When you love golf course architecture...

« **on:** September 20, 2006, 09:09:09 AM »

...it changes you. It changes the way you view golf. I swear it does. I've been thinking about this for quite some time, and a post I read from someone else entitled "does GCA make you a worse golfer?" got me thinking about it again.

Think back to when you were NOT a student of golf architecture. You were happy to play any old course, were pleased to play a "top course" now and then, but not obsessed with it, and an invitation to take a golf trip with your pals to some golf resort destination loaded with (insert names of your 3 least favorite modern course architects here) -type courses was readily accepted.

Fast forward to the time when you now knew who MacKenzie, MacDonald, Raynor, Tillinghast, Ross, Thompson, Travis, Flynn, Colt, et. al. were, and had studied their work. Contemplate the time you realized that golf was now "different" for you.

I am convinced this revelation "changes" you. Now, you formulate lists of golf courses you simply must visit. You disdain playing some of those resort courses that you used to enjoy. You are reluctant (or refuse) to go on golf trips with pals that aren't to the "right" courses.

Am I alone in this experience? I'm guessing I am not.

I've turned down countless invitations to go on golf trips the past 10 years because I've only got so many trips I can take, and I want to see the places I want to see.

Do we enjoy playing golf less because of this love of architecture? Are we now golf course architecture "snobs"? Do we enjoy our golf less when rounds are shared with partners who don't appreciate the architecture? What happened?

TS

« **Reply #1 on:** September 20, 2006, 09:19:35 AM »

Ted, I think knowledge is the power to give life and golf in this case more beauty and enjoyment. All courses no matter how poor have architectural features of note and interest. All have strategy and shot making options. Surely I enjoy the opportunity to see and play the best designs in the world and often see flaws more vividly in slightly lesser but still very good courses. Yet, I think that does not outweigh by any stretch of the imagination the good that comes from the study of architecture. I find the game is much richer for me for there is so much more than mearly golfing my ball and the score that results from it.

« **Reply #2 on:** September 20, 2006, 09:47:06 AM »

Quote from: Ted Sturges on September 20, 2006, 09:09:09 AM

Do we enjoy playing golf less because of this love of architecture?

¨

I would say a frank "No" to that.

Having an interest for golf course architechture have, as you certainly would agree on, deeper dimensions than seeking out and playing the so called "greatest courses in the world".

The (limited...) knowledge that I have gathered on gca provides me with more enjoyment from any kind of course, due to the fact that I have a better understanding than before on strategy, design concepts etc.

Every day that I am able to be out and playing the game is a good day in my book.

« **Reply #3 on:** September 20, 2006, 09:49:17 AM »

It's also made me much more cautious about having any sort of opinion. There's always some devil on GCA who will shoot you down in flames. No names....

« **Reply #4 on:** September 20, 2006, 10:31:46 AM »

Quote

I've turned down countless invitations to go on golf trips the past 10 years because I've only got so many trips I can take, and I want to see the places I want to see.

Do we enjoy playing golf less because of this love of architecture? Are we now golf course architecture "snobs"? Do we enjoy our golf less when rounds are shared with partners who don't appreciate the architecture? What happened?

Ted, to a certain degree the above is true for me. I have a number of friends whom I appreciate their friendship and commeraderie on the golf course. Yet, some of them are completely passive about the golf course design. They like resort courses for the eye candy, and don't have a clue about the design concepts, quality, or history. Some of them want it perfectly green and soft, all the accent areas in bloom, white perfect sand, and GPS carts. I have come to a point where I find someone else to talk to when they bring up their recent trip to the "experience in the woods by the sea at ----?" Many of them play better golf than me. So, in their eyes, I may not know what I'm talking about, because I can't break the 10 handicap barrier, which to them would signify a person with more knowledge about the subject. $:-\$

I have been lobbying special local friends that do "get it" or have a more likely propensity to get it if exposed to it. That is who I'm bringing on a road trip to Wild Horse and parts west next weekend. One is a fine senior player who has played in Scotland. He loved TOC and I have no doubt he will fall in love with the prairie and sand hills golf. I brought another gent out there last year (known as Sargie to Mr. Mucci) who loved it, but passed on the chance to return this year. So, he may not be totally indoctrinated yet.

One of the guys going with me this week will also go to the Dixie Cup, and we have a chance to see YH. He knows Lawsonia and loves it, so I'm expecting bells and whistles to go off when he gets to YH!

