[Peter Pallotta]

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

[JESII]

Peter,

I don't speak to any either, but...don't you think they try to get the ball in the hole as quick as possible?

[Peter Pallotta]

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

[Tom Huckaby]

Peter:

If they are on to anything, it's recognizing their limitations and playing within such.  But many male players do that also, no?  

TH

[tlavin]

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...

[JESII]

There are a few women who post on here occasionally...they might be the lot of female GCA lunatics. Compared to counter the 1495 men on here, they usualyy seem a bit more thoughtful...maybe one of them is actually HamiltonBHearst...

[Peter Pallotta]

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

[Tom Huckaby]

Peter:

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.

So I think all that they are on to is playing the course as it works for them, which most males eventually get to anyway as they age.....

[cary lichtenstein]

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

[JMorgan]

Maybe the average woman golfer is disinterested because she is not set up properly to play the course.  Most course designs fail to properly place the forward tees so women have the same strategic decisions as those golfers playing from the back tees.   Alice Dye has been maintaining this fact for years.

[Brent Hutto]

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 Izatt]

Peter,

Such insights into the average woman golfer when you don't know any and never play with any.  You're probably one of those who discuss, analyze and debate on course architecture that you've never seen or played.  

My worse-than-average woman golfer wife is very aware of the architectural features of a course without needing to overtly talk and debate about them.  Almost every hole on every course requires her to think and navigate her way around and past the architectural features in a way that even average male golfers don't need to do.  For her, bunkering that creates a preferred angle of approach to the green invariably means she needs to strategically position her shots to get the preferred angle.  She has options, but she would hardly consider herself "free" when she plays.

And, James has it right.  There are dismally few courses that are designed in such a way that women can interface with the features in the same way a man can on drives, second or third or subsequent shots.

[Peter Pallotta]

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

[Peter Pallotta]

"Don't so blithely dismiss women golfers."

W. Vostinak (and all):

I must not be making myself very clear, because I hope that's the last thing I'm doing, or seen to be doing.  

I don't know why there's an assumption that because I'm suggesting/proposing that the average woman golfer is not interfacing with the architecture in the same way, I'm a) criticizing them, b) saying that it's necessarily a bad thing, or c) not asking a genuine question.

It may be that I'm wondering about how that golfer (and the older golfers Tom H mentions) are having so much fun, and what we might learn from their "freer" approach.

And your suggestion is a good one, so here's one back: try not to assume the worst about a poster/thread.

Peter

edit: btw, you make a good point: "many many women learn very crafty (strategic) ways to play golf holes because they don't have the brute strength that men have."  But again, I never questioned that; I was asking the question in terms of their relationship to the strategy as imagined/designed by the architect

[Bill_McBride]

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.

[Matt_Cohn]

Peter,

I've been selling golf clubs to men and women for around a year now so I've seen quite a few women hit shots.

You commented about the "average female golfer (say, a 20 handicapper)".

The reality is that perhaps 10% of the women whom I've worked with in the store could play to a legitimate 20 handicap, even from the ladies tees. I'm convinced that a strong majority of them would be hard pressed to fly the ball 100 yards consistently with a driver.

This may not be an accurate cross-section of lady golfers because I'm the first stop for beginners buying their first set of clubs. But my numbers are accurate based on what I've seen.

[TEPaul]

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 Izatt]

Peter,

It may be that I'm wondering about how that golfer (and the older golfers Tom H mentions) are having so much fun, and what we might learn from their "freer" approach.

Thanks for clarifying the intent of your post.  Without making you too sensitive I hope, you're again generalizing or stereotyping that "that golfer" is having "so much fun" and are "freer" in their approach to golf.  For what it's worth, many of the women I've played with are sometimes not having so much fun and are not so much freer than men in the way they play the game.  Women that I know can be and are very focused and competitive in many situations, including playing golf.

[Peter Pallotta]

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

[Matthew Hunt]

Peter,

I don't speak to any either, but...don't you think they try to get the ball in the hole as quick as possible?

God, you havn't been stuck behind as many slow
ladies as me!

[Kalen Braley]

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.

[JESII]

Peter,

I don't speak to any either, but...don't you think they try to get the ball in the hole as quick as possible?

God, you havn't been stuck behind as many slow
ladies as me!

Oh, I have, but I thought you said you were only about 14. At what age do they allow you fellas behind the wheel over there?

[Scott Witter]

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 Pallotta]

Scott
thanks for the generous reply; it's helpful.

But I'm also glad you posted because we both were involved in the "freedom golf" thread a while back, and I think that thread has something to do with this one, i.e.

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?

Peter

[Scott Witter]

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

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()