Do low scores, repetitively low scores, like 7, 8, 9 and 10 under par per round indicate that the architecture has failed to perform one or more of its functions ?

Does it indicate that the golfer never properly interfaced with the architecture during the course of his round ?

This is probably belaboring the obvious, but doesn't it depend on who the player is? Even at the highest level of the game, players tend to separate from each other. If Tiger Woods, during his peak years, went consistently low on a given course, I'm not sure how much that reflected on the architect.

Tiger at his best -- just as with Nicklaus, Hogan and Jones -- was interfacing with immortality. The golf courses were minor impediments at that level.

I don't think architects ought to be overly concerned about how low the best players in the world can go on their courses. A golf course that is played by professionals once a year and amateurs the other 51 weeks of the year can only be made so difficult before it ceases to make sense for the vast majority of players.

If I went consistently low on a course, then yes, the architect failed.

To me, it depends on how the holes are designed.

For instance, if there are a lot of half par holes, where the par "chosen" is the higher par - ie. short par 5s versus long par 4s - than it wouldn't be a big deal to me.

One of the most vexing problems in golf, to me, is the notion that a half par hole par on the plus side - a par 4.5 par 4, a tough par 4 - is considered tough, challenging, great, while one on the lesser side - a par 3.5 par 4, a short "birdie" hole - is considered soft, easy, less than great. Call the latter hole a par 3 and it is elevated to greatness, call the former a par 5 and it's reduced to a fun, sporty, cute hole.  It's the same sort of reasoning that leads one to believe a course that is a "test" is great, while one that is fun is charming, sporty, but lacking.

Par is just a number - it shouldn't have a bearing on the quality of a course.

Answer no, and to me, a great course should not prevent a low round because of extraordinary play... Great play must be rewarded (I'm not talking about great swings or well strucked shots, I am talking about great shots)

Best example, Royal Melbourne. Ernie shoot 60 with a 29 on the front and four days later, 42 on the front with no penalty strokes... The course demands nothing but great shots to be conquered..

To me, it depends on how the holes are designed.

For instance, if there are a lot of half par holes, where the par "chosen" is the higher par - ie. short par 5s versus long par 4s - than it wouldn't be a big deal to me.

One of the most vexing problems in golf, to me, is the notion that a half par hole par on the plus side - a par 4.5 par 4, a tough par 4 - is considered tough, challenging, great, while one on the lesser side - a par 3.5 par 4, a short "birdie" hole - is considered soft, easy, less than great. Call the latter hole a par 3 and it is elevated to greatness, call the former a par 5 and it's reduced to a fun, sporty, cute hole.  It's the same sort of reasoning that leads one to believe a course that is a "test" is great, while one that is fun is charming, sporty, but lacking.

Par is just a number - it shouldn't have a bearing on the quality of a course.

Good point George.  I remember when John Huston blitzed Wailae and shot a new tour record.  The next year they decided that two holes that were par 5s were now par 4s.  The stupid TV announcers were in awe of how these holes had gone from being the easist holes the year before to the hardest ones now.

The (long-forgotten) TEP Conjecture states that if a player goes low, even real low, and that same player also has rounds that are well over par, it is a sign of a good, strategic golf course.

He is tempted by the challenges offered. Sometimes he pulls it off and goes low. Sometimes he doesn't pull it off and he goes high. But the key is that the course tempted him to take risks. And that's good. Effective temptations are very, very good.

The wider the spread of scores, the more strategic the course.

If the same player is constantly posting 63's and 64's (or conversely 86's and 87's), that's a narrow scoring range and a sign the design is (i) not strategic, or (ii) dull, or (iii) overwelmed by modern equipment that is no longer in sync with the dimensions of the course.

Bob

Yes.
The only way someone goes 10 under consistently is if they somehow render the course defenseless. If the course is defenseless, the architecture has failed.