I dread the label of a golf snob. But, when I avoid trips that friends are going on, because they are going to a pedestrian course just to get out of the snow and only because it might be cheap, welll... I put on my snobby parka and go out and shovel snow. $:-\$

« **Reply #5 on:** September 20, 2006, 10:41:53 AM »

I'd agree that many who frequent this site do share the experiences, sentiments, and quandaries that Ted presents.

I can say emphatically that I do not.

Oh, I am interested in architecture for sure - in fact if fascinates me. And I have studied it 100 times more in these last few years frequenting this forum than in all of my prior years. I most definitely am interested in MacKenzie, MacDonald, Raynor, Tillinghast, Ross, Thompson, Travis, Flynn, Colt, et. al. and I have studied their work.

BUT... none of that changes this one undeniable fact, for me anyway:

Golf remains in the playing. All the study in the world is never going to match actually playing the game. I love architecture, I LIVE to play the game. That is a subtle yet huge difference.

So no, games with friends who don't know a redan from a sedan - which happen often for me - are absolutely no less fun than games with architecture buffs - in some ways, the former are MORE fun as we actually play and bet and compete, rather than dissect mounds and the like.

But again, it's about the playing.

And the last time I turned down a golf game anywhere and with anyone for which I actually had a kitchen pass would have been the first. I will - and do - play anywhere. Certainly rounds at architecturally interesting courses have a leg up on those at the crap courses around me, but the latter still mean playing the game, and that still means joy is to be found. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I could have fun playing this game on a parking lot, if the friends are right and the beer is cold.

So I try to understand you architecture snobs, but I never will really get you. And v'ive le difference (if I spelled that correctly).

« **Reply #6 on:** September 20, 2006, 10:42:33 AM »

Ted

I love golf course architecture.

I have lived in the Westchester area for much of my life and I had never played one of its local muni's, Mohansic, until this past Sunday. I got paired with some nice folks with diverse backgrounds and I had a great time. Its also quite a nice golf course that I could enjoy playing often. In fact, my love of architecture made me realize that Mohansic is a far nicer experience then many expensive CCFD's. I feel the same way every time I take off work early to go down the street in the Bronx to play the NYC muni, Split Rock. Those old and neglected courses have a lot to give to the community and their old architectural merits are appreciated whether the patrons read books by MacKenzie or not!

« **Reply #7 on:** September 20, 2006, 10:44:30 AM »

In a couple of weeks me and three other guys who don't "love architecture" will choose to either play the recently renovated French Lick by Ross or the highly aclaimed Sultan's Run by Liddy...As the "architecture lover" in the group I am even torn by the choice.

Please note...Every single golfer I know to a tee will choose to play courses revered by this board over ones panned if given the choice...and if it was free and access handy to privates...(access handy to privates) would love it even more.

« **Reply #8 on:** September 20, 2006, 10:52:55 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on September 20, 2006, 10:44:30 AM

Please note...Every single golfer I know to a tee will choose to play courses revered by this board over ones panned if given the choice...and if it was free and access handy to privates...(access handy to privates) would love it even more.

That's true for the most part, but not all of the time. Lou Duran can attest that I gave up a round at Los Angeles CC to go play a par three course with my Dad. And yes, the LACC round would have been comped.

So sure, who wouldn't want to play at great courses, comped or full fare? Seems odd to chastise for that. But that's not ALWAYS going to be what one chooses... I play a lot of golf on a lot of crappy courses for a lot of money just to be with my friends, or because that's where a tournament is, or whatever. I'm sure others do the same.

TH

« **Reply #9 on:** September 20, 2006, 10:57:46 AM »

JK, that is not so hard of a choice between French Lick and the new Liddy course, if I were you. I assume you know and like French Lick and have played it a number of times. You seem to be saying you haven't seen the new Sultan's by Liddy. If that be the case, I would pick the new one that I hadn't seen because of the reputation of the architect, and curiosity to see a new and exciting design. In that regard, I don't think I'd be a snob that only likes old age stuff.

Yet, you say the old French Lick was renovated. If you hadn't seen the new renovated features, then the choice might be tougher.

