GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group

shot-making, strategy, course management

<< < (2/3) > >>

Thomas Dai:
I have often wondered if you took a low hcp player with canny course management skills and made him or her play the game anew from the opposite side, ie as a RH or as LH, to what extent their experience and canny course management would allow them to shoot lower scores than a ball skills talented genuine left or right hander who’d only just picked up the game but who’s inexperience of the game gives little or no course management experience.
Speculation time and there will likely be gifted exceptions but I would suggest that in general there’s no substitute for canny course management.
Atb

Charlie Goerges:

--- Quote from: Tommy Williamsen on January 22, 2025, 01:40:28 PM ---But it generally doesn’t make a difference to how he plays the hole.

--- End quote ---


I don't think this above statement is true Tommy. I think the way the architecture affects him is different from how it affects you. If the architecture is good, those different ways can often give him as much to think about as you have to think about. This is vastly oversimplifying it, but I've noticed it with my dad and myself (we have a similar skill dynamic as you and your friend). For me, the farther I am from the hole, the more I care about direction and the closer I get, the more I care about distance (In other words, my driver gets up in the air and is reasonably solid, so I want to end up in the fairway; my shorter irons are pretty straight, but I need to chose the right one in order to end up on, or near, the green). For my dad, the farther he is from the hole, the more he cares about distance (because it is not a given) and the closer he gets, the more he cares about direction (because it, too, is not a given). If the design can play with that dynamic a bit in clever ways, I think you can end up with a course that is fun and engaging for multiple levels of player.

Peter Sayegh:

--- Quote from: Tommy Williamsen on January 22, 2025, 01:40:28 PM ---If you were to put a percentage on shot-making, strategy, and course management, what would it be for yourself?

--- End quote ---
Not sure if this is what you are asking, but personally:

On any tee, I'm 100% confident in my strategy.

ward peyronnin:
Tommy

I can think of two relevant comments.
First is we all have a better chance to hit a decent shot when we have a discreet target at which to aim. In college I became a much better frisbee golfer when I realized I needed to develop a target for each shot not thrown toward the actual hole( which were trees, statues, lightpoles, etc.) I treid to imagine i was throwing at an imaginary person as if we were playing pitch with our frisbees. Lines of play are not it; producing a target from them is. Throwing a bsaeball at a mitt or shooting an arrow at a bullseye are other examples.
Secondly, as some have alluded, presenting a line of play at least informs where to play for a better chance at  the best miss for a less skilled player. So I do not see your premise as reason to ignore architecture. 

Jim Sherma:
I have had between a 3 and 7 index since 1980 with most of that time spent in the 4.0-5.9 range. I consider myself a fairly good ball striker but I can honestly say that I have had very few stretches where I really glimpsed good enough golf to really engage with the architecture as I imaging the top players do.


At my peak I've achieved the ability to control the spin, curve, trajectory and distance at a level necessary to meaningfully hit to fairly specific targets with the ball moving in a chosen way and having either more or less spin to control the first and second bounces. This allowed me to play off of slopes to move the ball left /right towards pins and also meaningfully use backstops. During these stretches I get really focused on the architecture and can understand the process of working my way backwards to develop meaningful strategy off the tee. Most of my under par rounds have been during these stretches.


The first step down, still good but not resulting in the same level of interaction with the architecture, is where I make very few mistakes and hit a lot of fairways and greens. However I do not have the same level of confidence and control as above. Broke par a couple of times during these stretches, but generally end up consistently at the better end of my scoring spectrum without the really good rounds. The interface with the architecture is more macro and focuses more on avoiding big numbers while grinding out a lot of pars. Focus is on bunkers/hazards/ob/greens/fairways and not really on internal slopes unless they are very obvious.


The majority of my golf is played while simply trying to maintain good contact and consistency and basically just trying to stay out of big trouble while hitting some fairways and greens. The architectural interface is very general and even more macro given the greater dispersion of outcomes. It's not that I don't care about the architecture, it's just that the micro aspects of it don't mean much. Therefore, I end up not having much interest or exerting much energy considering them. The scoring distribution during these stretches is a function of whether my bad swings cost me a half stroke or stroke and distance based on where they come in the round and what trouble they end up in.


I always think about the architecture as an academic and aesthetic exercise. This post relates to how I'm interacting with it as a player as I cycle through my game's cycles.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page