From the little I've seen, the average female golfer (say, a 20 handicapper) plays the game differently than her male counterpart:

She doesn't (and doesn't try) to interface with the architectural features/design in the same way.

She seems blithely uninterested in the designer's intentions; and stubbornly refuses to play the game the designer wants her (and has worked hard to entice her) to play.

(edit: and I don't mean that as a criticism)

Is she on to something, or is she missing something? What do you think?

(I don't know any average female golfers personally, so I can't ask them)

Peter

JES

Yes, there is that. (And there you go ruining a perfectly good thread with the obvious point/answer )

I think they do (but aren't as concerned about that either).

But what I mean is, they don't seem to worry so much about why a certain bunker is where it is, or that they are being "tempted" to try to carry it, or that a strategic examination of the hole could tell them the "proper" side of the fairway to be on for the approach, etc.

In short, they are having fun while not doing/thinking many of the things their male counterparts say they do to have the same fun.

That's what it seems like to me anyway, and if that's the case I'm just wondering if they're on to something.

Peter

One of my mottos is "I don't golf with women or sleep with men but pretty much everything else is open for discussion," so I probably shouldn't comment...

Tom
yes, some of us try to recognize our limitations - but perhaps in a different way.  

All our discussions here about strategic designs and what courses do it best, and how those designs offer 'options' on how to play a hole comes about because we want to interface with the architecture the way the designer intended, even if that means making the safe choice all the time (i.e. the choice that's within our limitations).

It just seems to me that the average woman golfer isn't as concerned about all this. They are, let's say, more "free".

Peter

Peter:

The average woman golfer is no more aware of architectural features than the mythical average male golfer.

I play with lots of women, every Sunday we do a couples thingy and I have played in many husband/wife events with excellent, good and average women players.

Take it from me, women are just as smart as men when it comes to golf and architectural features, and frankly there are alot I would prefer to play with than alot of men including HamiltonBHearst .

Cary

In my observation, neither men or women club golfers do much strategizing or "interfacing" with the architectural features beyond just trying to avoid hazards and hit decent shots.

The difference is, some men may like to talk or boast about taking on various challenges even if in practice they just hit their usual shot and hope for the best. Women may not feel the need to even pretend they're implementing a "strategy" beyond hit and hope.

Bryan
thanks - that's good input.

"Such insights into the average woman golfer when you don't know any and never play with any."

But that's why I'm asking questions and starting a discussion,  instead of giving a series of lectures at the YMCA.  

Peter

My wife is a short but very straight hitting 24 handicap who can beat my brains out when her short game is on.  

Women golfers differ from men in that they have little ego when playing.  If there is a 100 yard carry over a hazard that is 50 yards in front of them, they have no problem chipping closer and then hitting the shorter shot across.  Imagine a guy doing that!  

They are also not adverse to "tacking" down a hole to avoid the bunkers, and my wife is very good at playing way off line in order to get a good angle to the green.

Too many courses don't have a short enough set of tees, but it really doesn't matter to the women that much.  Not as much ego.

I don't know if you could call this an average woman golfer but I was playing with this 75+ year old lady golfer at Seminole one time and I would say she definitely interfaced with the architecture, or maybe I should say she felt like it interfaced with her.

We were on the 17th hole and my Dad and I were on the back tees when she hit her tee shot from the ladies tees. She hit it into the front bunker and she said F.... loud enough for us to hear it.

My Dad just winked at me and said;  "She's still as competitive as ever and that's probably why she won six US Amateurs."

Bryan
thanks; and no, you're not making me too sensitive. But the topic might be too large and varied - I know there are individual differences (I'm married, happily), but the "average woman golfer" may be as mythical as the "average male golfer".

I still think there's an interesting discussion in here someplace, though, something like exploring what the "game" means, and how things like the right tees etc play just a part.

Peter

Having played with a few women golfers over the years, I'd say it really depends.  Sure many of them are just out there enjoying the round....but then again, I've played with many men who are doing just the same.

I've also played with at least 2 women who could hit it as far as I can on most of her clubs and one of them played the mens tees right along with us and held her own just fine. Overall she was very atheltic, and excelled at other sports as well as golf.

As to the older ladies playing, sure they can play really slow, but then again, so can a group of older gentlemen as well.

