[BHoover]

Jason, I think you might have misinterpreted what I originally asked.  I'm not asking whether you'd choose between playing a dog track with your buddies or whether you'd rather play Pine Valley as a single.  That's an easy one--I'd happily tell my friends that I'll see them next weekend.

What I meant was, and perhaps I just didn't state it clearly, when you're playing golf, are you more focused on the architecture and features of the course, or are you focused on the inherent competition of the game?  Does that make sense?

I love to play interesting courses, which is why I have a membership at a club I like as opposed to playing the local, cheaper public track close to my home.  But when I'm playing my home course, or visiting another course for the first time, my focus is on trying to score well and/or beat my opponent(s).

[Nigel Islam]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42584.0.html

If the course is good enough we can make new friends.

John, I'd be happy to host you at the worst dog track in Michigan...

To be perfectly honest. If I was already staying at Kingsley and the only way I could play Crystal Downs was with you I would accept your offer.  Keep me in mind.

Jkava, you are more than welcome to bring Nigel and come to my walking event at Indianwood (top 200 course) in Sept.  You aren't even forced to take a caddy, which you should be happy..  I value your honesty....

Ben I'm not sure how I got mentioned in this, but I am pretty sure that living in Southwest Indiana I have played as many Doak zeros and ones as most. I never have a problem playing a goat farm once!

[Nigel Islam]

I wish there was a way to set up a wager on anything you wanted. For instance, I’d love to wager on which option a GCAer would choose if given the choice between rounds at Juniper Hills Municipal Course in Frankfort with three friends or Pine Valley as a single, assuming travel and costs are equal. Regardless of the odds I was given, I’d feel comfortable wagering enough to recoup and profit on whatever I had to spend to secure the tee time for an unaccompanied single at Pine Valley for sake of the bet, including the emotional costs of any favors I performed.

That said, I’m not sure you have to choose between architecture and golf. I love playing great courses, but I also love playing crappy courses. I can almost always find something that makes me smile on either. The architecture is invariably part of playing the game. To me, this is like asking whether you prefer cheese or pizza. The former is part of the latter, even if it’s possible to enjoy it on its own.

I’d always rather play a course than walk around studying its bones, which seems more like the choice being given by the title question. Architecture on its own can be interesting, and I enjoy learning about the history of different places, but it’s kind of pointless if you never get to bounce a ball across it.

You should make that bet and then send them to Pine Valley in Elizabethtown, KY

[Rob Curtiss]

I am much more focused on my game and the layout/architecture of the course.
Because I usually play with players much better than me or much worse, I do not focus too much on how they are playing.
I try to take in as much of the aspects of the course - visually as I can - while trying to beat my best score.
If I go out and shoot 78 and the player I play with shoots 72.. I am pretty damn happy with my score and got to appreciate the course at the same time

[Jason Thurman]

Brian, I get what you're saying. I think a lot of the responses to the thread were drifting more toward answering "Would you rather play with good friends or play a good course?" But yeah, I'm definitely more focused on playing when I'm playing, as opposed to focusing on the architecture. In fact, I'm not sure you can properly evaluate a course's architecture if you don't focus on the game when you play it. When I talk about different holes and courses with people, a lot of guys seem like they're discussing options that no one would ever choose. I see that as a product of overanalyzing the architecture instead of focusing on play, to a point where options start to seem valid even if they require irrationally high levels of skill or risk tolerance. If you evaluate strategy in a vacuum instead of evaluating it in the context of how a player would take advantage of it, then you're not really evaluating strategy at all. I hope some of that makes sense.

Nigel, the REAL Pine Valley has apparently changed its name! I'm a little bummed about that. I never played the course, but I did spend a really fun night at their clubhouse/bar and grill, which really gets pretty wild on Saturday nights. I also walked out onto the deck, and saw the driving range mats situated right at the precipice of the platform with no railing separating someone from going right over the edge if they lost their balance and fell forward after a swing. For reasons obvious to you and others who have played with me, I resolved to never hit balls on their range. I got rid of the step-through last fall, but I still wouldn't feel very comfortable hitting shots with 18 inches separating my front foot from a 20 foot fall.

[William_G]

its all about the golf

you can actually create a course anywhere, in your office, your backyard...it's a game/sport and I love it

[Nigel Islam]

Brian, I get what you're saying. I think a lot of the responses to the thread were drifting more toward answering "Would you rather play with good friends or play a good course?" But yeah, I'm definitely more focused on playing when I'm playing, as opposed to focusing on the architecture. In fact, I'm not sure you can properly evaluate a course's architecture if you don't focus on the game when you play it. When I talk about different holes and courses with people, a lot of guys seem like they're discussing options that no one would ever choose. I see that as a product of overanalyzing the architecture instead of focusing on play, to a point where options start to seem valid even if they require irrationally high levels of skill or risk tolerance. If you evaluate strategy in a vacuum instead of evaluating it in the context of how a player would take advantage of it, then you're not really evaluating strategy at all. I hope some of that makes sense.

Nigel, the REAL Pine Valley has apparently changed its name! I'm a little bummed about that. I never played the course, but I did spend a really fun night at their clubhouse/bar and grill, which really gets pretty wild on Saturday nights. I also walked out onto the deck, and saw the driving range mats situated right at the precipice of the platform with no railing separating someone from going right over the edge if they lost their balance and fell forward after a swing. For reasons obvious to you and others who have played with me, I resolved to never hit balls on their range. I got rid of the step-through last fall, but I still wouldn't feel very comfortable hitting shots with 18 inches separating my front foot from a 20 foot fall.

I remember you telling me about that driving range, but now I get why it was so intimidating to YOU! Hardest driving range you will ever play

As far as "overanalyzing the architecture" I think you are spot on. It cracks me up when I hear the guys on tv say a pro has 115 yards, but he has a terrible angle from the fairway.

(BTW I am still picturing your old Gary Player follow through on that driving range )

[Nigel Islam]

its all about the golf

you can actually create a course anywhere, in your office, your backyard...it's a game and I love it

+1

[Carl Johnson]

Brian says: "What I meant was, and perhaps I just didn't state it clearly, when you're playing golf, are you more focused on the architecture and features of the course, or are you focused on the inherent competition of the game?" 

Brian, I'm much more focused on the game.  However, architecture is not out of the picture.  I'll look at a hole or shot and try see if there is anything about the architecture that can help me out - either by using a feature or avoiding it.  So, during play I don't think about architecture in terms of "is this good design or not," but rather about how I can deal with it, whatever it is.  For me, the architecture-think is most useful approaching the greens.  Simple example - you may get the ball closer to the hole not by going straight toward it, but by using a slope to work the ball in.  This may seem like, duh! obvious, but that's thinking about and using the architecture.

Regards, Carl

[Jeff Taylor]

Taking pictures of golf courses peaked my interest in architecture. Until that time, I only thought about my golf swing when playing. Of course, playing on golf courses that were mainly built between 1960 and 1980 may have been a reason for not falling in love with the shape of things. It was only after stumbling onto this website that I began to see that the ground is the game and that the game gets better when the ground is more interesting. It's the interaction of my game and the ground I am playing on that keeps me interested. I would rather hit balls on the range than spend 4 hours on a boring golf course. Is that being a snob?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()