Do higher handicap golfers

[TEPaul]

Pat and Mr Moore:

I wasn't unusually short with my irons but I was off the tee and to compete and score well I had to figure out a way to adjust to that.

The interesting thing is over time to score well I basically went in a complete different and counter-intuitive way than most would think----I went in the direction of playing ultra conservative rather than aggressive. I did that to such an extent I actually took the 3 wood out of my bag for so long I lost the ability to hit it properly.

I think there is a real message here---a real strategic message and it basically falls into the whole "risk/reward" mentality, philosophy and equation which probably ultimately ends with most with the idea of seduction and temptation to accomplish the ideal (score) hole by hole. To me the real deal with strategy and scoring was not to concern yourself with what's possible and ideal that way but to concern yourself with how not to drop or waste a shot needlessly.

But I never met a long par 4 I didn't think I couldn't sneak up on in less than GIR and still par! 

Matter of fact, with me I was incredibly comfortable with the fact that scoring-wise hole by hole it was never over until it was over. If a golfer can get himself to really feel that way he will get to a point where he will basically never push or panic, and that just has to be a good thing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

In the words of Lee Trevino,
"Dogs that chase cars and pros that chip for pars aren't long for this world."

Having played with you, you aren't that short, in the context of the era in which you played, an era where Persimmon was the material of choice for one's woods, and the club face wasn't the size of a tennis racket.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Believe me, off the tee I was really short compared to most of the people I had to compete against I was really interested in beating. And you know how that goes, Patrick. Some on here who haven't played a whole lot of tourament golf probably think you go into a tournament, particularly medal but also match thinking about having to beat the whole field. You and I know that's not the way it really is. You know and I know that's not the way we thought.

Golf's a funny game that way competitively because one can have an off day at any time and they're out but most of the time we knew we could beat XYZ players most all the time in medal or match. It was the end game in tournaments we were shooting for. I got to that end game a whole lot in many of the tournaments I played in but my lack of distance off the tee was mostly what did me in at that point. I ended up with a career of not being a winner just a good and pretty predicatable end game competitor.

I don't know exactly how far I hit my driver but I doubt it was much farther than 250 with some bounce and rollout. As far as trying to carry something dangerous of any length I basically never tried. As short as I was off the tee with a driver I doubt you ever played with a scratch player who hit a 1 or 2 iron off as many tees as I did. My game and my career strategy was conservative not aggressive. I firmly believe if I'd been more aggressive my career would not have been as successful as it was, for whatever it was which was never going down in any important record books anyway! 

To me the whole deal was learning to minimize over-estimating what you could do or expect to do at any particular time. It was sort of a statistical numbers or odds game to me and a golfer can only understand that well by constant practice and tournament experience and analyzing what worked and what didn't over time.

You want a really good tour pro example of the way I think strategically? Do you remember that time David Toms came to the last hole in the PGA and he laid up instead of going for it and then sunk about a 12-15 foot putt to win the PGA? That's the way I think strategically. I'm sure a lot of fans who don't really understand the ramification of tournament golf probably criticized Toms for doing that and even called him a whimp.

But he has has PGA championship and they don't.

[Mike Wagner]

The high handicap who understands this was once a good player.  C'mon - in general - most high handicaps have no clue about architecture.  Quite frankly, it always amazes me how much they DON'T notice architectural features.  How many times have you played with a smart person that walks up to a putt (that CLEARLY breaks 4 feet), and they rap it right at the hole.  It's always followed by a puzzled look that it even broke.

[David Ober]

consciously or subconsciously understand the architecture better than the scratch player due to their more intimate interaction/interfacing with the architectural features ?

ie, a fairway bunker easily carried by the scratch golfer presents a clear and present danger to the higher handicap, thus he must formulate plans to avoid or counter the strategic affects of the bunker.

Having to repeat that process over and over and over again, does that higher handicap golfer gain a greater understanding of the impact of the architectural features ?

If there's one player type that understands interaction/interfacing with architectural features, it's the low(ish) handicap senior golfer who only carries the driver 200 to 215. The reason I say this is that this type of golfer not only hits the ball short enough for most trouble to come into play, but he also (more than likely) possesses the requisite skill and breadth of short game shots to play the variety of shots necessary to truly interact/interface.

[George Pazin]

I think virtually all golfers notice only the things that directly affect their own games. HHers tend to notice big water features, big bunkers, trees, etc., ace golfers likely only really notice things like hole locations (which are dangerous, which are birdie holes), green speeds and orientations, etc.

It's pretty rare that someone notices all aspects - and he probably is (or was) an architect, particularly one of the ones favored by many on here, both living and dead.

[Peter Pallotta]

Everyone notices everything.  Only a few hundred rounds can tell a golfer what everything means.  Only a thousand rounds can give him a meaningful chance to do anything about it.  Then after two thousand rounds, nothing means anything anymore -- the golfer is either too good for the architecture or he's beyond caring.  Then he's sort of like Colonel Kurtz - and you can't design golf courses for Colonel Kurtz.   

Peter

[John Moore II]

But what about the very good golfer who is a very short hitter?

I'd say that golfer is a very rare commodity.

Rare maybe, but they certainly do exist. If I knew how to post this persons handicap record (and have it look readable and without his name) I'd post it for you to look at.

We had a member at my last club who was a 2ish handicap (his handicap fluctuated between +1 and 4) but he could only hit his driver 225ish yards.

I find it hard to believe that someone whose two shot distance max is about 430 could be a +1 handicap, or even a 2 handicap or perhaps even a 4 handicap.