Unfortuanately, I know guys that would choose Woodlands at Lawsonia over the old classic Langford Links. There, it isn't a matter of access to privates, and actually, I believe Woodlands is more expensive. That is an instance where I'd probably get snobby and atleast make a stink about it and try to convince them to play the Links. But, in that case Woodlands isn't so bad that I'd flat out refuse to play. But, there are other bland courses I would pass on the road trip.

« **Reply #10 on:** September 20, 2006, 11:20:02 AM »

Huck plays with his Dad and in money games with his friends...What a guy...architecture lover or not.

« **Reply #11 on:** September 20, 2006, 11:25:40 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on September 20, 2006, 11:20:02 AM

Huck plays with his Dad and in money games with his friends...What a guy...architecture lover or not.

Doesn't everyone? I surely didn't mean this in an attempt for praise, or to single myself out. My example was used because it included a man we both know. But mainly it was just meant as a rebuttal to your OVERGENERALIZATION made prior. You said:

Every single golfer I know to a tee will choose to play courses revered by this board over ones panned if given the choice...and if it was free and access handy to privates...(access handy to privates) would love it even more.

Well, I guess you don't know me to a tee?

But come on... there have to be MANY golfers you know outside of this site who play - and love to play - many courses that would be extremely panned by this site... and MANY MANY MANY who've never played a comped round in their lives outside of perhaps YOU paying for them....

No?

Thus I am just saying you are full of shit in your proclamation, that's all.

« **Reply #12 on:** September 20, 2006, 11:31:19 AM »

Huck,

I think this "love of architecture" cloak so many of you proudly wear is a paper tiger...

« **Reply #13 on:** September 20, 2006, 11:34:37 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on September 20, 2006, 11:31:19 AM

Huck,

I think this "love of architecture" cloak so many of you proudly wear is a paper tiger...

I'd fully agree with that. Did you read my first post?

I doubt we'd have the same reasons for making this statement, though. For me love of playing the game trumps love of architecture so much it's not even close. I gather you are referring to love of comps, trying to impress, other more nefarious things?

TH

« **Reply #14 on:** September 20, 2006, 11:45:24 AM »

Most important thing that I learned from this thread so far:

"Friends that don't know a redan from a sedan" would make a great song title.

« **Reply #15 on:** September 20, 2006, 11:48:09 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on September 20, 2006, 11:31:19 AM

a paper tiger...

Don't you mean "a charade"?

« **Reply #16 on:** September 20, 2006, 11:51:55 AM »

Huck,

To note...I was comped at a private once again just this weekend so no I'm not talking about comps...I'm just saying everyone prefers to play with people they like at the best course available that day and time...Everyone loves architecture..

Dan...I used the term paper tiger because I thouht it referenced a great golfer while making my point.

« **Reply #17 on:** September 20, 2006, 11:54:40 AM »

I would agree that it does change you Ted. In the beginning, you start asking yourself what it is you like about a particular course and then find out who the person is that designed it and try other courses of that designer. Sometimes you like the others, sometimes not. And sometimes a course comes along by someone in the past created courses that you couldn't stand and this one you really like. I personally have to guard myself to not be overly critical of a course and try to enjoy it for what it is, a playing ground. Having said that, it is, as Macdonald said, an art form, and we all have our personal likes and dislikes and like to debate amongst others why a course appeals to you and or not. That's why we've come here!

« **Reply #18 on:** September 20, 2006, 12:17:48 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on September 20, 2006, 11:51:55 AM

Huck,

To note...I was comped at a private once again just this weekend so no I'm not talking about comps...I'm just saying everyone prefers to play with people they like at the best course available that day and time...Everyone loves architecture..

Ok... that makes sense. Your prior quote was patently full of shit. They also seem to make opposite points. But never mind, you are certainly allowed to be inconsistent.

TH

« **Reply #19 on:** September 20, 2006, 01:27:28 PM »

I am with Huckaby on this one. And yes, I can attest that he passed up playing with me at a significant club (though I don't think it was LACC, but one in the general area) to go play a muni with his dad.

For me, golf architecture is only meaningful in the context of playing the game. I learned to play golf at OSU's Scarlet course in the early 1970s and have been in love with the game and its architecture ever since.

For many years I competed in club and local tournaments which gave me some exposure to the better courses in areas where I've lived. Looking at aerials and pictures of holes and extrapolating from them has never done it for me.

Unlike Huck, I don't have to be surrounded by my best buds to enjoy playing golf and taking in the architecture. In fact, I would as soon play as a single or in a twosome as I would a full group when seeing a great course for the first time.

