me. It can make an apparently simple par 3 become a complex balancing act.

I know I probably sound like a broken record on liking to talk about liking wind, but I do 😅

[Ira Fishman]

Not to be too much of a contrarian, but I do not think that it is all that difficult to recognize good architecture. Indeed, I doubt that there is much divergence on here a about the top 1% or even top 100 courses. It may take an artist to build one, but not to recognize one.


But as Peter Pallotta said so often, the answer to every question is TOC. And for me, it was is a mystery wrapped an egnima on one play which for me is evidence that Peter is correct and my first paragraph is wrong.


Ira

[Sean_A]

Not to be too much of a contrarian, but I do not think that it is all that difficult to recognize good architecture. Indeed, I doubt that there is much divergence on here a about the top 1% or even top 100 courses. It may take an artist to build one, but not to recognize one.


But as Peter Pallotta said so often, the answer to every question is TOC. And for me, it was is a mystery wrapped an egnima on one play which for me is evidence that Peter is correct and my first paragraph is wrong.

Ira

Pietro nicked that TOC line from someone who nicked it from someone else and on and on. I first heard that 30 years ago or more 😎.

I started paying much more attention to architecture when my daughter was born 25 years ago. I knew then that practice wasn't going to happen so my game would suck. It has proven to be the case 😎. After seeing architecture through my what should be the case eyes for many years I started to pay more attention to what's in the ground. I soon realize that many courses don't use good features well and/or don't build in good features for variety. Simple old school concepts like one greenside bunker on the flank where the green runs away were not often employed. Things have changed in the past few decades though. Better stuff is being built. Of that I am positive.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

“I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” ........ Winston Churchill, 1939.
[/size]atb[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()