Is 7-8 Handicap The Best Skill Level To Appreciate Golf Architecture?

[George Pazin]

Jeff, happens to me all the time, too. I just assumed someone was trying to keep my posting to a minimum.


Fantastic answer, Ian, thanks for sharing that! I agree completely with your sentiment about walking and observing others' play. I've learned far more by watching and observing others than through my own play.

[George Pazin]

Jeff,


I agree. The more I am concerned about the consequences the more I look for how the architecture influences the shot. I know this is old school but I don't believe we really learn until we suffer for our ignorance.

John, I understand your point here, and agree with it completely. The only thing I'd quibble with is I also agree with your analogy on pets and vets, so I think similarly that when it comes to golfers versus architects , an architect can analyze a situation very well without ever playing a shot, or at least one of strict consequence.

[John Kavanaugh]

George,


This isn't a thread about best handicap to be an architect. That is a different story.

[Ian Andrew]

Jeff,


Agree with your comments.
The idea was to do a bit of both and the comments were largely personal.




John and George,


I removed the comments last time because I thought I had gotten off topic.
I do recognize I'm off the thread topic in my response, but there's some relevance in the post.

[Kalen Braley]

So 3.5 pages in....

Are we calling this one "Busted" or "Plausible", because it sure as hell ain't confirmed.

P.S.  Ian excellent post a few back, especially on point 1. 

[George Pazin]

I would call it plausible, yet not necessarily valuable. | think there are numerous more important factors, but all other things being equal, I get Tim's point.

[Peter Pallotta]

Is success any different than failure, or are we so wise that we manage to treat those two imposters just the same?
I'm not, and I can't.
And when I think of the courses I've struggled on and played badly at, I get the feeling that it's due to not making good/smart choices, ie I didn't 'see' the options because I (unconsciously) knew that I couldn't 'execute' the option.
Maybe if I could, I would. And I know that, when I can, I very often do.
As someone wrote once: what a man sees and hears has a lot to do with where he's standing, but it has even more to do with the kind of man he is.
Maybe that's what good golfers mean when they say that a course really fits/doesn't fit their eye.

[John Kavanaugh]

The skill of the ball striker is more vital than that of the tee placer.

[Lou_Duran]

What does "appreciate golf architecture" even mean?  That an average golfer can look at a Redanesque green and think of a thread on this site and maybe recognize a reference to North Berwick?  Is the guy who can actually hit the shot presented on a given day- say on a good Redan, a low RTL off the high right side, or a high, soft fade into the meat of the green, or one favoring the left edge for a simpler up-and-down- less appreciative because he hasn't invested in the literature or extensive travel?


I suppose we can appreciate things in many different ways.   But I would never argue that lacking the skill to play a six-string guitar puts me anywhere close to the great musicians in discerning the tonal qualities of fine instruments or the relative mastery of those who play them.   

[Lou_Duran]

The more I am concerned about the consequences the more I look for how the architecture influences the shot. I know this is old school but I don't believe we really learn until we suffer for our ignorance.

Barney at his best.  Or maybe if you throw enough stuff up, something will stick.


Re: the 6th grade, my female mates were quite generous.  The nuns not so much.

[Kalen Braley]

Lou,


If you read the very first part of the Original Post,  Tim explicitly links skill and ability to execute shots to appreciating the architecture.  This is why I think its totally busted.:

IMO 7-8 HCP is the best skill level to appreciate golf architecture. Fundamentally, I think it comes down to balancing two things:
1) enough ability to hit some really good (maybe even hard) shots
2) not so much skill the player knows he will always pull off the shot

[Lou_Duran]

Kalen,


I don't understand your point.  What is busted?


Perhaps appreciation is not what he is really after.  Would an "understanding" of the architecture be better?


As to 2), blessed is the player who is so self-assured.  I've never met him.  Most assess the risks and rewards of the various shot options and go with the one which they think makes most sense.  If their game was as easy, one-dimensional as some here seem to think, they wouldn't need 4.5 hours to play.  Conditions such as in the Match Play today offer the opportunity to display the wide array of shots the "skilled" possess.  I think these guys "get" golf architecture just fine.


Just a thought, do you think that many of us who extol the virtues of the ground game do so because of our relative inability to loft our shots? 

[John Kavanaugh]

What Kalen doesn't seem to understand is that those who bring the most value to the game have earned the right to get the most out of it. Perhaps when 18's start joining the most clubs, traveling to the most destinations or even representing the game in a professional manner he will get his due. Until then competent serious golfers will own the day.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,


I don't understand your point.  What is busted?


Perhaps appreciation is not what he is really after.  Would an "understanding" of the architecture be better?


