[Dan Herrmann]

I think I may have had a revelation last week.

We were up in Buffalo helping my parents move from their home of 45 years.  Needless to say, it was a bit stressful, but it worked out fine.

Anyway, Laura and I decided to take a break and play a Desmond Muirhead course, River Oaks in Grand Island, NY.  It's very much a 1970's style course, with lots of artificial mounding, huge greens, and other features that I felt  were inspired by Robert Trent Jones, Jr's work (It felt a lot like Heron Lakes original course in PDX).

We ended up joining a member.  He was a fantastic guy and a pretty good golfer.  

But you know what - he couldn't have cared less about the architecture of his course.  He was more interested in the upcoming outing being held by a local Chevy dealer than he was in the way the bunkers framed a given green complex.

Methinks the member was like 90% of golfers.  He's there to play golf, and architecture is as immaterial to him as reading bent grass grain is to me.

Are we really that geeky?  

[Ronald Montesano]

NOT a Robert Muir Graves course.  Desmond Muirhead!  No bosoms nor mermaids, but a very nice golf course.

[Richard Hetzel]

Not geeky, just enjoying golf on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT level!

[Wayne_Freedman]

Dan,

You are correct. Most are more concerned with not slicing and getting out of the sand.
I don't think players notice architecture until they can execute their shots.
Sometimes, even the good ones cannot do that.

Remember, this remains a nation that drinks Coors and Budweiser.

[Tim Gavrich]

I played Shelter Harbor today (will post my thoughts about it tomorrow, I think), but as I tried to discuss the architecture of it, some of those I was talking to seemed to do the smile-and-nod routine that meant they weren't really interested in the intricacies of it all.  Which is fine; not everyone's as geeky as we.

I think that overall, golfers generally care a lot more about course conditioning, but still care some about the architecture.  They can generally, usually tell what's good and what's not.  For them it's more "I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it."  Yes, they may not see as much as many of us do.  But a big part of it is that we can go on and on (and on and on and on and on) about it, and they just don't really care to.  They get a different enjoyment out of the game than we do.

[Wayne_Freedman]

Dan,

Did you notice how someone hijacked the very good concept of your thread and began a new one?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think Tim is right to a degree in that most golfers appreciate good golf / architecture... they just can't put their finger on what it is that makes it good...

I get first hand experience of this every year when I organise a group of 16 friends who are social golfers - not one real competition playing club golfer amongst them...

We used to go to resorts which they thought was the pinnacle... Like most golfers (in the UK and Ireland anyway), they believe a good inland golf course starts and ends with good maintenance, lots of water and lots of mature trees.... So we went to The Belfry and Slaley Hall and Dalmahoy... They thought it was great...

But I changed the trend by taking them to St Andrews and ever since we've been playing links and classic heathland and moorland courses and they absolutely love it... The funny thing is, they still put no thought to it.... Second nature would still have them going to a course they recognised the name of (such as The Belfry) than allowing me to take them to Woking or The Addington... So I just don't give them the choice anymore... and all 16 of us are the happier for it...

[Dean Stokes]

They don't.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I actually recorded, via electrode connections and brain monitor, an average golfers thoughts about architecture during a recent round.  Here they are:

Tee off on 1.........




































































































































































































































































Hmmm, cart girl is nice......................................................













































































Hmm, cheeseburgers......

















































































Damn, I nearly drove off into that creek while trying balance my hot dog and beer!































































































Can't believe I am playing with the friccking architect....can't tell him how I really feel that he caused my last 7 three putts.................................damn@!


























































Finish on 18.......

[Ted Kramer]

Don't think many golfers even consider the word or term architecture with regards to golf.

-Ted

[Dan Herrmann]

Jeff - so true, so true...
You've channeled Homer Simpson very well

[John Burzynski]

In all of my years of golfing, I cannot think of even one golfer who has voiced any concerns or comments on a course's architecture.  Not one golfer!

