News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


DMoriarty

Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« on: December 15, 2003, 04:41:02 PM »
An overbroad generalization of course, but most of the serious golfers I know could be described as either Homebodies or as Galavanting Golfers.  

Homebodies are perfectly comfortable playing most their golf at a single course or at a couple of courses.  They like the familiarity.  They enjoy peeling the onion, exposing layer after layer of intricacy.  They dont understand the appeal of the next great course.  

Galavanting Golfers prefer to play a variety of courses.  They get out there and see what there is to see;  finding hidden gems; discovering the next great thing . . .

Generally, do Galavanting Golfers' tastes in golf architecture differ from the Homebodies?  How so?

Are you a galavanting golfer or a homebody? How can you tell?  






DMoriarty

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2003, 04:42:58 PM »
A related quiz

Choose one of the following:

A.  One round each at ten different world class (and normally inaccessible) courses.

B.  Ten rounds at one world class (and normally inaccessible) course.  

« Last Edit: December 15, 2003, 04:45:05 PM by DMoriarty »

THuckaby2

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2003, 04:51:06 PM »
Great topic, David.  I'd agree that most golfers are one of the other at least for the most part.  It's a rare homebody who has time for galavanting, and it's a rare galavanter who has time for being a homebody also.  Oh, most golfers do have something that they call a home course, even the galavanters... But it's usually just a place to keep their handicap, or play tournaments, if competitive golf is their thing.  What gets the gallavanter jazzed about playing a course repeatedly will be the people or the events more than the course... the Homebody does get jazzed by peeling back the onion layers, as you say.

Will their tastes in golf architecture differ?  Probably.  The galavanter necessarily will be exposed to more and different styles, and so his tastes would have to be more broad.  The homebody likely finds one style he likes and sticks with it.  He'll know everything there is to know about that style, and become an expert on it, likely coming to think it is the best, and maybe even ONLY style that matters.

The galavanter will think he's nuts and is missing a lot of the golf world, whether it's inferior or not.

The homebody might think the gallavanter is nuts, missing the nuances required to really "see" a course in his zeal to see more and different ones...

Neither way will be right or wrong, but it will be difficult for the two types to have fruitful discussions about the general topic, unless they are very open to learning.

How can one tell which side he falls on?  Just examine the venue for your last 20 rounds.  That ought to be enough to tell.  If not, consider which rounds you get excited for, which you beg for, which you forsake other duties for.  You'll know.

Since you asked, my last 20 rounds have been at 17 different courses, I think.  I guess that shows were I fall...  ;)

TH
« Last Edit: December 15, 2003, 04:51:45 PM by Tom Huckaby »

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2003, 05:14:01 PM »
I am a galavanter. It is tough but I would take ten different over one ten times. In a perfect world I would like 5 two times lol. I really need to see a course 2 to 4 times to really start understanding it.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2003, 05:24:51 PM »
DMoriarty,

How does a homebody develop a sense of relativity regarding golf courses and architecture ?

DMoriarty

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2003, 05:42:57 PM »
DMoriarty,

How does a homebody develop a sense of relativity regarding golf courses and architecture ?

It would be pretty dificult to develop a sense of relativity about golf courses if one were to play one course and one course only;  given that relativity necessarily depends upon exposure to another.

But if the course was interesting, the conditions changing, the options many, and the golfer adventursome, it would be quite possible to develop a sense of relativity regarding golf course architecture, or at least to the interraction between the design, nature, and the player.  

A question for you, Patrick:   Who is likely to have a keener understanding of golf course architecture:  the golfer who has played all of his thousands of rounds at either TOC or NGLA, or the golfer who has played all his thousands of rounds at thousands of inferior courses?

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2003, 05:56:06 PM »
why is this an either/or proposition?

Because you are either pregnant or not ...   ;)
"... and I liked the guy ..."