Peter:

Since I am not out west playing in the architect's and superintendent's reindeer games, I'll take a stab at this.

Everyone has voiced some relavent comments with respect to realistic playing abilitites-vs-handicap-vs-their male counterparts and I think that is where it all blends together.  I couldn't say that your initial comment truly applies more women-vs-the average golfer with a HC of 20 or 25 HC , since at that level most don't pay that much attention.  Of course, as TE Paul pointed out, there are those few out there, but it crosses both sides from men and women IMO without bias to gender, and more along the lines of skill and the expectations of these particular, which BTW make up a huge group, public golfers are looking for.  IMO their enjoyment concerns/issues are far less interested in the purity/complexity, or sophistication of GCA as opposed to the aesthetics and their ability to play, not lose too many balls and have fun with friends and family.

On the other hand, while working with many private clubs, I find a lot of women and men at this level who are just as competitive as the club champion and actually are quite interested in the details of GCA.  Though they may not have the overall game and skill base, they do often have great skills in a certain segment of the game and expect the architecture to allow them to use their skills to beat their fellow competitors.

"and how things like the right tees etc play just a part."

Peter, this is a big issue that impacts the quality of the experience by many players at this level.  I think women are much better at this, a lot less ego to burden them it seems, but far too many men, once decent players and now much older, are not willing to move up.

It also comes down to personality, plain and simple I think with many just not all that interested in the GCA and how, or why they ended up where they did.

"They're not concerned with such because they can't reach the hazards - it's not in their realm of possibility to do so.  So they don't bother even thinking about them... My point is there are males that do that as well.  My guess is more females don't bother EVER trying because it has NEVER been in their realm of possibility - and thus their entire golf lives just recognize their limitations and play the course as it works for them - as opposed to males who have to come to this decision consciously as they age or weaken."

Hucks quote applies to many as well.  My mom, now 77 used to be a solid player when much younger and was very interested in the design and details, but never really was too concerned about what the hazards are or where they were located in relation to her game.  She rarely changed her approach based on design or elements, she recognized the features, but simply went along and played her game and has always had a lot of fun!

 

Peter:

"is there more freedom and options when, for whatever reason, a player doesn't feel compelled to interface with the architectural features/designs as prescribed by the architect?"

Unfortunately this will probably come out as a stream of unconsciousness as opposed to some great piece of Lit, but this, IMO is really at the heart of GCA in more ways than one.  Tom Doak and other architects have said it before...GCA and construction is not really all that complicated.  IMO I think they are right and I am not about to get into a discussion about who, what, when and where for it is all just opinion and the proof is in the pudding (details really), and while many love to postulate about the dead guys being so deep in their thinking and execution, I do believe some were brilliant, many were simply being quite intuitive with their work.  For better or for worse, the work of the latter was great work and it goes a long with your thoughts about "freedom golf"  BTW I really like that term where both the architect and the golfer don't get all hung up in the 'what if's' and every possible scenario between tee and green and just "play away"

I will refrain from calling out names of said dead guys to avoid being called out by all the dead guy gurus on this site and wasting time arguing...but I digress  It is sort of like when I began downhill skiing years ago with my two very talented cousins.  I would stand at the top of the hill looking at all of the features, issues, elements between me and the bottom of the holl and wondered how I would safely negotiate my way down without getting hurt, but at the same time, I wanted to experience the character of the hill, but I felt intimidated.  After way too much contemplation, I simply took the easy route and pointed the skis forward and away I went not really worrying about what might happen, what I might miss and sudenly I was at the bottom.  I had fun, and I wasn't really too sure what just happened, but it was interesting enough to bring me back again and again.

I am not sure if I made any sense there

I DO believe there is more freedom and the options are endless, perhaps not from the point of view of the architect, or the purist, but from THESE players vantage point, they are not concerned, they are not limited by any particular bias or preconceived notion of "what they are supposed to do in order to have fun"...they see options everywhere and express plenty of freedom in their approach to the game and evaluate/base this on their ability to have fun IMO.

At the same time, if these players were/are able to 'FREE' their minds a bit and open up to what the architect has offered them, they would/could find even more options to engage the course and discover deeper rewards from their game no matter what their skill level.

I gotta stop...my head hurts from all this 'free thinking' and I think if I don't go now, big brother is gonna reclaim my computer files