Sure, plenty of comments about course condition, wet, dry, fast, slow, greens stimped to fast or slow, etc.  The closest consideration of golf architecture I have eaver heard is a casual comment about undulations or sizes of greens on a course.

Not that golfers don't consider architecture on a subconscious level, such as, "why in the hell did that course designer put that sand trap right there next to the green, my ball always finds that sand trap?".  Sure, the placement of hazards is DESIGNED that way, and most golfers realize this, but beyond that superficial consideration there is little care for a course's design or architecture on a larger scale.  I'll bet that most golfers (90%+) can tell you who designed their local muni that the play every week (Bill Diddell for mine!).

Just not sure GCA is a high priority with 95% of golfers.  And that isn't bad, just reality that those of us with an interest are in a small and exclusive minority. 

[Dan Herrmann]

We really are geeks, aren't we? 

[Adam Clayman]

The supposition that the golfer does not think about gca is both condescending and ultimately counter productive.

Didn't we all start out just being golfers?

When we eventually learn a little something about GCA, don't our synapses flash back to many holes and features that we encountered along the journey?

Perhaps this pervasive lack of respect is reflected in many final products? 
 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Perhaps, Jeff (your reply you maybe right about the modern golfer -
ever wondered why I am against carts? Thanks for proving my point.

Would you go further and say that ‘No Waking Courses’ actually attract the Neathandal Man devoid of consideration and constantly seen as frustrated and angry? Or is that just the normal reactions form cart drivers? Or Have I misunderstood what you are trying to say?

In a recent study, 100 golfers were asked what they thought about architecture. Their answers are as follows

09 Thought that Pamela Anderson was tops
16 Thought the Mona Lesia was not in their opinion art.
30 Thought that the Venus De Milo looked better with her arms and can’t  
      understand why the sculptor removed them
35 Thought that The Empire State Building was still the dogs ballocks.
06 Thought or did not realise that architecture was part of Golf course  
     design.
04 Thought that with some more practice Architects could well make a good
      living out of course design but were unhappy to speculate when (did I
      get that right Tom?).

So what value is this Study – probably as accurate as all the rest.

Do you really think that the average golfer cares, let alone thinks of golf course architecture and its implications on his/her game when carting around a course? 

[Bill Brightly]

Adam,

I try to believe that every golfer I play with will develop and interest in gca once they learn a little...so I test the water with a few comments about the architect of the course that we are playing. Usually I am met with a blank stare...

I honestly think most golfers have a vision of what they think a good golf hole is, and they look at every hole with an eye to how they could make it better, no matter who the architect was.

How many times have you heard: "this hole would be so much better if we stuck a pond up by the green" or "this short par 3 is nice, but wouldn't it be great if we built a new tee box 30 yards furtrher back?" 

[Matt_Ward]

Dan:

Most golfers don't think about architecture ...

they think about the following (in no particular order)

1). What it cost them to play?

2). Is the place in decent shape?

3). How fast can they play a round?

4). Does the place provide 64-ounce beer or its equivalent in some other form of cold drink either at the turn or clubhouse.

5). Finally, many people opt for courses / architecture that corresponds to their respective game.

No doubt a number of golfers will gravitate beyond this sarcastic list I have provided but it's much more smaller than many might believe. If it wasn't you would see more books and articles about the subject than you see now.

[John Kavanaugh]

No doubt a number of golfers will gravitate beyond this sarcastic list I have provided but it's much more smaller than many might believe. If it wasn't you would see more books and articles about the subject than you see now.

If the money was there more talented people would write books on the subject.  When it comes to golf writing we get what we pay for.  Free golf and low pay brings out limited amount of creativity.  The model of low pay and free baseball tickets never worked in golf. 