DMoriarty

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2003, 05:56:07 PM »
Shivas,

I agree that there are many different types of homebodies, and galavanters as well.  I should have constrained the categories to those seriously concerned with cga . . .

If you are really only a galavanter because you have not yet found a compelling home, then I wouldnt consider you a galavanter at all, but rather a sad, lost subset of the Homebodies.  

Pre-RC I played a lot of courses for the same reason you describe but would never have considered myself a galavanter.  I knew I wanted a home, but just couldnt find it.  It drove me crazy that I couldnt find a place to stay-- so much so that if it handnt been for RC, I might not still be playing.  Perhaps one reason I am such a homebody now is that I dont miss those days at all.  

But lets see where we can place you-- when you go on vacation, where do you play?  To give you some indication of a homebody's playing schedule . . . I have played around 15 rounds on Maui.  If I recall correctly, 13 have been at the same course.  

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2003, 06:12:19 PM »
Good point David.  I'm a combination; I like to see new courses, but I don't get a lot out of knocking over bowling pins.  When I was in Canada, we played only Banff and Jasper (3 times each), not only because I was basically told those were the 2 courses to see (a couple we played with thought Kananaskis far superior to Banff), but really because I didn't think I'd learn much from one playing.  Same thing at Pinehurst, and other places.  I only just joined a club, so my local rounds are mostly there because 1. I'm learning the courses; and 2. I get a great rush whenever I reach of 1st tee, and couldn't think of a place I'd rather play.  Maybe next year I'll explore a bit (the pro said he could get me access to some worthwhile places out of town).

Jeff Goldman
That was one hellacious beaver.

DMoriarty

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2003, 06:13:40 PM »
Tom,  as I said to Shivas, I should have held variables other than serious interest in gca constant.  



Will their tastes in golf architecture differ?  Probably.  The galavanter necessarily will be exposed to more and different styles, and so his tastes would have to be more broad.  The homebody likely finds one style he likes and sticks with it.  He'll know everything there is to know about that style, and become an expert on it, likely coming to think it is the best, and maybe even ONLY style that matters.

The galavanter will think he's nuts and is missing a lot of the golf world, whether it's inferior or not.

The homebody might think the gallavanter is nuts, missing the nuances required to really "see" a course in his zeal to see more and different ones...

Neither way will be right or wrong, but it will be difficult for the two types to have fruitful discussions about the general topic, unless they are very open to learning.

Tom is there any way you can be more specific?  For example, I agree that the homebody likely has one style he likes, but is there anything more specific you can say about what that style may be?  Are there some styles which the homebody might gravitate toward?  Are there some which the galavanter might gravitate toward?

As for the rest, reads like PC mumbo jumbo to me.  Why should the homebody care if his misses the adventure of seeing a bunch of "inferior" courses.   How are you so sure that neither one will be right or wrong?   Why would it be difficult for the two sides to communicate?

DMoriarty

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2003, 06:21:14 PM »
why is this an either/or proposition?

While I'd like to agree with Mike, it probably isnt an either / or proposition.  (See Jeff Goldman's thoughtful post; although I'd say he has definite homebody tendencies.)

 As I said to open, this is an [over]generalization.  It is probably most likely a continuum with people falling all over.  But dont we get a better idea of the concept of a teeter-totter by focusing on what goes on at the ends, rather than at the fulcrum?

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2003, 06:31:17 PM »
Proving once again that opposites attract, I'd say I'm more of a homebody as well.

If I had to choose, I say 3 courses, 3x each + a fourth at one of the above. Even a second play yields a lot more about a course for me. Black Mesa left a much happier impression on me after the second round.

It probably depends somewhat on the course, too, though. 10 rounds at Bethpage would probably result in me either selling my clubs or needing surgery for torn wrist ligaments.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2003, 06:33:46 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

DMoriarty

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2003, 06:31:54 PM »
Shivas, the vacation issue was just a vehicle for you to figure out where you stand.   Again, remember that my generalizations are assuming that we are correcting for almost everything but an interest in gca.  