-Ted

A course where a player shoots 63 is no easier than a course where the same player shoots 68. The question is what did that player do to compile his 63 that made him stand out from the couple of guys behind him who shot 65. So there might be a few consecutive birdie chance holes. That means a top player has to take those chances. Whereas on a tougher course, a player might be able to make a bunch of pars and not lose ground to anyone.

If you played Augusta only using #2, #3, #7, #8, #13, #15 on a 6 hole rotation three times to make 18 holes, you'd get a very low winning score. But the difficulty for that winner in beating the rest of the field (as opposed to Old Man Par) would be no easy task. Same could be done at TOC or Royal Melbourne.

The score doesn't determine if the course is defenseless. What is required for a player to beat his opponent(s) does.

BobC:

It is interesting about that "scoring spectrum" Barometer or Conjecture.

Perhaps some think it theoretical but look at some of the actual results in play at some courses that are considered to be architecture's finest.

Look at the tournament scoriing histories of the PVGCs, Merions, Oakmonts, Shinnecocks, Pebbles, ANGCs, TOC, etc. In the tournament scoring histories of those courses not infrequently someone or just a few will either go low or go low enough to completely separate themselves from the rest of the field---essentially creating a very wide spectrum in total scoring across the tournament field.

These types of course, set-up to challenge in the way they're capable of without being goofy or over the top have a way of really identifying championship golf performances (no matter who it might be) while at the same time relegating the rest to the scoring dust-bin.

The "scoring spectrum" barometer is real, it's valid, representative of and identifies challenging, strategic, ultra thoughtful, tempting and great golf architecture.  

You fellows must have missed the word, "repetitively"

I love it Jeff...very clever.
My answer to the question is an emphatic NO, low scores cannot automatically reflect on failed architecrtural intent.

As we are told these guys are good...really good..on any given day at any given course a low number is always available to these guys...it is just a case of who is "on" that day.
At the Crump a couple of years ago we were discussing th potential scoring at PVGC if they staged a tour event..which of course they will not.....the discussion lasted several hours considering all aspects of the course set up.
As a group, we decided that on any given day somebody would shoot below 64, there would be a bunch of scores in the 65-69 range and that over the 4 rounds somewhere in the vicinity of -16 would win the event.
Now some on this site may think that is crazy low..but these guys would be hitting alot of short irons into the greens..and they really are good.

Now who in there right mind would question that PV has become archtecturally inept..clearly not, it remains the finest test of golf I have ever seen, and just because the best in the world could shoot under par does not lessen it's status.

What you would not see however, are those long hitters being 25-30 yards offline from the tee getting away with it, as they do week in week out on the tour..the winner at PV would have to have some "skill" in the mode of Flynn's meaning.

If they held a tour event at NGLA the winner would shoot 25 under or more(remember it's par 73)

Of course some genius could make it par 69 so the winner would be only 9 under.
Yet NGLA would remain an architectural masterpiece
Unless they ruined it for the event

A course can only be "an architectural masterpiece" in a specific context. Once the features become insignificant due to the length, spin, or other factors of the modern game, I would have a tough time describing the course as "an architectural masterpiece" as it pertains to modern day Tour Golf.

That doesn't diminish the course as it pertains to its membership, it very well might be an incredible golf course in that context, but I don't see anything wrong with differentiating between the two.

-Ted

JeffWarne,

You prove my point.

The intended function of the architecture has become obsolete with the increases in distance

On a hole like # 7 the "hotel" bunker is now practically useless, not unlike top shot bunkers of olde.

On # 8, the brilliant centerline bunker complex would remain, not as a functional tactical feature, but, for decorative purposes only.

On # 11 golfers are carrying the ball across the road and ending up near the green.

Do you still think the architecture is remaining functional, interfacing with the golfer as it was intended to do ?

Jeff


>The architecture has not failed,the governing bodies have.


 

Absolutely.  Great observation.

Hope the USGA/R & A get their collective acts together on this technology issue.

And soon.