[RJ_Daley]

I think that most average golfers (which I don't think are novice golfers, but infrequent golfers that play <10X a year) do think in vague terms about the architecture.  But, they don't know they are thinking about it.  They see the general nature of the course first as parkland or open linkslike, and they see hole corridors as demanding of one shot only or holes they can fit their game to options of hitting shorter clubs off some tees rather than driver.  You can always tell the architecture fan in the first couple of holes when they reach for something other than driver every hole.  That shows they are thinking about something in the realm of how the holes are laid out. 

I think they see things like the effect of wind vis-a-vis the design of the hole and make their calculations, even if they don't know they are evaluating the architecture.  They aren't numbskulls, but they are not tuned in to the actual subject of GCA like a GCA.com geek would be.

[Kirk Gill]

The supposition that the golfer does not think about gca is both condescending and ultimately counter productive.

Didn't we all start out just being golfers?

When we eventually learn a little something about GCA, don't our synapses flash back to many holes and features that we encountered along the journey?

Perhaps this pervasive lack of respect is reflected in many final products? 
 

I agree with this sentiment, Adam. For some golfers their primary reaction to architecture is aesthetic, but every golfer I've played with ends up making a comment like "look at that damn bunker. I do NOT want to end up in there," or when a shot goes far opposite a water feature "Wasn't afraid of the water, was I?" Golfers are reacting to the architecture all the time, just perhaps not in the same way the more fervent members of this board might be interested in. I'm sure that MANY subtleties aren't being noticed by most golfers, but appreciation of that stuff is the nature of being a connoisseur, isn't it? And if everyone is a connoisseur, than of what value is it?

[John Kavanaugh]

Is baseball really that much more interesting than golf to cause baseball fans to keep score during a game?  Do any of you take a score book to a baseball game and what am I missing by not?

[Jim Franklin]

I have not been to a baseball game since the strike of 1994. I didn't keep score then and wouldn't do it now.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have not been to a baseball game since the strike of 1994. I didn't keep score then and wouldn't do it now.

Jim,

How did the strike harm you to hold such resentment?

[Doug Ralston]

But they do often notice 'bad design'; that is, what they will consider bad design.

As we all 'know', the best shot lands in the middle of the fairway, as close to the green as possible. If someone hits a real bomb, straight down the middle, and is left with a poor angle, while his friend hit it 30yd less and way left, but has no comparable impediments, THE ARCHITECT WAS STUPID! Punished for a 'great shot'? Unfair!

There ya go. Architecture has been noticed.

Now it is true that, at a certain low handicap, players will begin to realize they can hit to other, more useful targets, and actually appreciate angles other than 'down the middle'. But how much do they then appreciate that this is INTENTIONAL by the architect?

Virtually all golfers I know of want 1st to 'play well', by which they mean score well. If they feel the course helped them do that, they may say 'good course'. Only a few make the leap to 'good architecture/ architect intention.

But every single player I know appreciates good conditions, beautiful scenery, and reasonable pricing.

But incredibly few have the $ to play what most of you can. Seeing it actually helps to appreciate.

Doug

[Kalen Braley]

I think there have been several good comments made in this thread.

First and foremost, I very much agree Kirk and Adam in that other plays do think about architecture and how it impacts them, even if on a subconsious level.  The fact that they don't want to discuss it, analyze it, participate in chat board does not mean that they don't think about it.

Secondly, I've yet to meet anyone, (GCA'ers excluded), that want to discuss it in depth beyond "thats a pretty pond with a fountain".  So in this sense, I can see why this is the common perception on this site.

Third, in my experience, its true that I've heard far far more comments about how something is either "unfair", "tricked-up", "punishes a good shot", "its all right in front of you" more than one seeing a heaving fairway with hidden bunkers and undulations and hearing, "sweet this is very cool".  I guess that part of the televised pro game really has done a trick on them, because I'm not sure where else they would get that stuff from.

As for just being an ordinary golfer, while thats very true of my golf game, its not true of what's held my attention while playing.  Long before I ever set foot on GCA.com my friends always thought it was weird that I kept looking at the golf course and trying to figure out why I did or didn't like something about it.  Or why a feature was done a certain way, etc.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()