Quote
I can't imagine playing the same course exclusively for the rest of my life, not even NGLA or CPC.   I'd feel like I'd missed out on a whole lot.  

I might aggree if you changed this to my whole life, as opposed to the rest of my life.  But as written I'd quite happily play every remaining round at either of these courses (provided that I could play them as much as I wanted . . . )

Quote
Isn't the presumtion behind your homebody status that  it takes a lifetime of play to fully understand and "get" a great course -- that the onion will never be fully peeled back?  It may take more than a few rounds, but I think that it's a little extreme to think that it takes a lifetime.

You said lifetime, I didnt.  I try not to speculate on "a lifetime" as ny lifetime is a work in progress and I will never be able to contemplate the final product (at least not in the form I am in now.)

I will say that there are courses out there that I certainly dont yet fully get in my lifetime, so far.   I have played some of these courses only once or a few times, some I have played many times.  

DMoriarty

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2003, 06:33:18 PM »
Proving once again that opposites attract, I'd say I'm more of a homebody as well.

If I had to choose, I say 3 courses, 3x each + a fourth at one of the above. Even a second play yields a lot more about a course for me.

You people have got to learn to stick to the hypothetical.  If you want to answer your own hypothetical then start your own damn thread!!!?!

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2003, 06:36:13 PM »
 8)

Its really just two modes of the same gca interest, G-H or H-G.. one must dominate at any given time.  Takes a proper form of play to succeed at either, whether home or away.

We have multiple home courses, so we just play all the tees and also mix them up over the year..  Then we "play out" at least once a month to experience something different and test our gca acuity and concepts.

I think this makes us G types..    
« Last Edit: December 15, 2003, 06:36:33 PM by Steve Lang »
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2003, 06:38:50 PM »
Since 3 hours will leave me at home watching MNF, I'll get my riposte in now:

If forced to confine myself to the hypothetical, I'd probably go for 10 rounds at one of the following wishplays: NGLA, PV, Oakmont, Cypress, Dornoch, County Down, RM, and TOC.

Choosing among others, I'd be more likely to go 10 courses, 1 play each.

If I was not privy to the selections, I'd probably go 10 courses in hopes that I'd get at least a few of the wishplays listed above.

P.S. I've never been much for following rules posted by Dave M....
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

DPL11

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2003, 06:44:06 PM »
I'm both.

I belong to 2 clubs (one is 3 minutes from home and the other is 30), but I play away more than either home track combined.

Doug

Evan Fleisher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2003, 10:57:24 PM »
I think it is quiter easy to be both...definitely not an either/or proposition.

I live in a fairly small town, not near any real major city centers and are therefore limited in the quantity and quality of golf available.  That being said, I chose to join a small club here in town when we moved five years ago to afford me the opportunity to play (as much as I wanted) on one of the nicest course in the immediate area.  My reasoning was that I wanted both easy access to a nice course AND the convenience of not spending too much time away from my young and growing family...this "homebody" mode has served me well.

That being said...I absolutely LOVE the thrill of playing someplace new, and very rarely worry about the ultimate outsome on the scorecard relative to my "home course" advantage.  I enjoy the challenge of figuring out a new course, observing it's beauty and uniqueness, and exepreincing everyting it has to offer the golfer.

This leads me to believe that it is fairly easy to be "both" in my case...a true love of my home course and the joys of playing there on a regular basis, coupled with the thrill of travel and the opportunities to experience new venues whenever possible.
Born Rochester, MN. Grew up Miami, FL. Live Cleveland, OH. Handicap 13.2. Have 26 & 23 year old girls and wife of 29 years. I'm a Senior Supply Chain Business Analyst for Vitamix. Diehard walker, but tolerate cart riders! Love to travel, always have my sticks with me. Mollydooker for life!