For me personally, paying close attention to gca has accelarated the decline in my game. This is probably a result of a mind that's already easily distracted having more things to wonder about.

Golf is still great fun and I thoroughly enjoy playing new courses. I find courses all over the place which bring joy to my life. Many don't make anyone's Top Anything list, but all have wonderful redeeming qualities. I've yet to find one that has bored or not challenged me. This is not to say that I've not been disappointed from time to time, usually by courses who were highly touted and my expectations were abnormally high. On the other hand, I've been very pleasantly surprised on many more occasions.

« **Reply #20 on:** September 20, 2006, 01:37:47 PM »

I'd like to know how seeing an architectural feature that is supposedly great and understanding its intent can hurt your game more than not seeing it at all. Maybe you guys are seeing architectural accidents that have nothing to do with the game at all..

« **Reply #21 on:** September 20, 2006, 01:37:55 PM »

To: Lou Duran

Interesting point you make about playing as a single, or a 2 ball or a 3 ball when taking in the architecture. I have come to enjoy the 2 ball as my favorite form of play. Playing someone in a match offers a much quicker pace than playing with 4 golfers intent on playing a 4 1/2 hour round; does not burden one with posting a score (this also speeds up the pace), and allows one more opportunity to enjoy the architecture (not looking for other's golf balls). I used to go on golf trips with 8, 12, even 16 one time...reflecting back, I can't believe I did that.

I leave a week from today for Ireland and England with 2 close friends (who both enjoy this site). For me this has the makings for the ideal golf experience.

TS

« **Reply #22 on:** September 20, 2006, 02:22:28 PM »

JK,

Simple reasoning really. When you're out there trying to take in as much of the architecture as you can, your attention is focused on that objective. When you're competing, your mind is on shooting the best score you can, and you will naturally perceive those things selectively which allow you to do this. The frame of mind needed for scoring is very different than the one for evaluating gca. Unless of course, you possess extraodinary powers of concentration allowing you to comparmentalize a bunch of information that is extraneous to scoring. I can't hit a drive, walk over to look at a bunker or notice the angle of approach from the opposite side of the fairway, and then stand over my next shot with a clear mind on what I need to do. Others may be able to do so.

« **Reply #23 on:** September 20, 2006, 03:10:28 PM »

Thanks, Lou. But to set the record straight (and you might not have known all of it) I passed up the planned round at Bel-Air in favor of playing a local muni with my Dad and brother in law... I also passed up the chance to play LACC South as you did after our morning round on the North, because my Dad wanted to play "his" par three course.

As for playing with friends, I never said that was MANDATORY. I just said if the friends are right I can have fun anywhere. And that does remain true. But I've played plenty of solo golf, or tournament golf, or other golf with people unknown to me, and I love that also. In those cases either the competition or the course is more what drives the fun, but hell I can still have fun playing solo on a horrible course. The playing of the game remains the bottom line.

Now in terms of favorite ways to play the game, well... perhaps I am a weird cat but the weirder the format the more fun I have. I absolutely love partners/team golf. Set up a chapman or foursomes game on a good course and that's golf heaven to me. I've played WAY WAY WAY too much solo competitive golf in my life, and while that remains fun, it doesn't jazz me nearly as much as partners' stuff.

You'll note also that appreciating the architecture does not even get mentioned. For me, that happens no matter how I play. But it's also wholly secondary to my reason for being on the course, so no matter.

TH

« **Reply #24 on:** September 20, 2006, 03:54:32 PM »

Quote from: redanman on September 20, 2006, 02:23:20 PM

...
I prefer in order:
- a twosome
- solo
- threesome
- me and three women
...

So you prefer playing with yourself to playing with three women. Interesting.....

News:

T.J. Sturges

Tiger_Bernhardt

Eric Franzen

Mark_Rowlinson

RJ_Daley

Tom Huckaby

Geoffrey Childs

John Kavanaugh

Tom Huckaby

RJ_Daley

John Kavanaugh

Tom Huckaby

John Kavanaugh

Tom Huckaby

Eric Franzen

Dan Kelly

John Kavanaugh

David Stamm

Tom Huckaby

Lou_Duran

John Kavanaugh

T.J. Sturges

Lou_Duran

Tom Huckaby

Garland Bayley