He certainly wouldn't be a + 1 handicap at WFW, BPB, Pine Tree or Boca Rio, unless of course, he plays from the ladies tees.


How do you know he wouldn't be a low handicap player at one of those places? He didn't play from the very back tees at Mid South, he always played from the 'blue' tees which were 6500ish yards. Do those courses not have 6500 yards tees? I would suggest this person, with the way he is able to strike the ball consistently and putt very well could be a near scratch golfer anywhere he wanted to go.

So in that way, he has to pay attention to many fairway bunkers; just as many as the 10-15 handicap who hits it that far or even a bit farther.

In general, if 10-15's hit their drives 225, I'd agree with that.
I don't know many 15's who hit their drives 225.

Because you don't know many, that makes it irrelevant? I think not.

Now, I understand that many, if not most, fairway bunkers are not in play for me. But that does not mean that I do not notice them and see the strategic benefit in them.

So, you tend to pay attention to elements and features that have no impact on your game ?

Read what I said. I didn't say I would pay attention to features, I said I noticed them. A player can notice something about a bunker position, etc., but not really care that it is there or 'aim away' from it or whatever.

I would also say it depends on which tees are played.
I played on a few days ago and played the regular men's tees because its been about 2 months since I played. Of course, most of those bunkers were not in play for me, but from the back tees, they would have been.

I think anyone who pays attention to the course can see the design intent in bunkers, fairway 'rolls', greenside bunkering, etc.

But I am not sure it is fair to say that higher handicap players understand the architecture of a course better than a good players simply because they hit the ball shorter or hit the ball more often.

I never said that.
Please go back and reread the premise.

True, you didn't say that word for word. But you quote yourself as saying that some bunkers are in play for high handicap players while the scratch players can hit over them. That is a clear implication that length is part of the equation here.

Pat--I have been told that you are quite a fine player in your own right.
Does that mean Kalen, (who by his own admission, not mine) who is a higher handicap player should naturally understand the course architecture and design intent better than you?

That was never the question.
The question dealt with features that impacted the play of the higher handicap and the higher handicap players greater need to avoid them.  The opening post appears below.

That is the WHOLE question. Its your first sentence. Just read it again, its in bold type (green even) right below what I am saying here. So again, does Kalen (as a 15-20 handicap player) "consciously or subconsciously understand the architecture better than the scratch (Insert yourself, me, Tom Paul or any other scratch player) player due to their more intimate interaction/interfacing with the architectural features ? Please answer that Pat, I put it nearly word for word back into your own statement.

If it is true that higher handicap players better understand the architecture, then perhaps your ability (as a better player) to evaluate architecture should be questioned.

"Do higher handicap golfers
consciously or subconsciously understand the architecture better than the scratch player due to their more intimate interaction/interfacing with the architectural features ?

ie, a fairway bunker easily carried by the scratch golfer presents a clear and present danger to the higher handicap, thus he must formulate plans to avoid or counter the strategic affects of the bunker.

Having to repeat that process over and over and over again, does that higher handicap golfer gain a greater understanding of the impact of the architectural features ?  "

[JESII]

consciously or subconsciously understand the architecture better than the scratch player due to their more intimate interaction/interfacing with the architectural features ?

ie, a fairway bunker easily carried by the scratch golfer presents a clear and present danger to the higher handicap, thus he must formulate plans to avoid or counter the strategic affects of the bunker.

Having to repeat that process over and over and over again, does that higher handicap golfer gain a greater understanding of the impact of the architectural features ?

I don't think the answer is handicap specific...but I wonder if the very nature of the higher handicapper being less likely to exploit the advantage gained from a successful, aggressive shot makes it less likely they would try that shot and therefore less likely to understand the the architecture completely...just wonderin'...

[George Pazin]

I don't think the answer is handicap specific...but I wonder if the very nature of the higher handicapper being less likely to exploit the advantage gained from a successful, aggressive shot makes it less likely they would try that shot and therefore less likely to understand the the architecture completely...just wonderin'...

I doubt he'd be less likely to try it, but the lower likelihood of success makes it a lot more difficult to ascertain the effectiveness of the strategy (if you can follow that, you're completely sober...).

[JESII]

Sadly yes, but my team didn't win the Super Bowl, so you are excused...maybe even envied.


Curious, why not less likely to try it?

[George Pazin]

Curious, why not less likely to try it?

'Cause we're not the sharpest lot, that's partly why we're HHers.

I guess it depends largely on why someone is a HHer - is it lack of practice? Lack of length/strength/creativity/etc.?

For instance, my thinking on my own play is generally that I can pull off most shots (I know, I can't hit a 220 yard 6 iron from the beach over water like Tiger) - I just don't, at least not on any consistent basis. For me, it's mostly lack of practice or playing time, so I'm more likely to at least attempt a shot. It's the old "I didn't come here to lay up" line of thinking. I think many HHers subscribe to this, looking for the one shot that keeps you coming back, knowing the likelihood of a poor shot off of a safe shot is almost as high as a poor shot off of a hero shot.

Hopefully that makes at least a little sense. If not, there's always:

"Here we go Steelers, here we go". That applies in all situations.

[Kyle Harris]

Cory Lewis is a scratch golfer who hits it 230 on a good day. A really good day.

I've seen him be under par at Lancaster CC during the AB Thorn. And his ringer course from the front nine after only THREE rounds there is 24.

He shot the tidiest 73 I've seen in my life from the 6600 yard tees at an Art Hills course in Delaware, yesterday. He hit driver on a 210 yard par 3.