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2003, 11:26:58 PM »
I'm mostly a homebody, with occasional weeks of gallavanting.  But mostly because I'm lazy, as opposed to being cheap, "peeling" or a CC member.  Funny that other than when travelling, the time I did the most gallavanting was with a former girlfriend who really liked to golf.  She was getting her PhD in chemistry so she was really busy, but we'd find time on the weekends to randomly choose some course we'd never heard of in a small town we'd never heard of (but only choosing courses with at least 2 1/2 stars in "Golf Courses of Iowa", a tome I'm sure sits proudly on every GCA readers bookshelf 8))  We actually found a few pretty nifty ones, but had a great time even when the course left something to be desired in terms of interest or challenge.

I'd definitely take the 10 great courses once thing (and do this on my trips to Scotland) over the 1 great course 10 times.  But it would be interesting to go play TOC 10 days in a row say, I'm sure I'd learn more about it than I'd ever learn by playing it once every few years I'm in the neighborhood.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #19 on: December 16, 2003, 07:25:00 AM »
 
A question for you, Patrick:   Who is likely to have a keener understanding of golf course architecture:  the golfer who has played all of his thousands of rounds at either TOC or NGLA, or the golfer who has played all his thousands of rounds at thousands of inferior courses?

Dave, you've predisposed the answer by inserting a qualifying phrase, "INFERIOR", and holding up two of the greatest golf courses in the world as the proving ground for your imaginary golfer.

Reverse your question, and have that same golfer playing thousands of rounds on any one of the thousands of inferior courses, and what do you conclude ?

THAT VARIETY HONES TASTE And THE ABILITY TO ASSESS.

Remove your biased qualifier and the answer is the latter.

However, in my mind, almost every golf course is architecturally inferior to NGLA


THuckaby2

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #20 on: December 16, 2003, 09:33:41 AM »
David - in response to your questions:

1. Tom is there any way you can be more specific?  For example, I agree that the homebody likely has one style he likes, but is there anything more specific you can say about what that style may be?

No.  It's going to be different for each person.  One homebody might love a minimalist style such as displayed at Rustic Canyon, another might like the flamboyant style such as shown at Lost Canyons.  I could see homebodies never wanting to leave BOTH of those places.  The style doesn't determine this, but rather the individual's interest in it - the way I look at it anyway.  I fully expect you to disagree!   ;D


2. Are there some styles which the homebody might gravitate toward?

No, not as I see it.  This is in the mind of the individual.  I have a very good feeling how you want this to go - find an interesting course that keeps one thinking, like Rustic Canyon, and it becomes very easy to be a homebody - but that's for one way of thinking only.  Different people like different things in golf courses, and some might want more forced carries, more chances for heroic shots, hell flatter greens, whatever, than what's shown at Rustic.  Different strokes for different folks - it's not the architecture that determines this, but the individual - again, as I see it and again, I fully expect you to disagree!   ;D

3.  Are there some which the galavanter might gravitate toward?

In general, no - he's gonna want to just play the game PERIOD, at many different places.  Variety and playing the game are gonna be what jazz him, rather than studying one single course. But each person is likely also to have a favorite style he enjoys more than others, so he might seek out courses of that style more than he does others.  But he's not very likely to only play those style courses exclusively.

4. As for the rest, reads like PC mumbo jumbo to me.

It was intended to be general, as per your initial question.  If you wanted this to be about you and Rustic Canyon, as per a later post, you ought to have come out and just said so in the first place!   ;D


5.  Why should the homebody care if his misses the adventure of seeing a bunch of "inferior" courses.

He wouldn't - and I don't think I said he would. I said each side might think the other is nuts - not in the best language, but that's what I meant!   ;)

6.  How are you so sure that neither one will be right or wrong?

Because this is a game after all, and opinions after all, and how one treats it all personally cannot possibly be right or wrong - not in this context.