As to 2), blessed is the player who is so self-assured.  I've never met him.  Most assess the risks and rewards of the various shot options and go with the one which they think makes most sense.  If their game was as easy, one-dimensional as some here seem to think, they wouldn't need 4.5 hours to play.  Conditions such as in the Match Play today offer the opportunity to display the wide array of shots the "skilled" possess.  I think these guys "get" golf architecture just fine.


Just a thought, do you think that many of us who extol the virtues of the ground game do so because of our relative inability to loft our shots?

Lou,

I think we're agreeing.  Appreciation doesn't fit at all, hence the premise "7-8 cappers appreciate architecture the best" is busted as it doesn't correlate.

Also agreed on the mythical self-assured player, i've never met one either...

P.S.  As for your last question, its certainly true for me when holding anything more than a 6 iron. Figuring out a ground game component is mandatory because the ball will be coming in relatively low.

[Mike Wagner]

What does "appreciate golf architecture" even mean?  That an average golfer can look at a Redanesque green and think of a thread on this site and maybe recognize a reference to North Berwick?  Is the guy who can actually hit the shot presented on a given day- say on a good Redan, a low RTL off the high right side, or a high, soft fade into the meat of the green, or one favoring the left edge for a simpler up-and-down- less appreciative because he hasn't invested in the literature or extensive travel?


I suppose we can appreciate things in many different ways.   But I would never argue that lacking the skill to play a six-string guitar puts me anywhere close to the great musicians in discerning the tonal qualities of fine instruments or the relative mastery of those who play them.

This is great.  I'll add (and maybe it's gone un-said for obvious reasons) that all scratch players were 7-8 handicaps at one point.  Not all 7-8s have been a scratch. 

[Tim Gavrich]

I don't know that I'll ever buy into the notion that, for non-architect golfers, not-playing a golf course is somehow more instructive than playing it. When someone walks a golf course, do any of the shots they "hit" in their mind not turn out perfectly?


There's no denying it's fun to bump a 5-iron into a green from 110 yards or something like that in order to try and take advantage of some contour or another, but is that really anyone's preferred shot in that situation except perhaps in extraordinary winds or drought?


If the only time an architectural feature is relevant is to a golfer who is just kind of messing around and not concerned with making a score on the hole, isn't that a sign of that feature's practical irrelevance?


I played Mountain Lake yesterday and looking back on it, there's nary a single feature that doesn't matter to a player trying to make a score, no matter the handicap. My colleague, who was playing the course for the first time, used the big Redan green slope almost perfectly en route to making a par. His grin told the tale of how relevant that feature was.


I'm not saying it's not fun to mess around on the course, but features that only come into play while messing around are not nearly as consequential as the ones that matter to someone trying to make a score, be it against par or an opponent.

[jeffwarne]

I don't know that I'll ever buy into the notion that, for non-architect golfers, not-playing a golf course is somehow more instructive than playing it. When someone walks a golf course, do any of the shots they "hit" in their mind not turn out perfectly?

Then there's the notion that trying to improve is somehow not playing golf for fun,
Attempting to use a sideboard, run up or play for an angle isn't quite as fun if you then shank the shot you've set up.
So the fun for that individual would go up if he could at least remotely execute the shot he so coveted-and that might require practice or God forbid even instruction.


As my assistant politely told a disgruntled student who had begrudgingly been dragged to a golf school by his same sex spouse-after repeated whiffs and a declaration that "golf was no fun at all"


"it's a lot more fun when you hit it"

[George Pazin]

I don't know that I'll ever buy into the notion that, for non-architect golfers, not-playing a golf course is somehow more instructive than playing it. When someone walks a golf course, do any of the shots they "hit" in their mind not turn out perfectly?


There's no denying it's fun to bump a 5-iron into a green from 110 yards or something like that in order to try and take advantage of some contour or another, but is that really anyone's preferred shot in that situation except perhaps in extraordinary winds or drought?


If the only time an architectural feature is relevant is to a golfer who is just kind of messing around and not concerned with making a score on the hole, isn't that a sign of that feature's practical irrelevance?


I played Mountain Lake yesterday and looking back on it, there's nary a single feature that doesn't matter to a player trying to make a score, no matter the handicap. My colleague, who was playing the course for the first time, used the big Redan green slope almost perfectly en route to making a par. His grin told the tale of how relevant that feature was.


I'm not saying it's not fun to mess around on the course, but features that only come into play while messing around are not nearly as consequential as the ones that matter to someone trying to make a score, be it against par or an opponent.

You are free to not buy into it, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is a true, or to whom it may apply. It certainly isn’t everyone, but then again, neither is playing. Mostly it depends on the person and his or her powers of observation and imagination.