7.  Why would it be difficult for the two sides to communicate?

We're seeing why right now, aren't we?  I just believe they come from such totally different approaches to the game, it's difficult for one to really understand the other's take.  Oh, they can hopefully see the logic of it, but they can't "feel" it, if that makes any sense.  That makes any communications between them inherently hostile  - they have to get over the basic fundamental hostility first before they can have any meaningful conversation.  Each side is so convinced his is logical and correct and the other's is crazy... which shouldn't be the case, there really should be no right or wrong, but this is an emotional, personal matter and thus logic doesn't always win the day.


Great topic in any case, and please understand the smileys are intentional.  This is good fun.

BTW, I never answered your question because I didn't see it yesterday before I started my response... but obviously put me down for 10 rounds at 10 different great ones.  Also, on vacations I always play many different courses rather than the same one over and over - that is if different courses are available to me.  Some times all that's there is one or two courses... But in Maui, while I sure did enjoy Kapalua Plantation and feel it is the best course there, even if the money genie granted me the ability to AFFORD playing that course multiple times, if I had time for 5 rounds I wouldn't play more than 2 there.  I'd want to play the courses at Wailea, the great one at Makena, a few others... because variety is more important and more fun for me than learning more about Plantation.  How's that for an on-point example for ya?   ;)

I'm not looking for a home, either... I swear to God, even if they made me a member at Cypress tomorrow, oh, I'd play a LOT of golf there without a doubt, but you don't think I'd want to venture down the road a bit for a game with Bob at his club?  Check out Pebble or Spyglass or Pasa from time to time?  I'd guess that if I had a home like that - one of the absolute greats - even then it would go half my rounds there, half at other places.

Different strokes for different folks.  It remains a big beautiful world of golf, with room for all viewpoints.

TH
« Last Edit: December 16, 2003, 09:58:51 AM by Tom Huckaby »

DMoriarty

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #21 on: December 16, 2003, 10:19:35 AM »
Patrick.  Yes variety hones taste and the ability to assess.  But drinking a variety of bad wines will never prepare you for that first sip of a good one.  

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #22 on: December 16, 2003, 10:26:25 AM »
DMoriarty,

Ah yes, and that is why you need to play them all.

Playiing bad courses helps you recognize a good one when it comes along.

The broader your basis for comparison, the better prepared you are to make qualitative judgements.

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #23 on: December 16, 2003, 10:53:55 AM »
A galavanter with a home course.  Played home course probably 20-25 times this year, and played 20 other courses as well (16 of them new).  And the year isn't over with.

A lot of you might say the same thing, but if I were single w/o kids or retired, I'd be 'everywhere'.  

DMoriarty

Re:Homebodies vs. Galavanting Golfers.
« Reply #24 on: December 16, 2003, 12:29:14 PM »
Ah yes, and that is why you need to play them all.

Playiing bad courses helps you recognize a good one when it comes along.


I guess maybe to a certain limited degree I agree that one must play at least some other courses in order to get his bearings, but I dont think that playing bad courses helps you recognize a good one when it comes along.  Same with wine.

If anything, it is the sip of a really good one which exposes all the rest.

It seems to be the conventional wisdom on this thread that the Galavanter potentially ends up with more discerning tastes in golf course architecture.  This may be the case . . . or not.

______________________
Redanman, you seem pretty confident that vast experience combined learning well will allow the golfer to identify greatness on a single pass.   Lets just assume that this is true (I wouldnt know one way or another.)   This strikes me as even more inexplicable.  So you blow into town, go see a course and think "wow, this place is great."  Then blow out of town and be on your way??  Inconceivable.

But I guess that this might be one of the fundamental difference between the two groups.  For this homebody,  finding and identifying greatness are just necessary evils on the road to getting to play greatness, hopefully again and again.  

To me there are few sadder things in golf than looking back on a wonderful course knowing that I will probably never play it again.  

. . . Okay, I begrudgingly admit that playing a great course once is better than not playing it at all, but  it is just barely better in my opinion.