[Patrick_Mucci]

Is architecture that presents a thorough examination of the golfers game A, if not THE, qualitative measure of its merits ?

Has modern technology eased the thoroughness of the examination ?

Please, DO NOT provide your thoughts in the context of the PGA Tour Player

[JESII]

Patrick,

Is it really possible for any one person to analyze how a course presents itself to anyone else?

[JESII]

In that light, if every one responds to this thread's questions in the context of their own game you will get a comprehensive pool of data.

1) I think it is THE qualitative measure. So long as thourough examination can be read as well rounded as opposed to simply DIFFICULT.

2) NO, but I think it has made it more difficult to produce the things that provide a challenge. Knobby little greens and uneven fairways...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Is it really possible for any one person to analyze how a course presents itself to anyone else?

YES

And, isn't that what architects do every time they design a golf course

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Not really.  One play shouldn't reveal how it tests, and besides, lots of golfers go out just to enjoy the scenery, camraderie, etc.  with the "test" being secondary to them.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jeff:

BINGO.

There is a lot more to golf than the test it provides.  I truly believe the very best courses take this into account.

But Patrick will NEVER accept this.  Be prepared for a battle if you want to try to convince him of this.  

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Not really.  One play shouldn't reveal how it tests, and besides, lots of golfers go out just to enjoy the scenery, camraderie, etc.  with the "test" being secondary to them.

Jeff,

If that was the case they'd be out hiking.

Golf remains a game played upon a specially prepared field where the object is to get from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible and the architect's function is to make that journey challenging, interesting and fun.

Although, challenge and fun do come into conflict now and then.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Only if your specifically talking about the architecture, but there are other factors that merit a 'qualitative measure' also.

I don't believe that modern technology has eased the examination for the average players. If anything, it has allowed them to experience what better golf feels like and this, in turn, will add to their feelings of bravery, which will eventually get them into trouble, which they will eventually overcome, and so on and so forth. The examination only gets harder the better they get.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Not really.  One play shouldn't reveal how it tests, and besides, lots of golfers go out just to enjoy the scenery, camraderie, etc.  with the "test" being secondary to them.

Jeff,

If that was the case they'd be out hiking.

Golf remains a game played upon a specially prepared field where the object is to get from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible and the architect's function is to make that journey challenging, interesting and fun.

Although, challenge and fun do come into conflict now and then.

And yet, they aren't out hiking, although some of us see the woods often enough to get confused about that!

As we discuss ad nauseum here, millions of golfer find challenge, interest, and fun just trying to manage their own swing without ever once considering the overall test the golf course might offer if they could hit it a lick.

And, as you mention, challenge and fun can be mutually exclusive - such as allowing kick in banks which might reward creative shot making or well placed misses equally well, thereby not being a test of golf as much as a hell of a lot of fun.

Your premise assumes that all courses should be designed primarily for low handicappers in informal competition. I thnk that accounts for about 2% of golfers, and wouldn't have any trouble judging a course designed for the other 98% just as much or more a complete success in any qualitative measurement.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick,
that's an interesting question, in part because it allows for a number of approaches in trying to answer it. You've had several already, here's one more:

I'd argue that the very fact of a site like golfclubatlas.com (and of any book or article ever written about great golf course architecture) presupposes the existence of fundamental principles and ideals in the design sphere that are manifested as strategic features. Yes, these features are certainly 'actualized' in playing the course (i.e. to use your phrase, the golfer then 'interfaces' with the architecture); but they also exist independently of the golfer (and certainly independently of any specific golfer), and they can be seen, discussed and judged in terms of those fundamental principles and ideals without any reference to how a course might test the hypothetical game of a hypothetical golfer.

I know that you’re a proponent, Patrick, of not commenting on a course’s architectural merits until you’ve played it, and played it not once but several times. I actually think that is probably the soundest approach of all; but on the other hand, I think there are several respected architectural critics past and present whose opinions on golf course architecture we seem to value very much, even though we know that they didn’t always follow your lead before commenting on and judging every course.

Some theorizing and speculation. I think it might hold water.

Peter          

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Not really.  One play shouldn't reveal how it tests, and besides, lots of golfers go out just to enjoy the scenery, camraderie, etc.  with the "test" being secondary to them.

Jeff,

If that was the case they'd be out hiking.

Golf remains a game played upon a specially prepared field where the object is to get from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible and the architect's function is to make that journey challenging, interesting and fun.

Although, challenge and fun do come into conflict now and then.

Your premise assumes that all courses should be designed primarily for low handicappers in informal competition.

Not at all, in fact, it's just the opposite.

Different sets of tees allow for amateurs of all levels to be challenged, without creating an undue challenge for the lesser player, or an overwhelming challenge for the better player.

As you descend from the abilities of a zero handicap golfer to the abilities of higher handicap golfers I'd agree that the challenge inherently increases, but, that doesn't mean that higher handicap golfers should be exempt from or deprived of a thorough examination of their respective games, even if that examination presents tasks that may be a little beyond their normal ability to meet.   Aspiring to rise to the task, even one above your normal ability is woven into the very fabric of golf and golfers.

If a golf course requires a zero handicap to use every club and most shots that they're cabable of, why shouldn't higher handicaps have that same challenge presented to them ?

Don't context or overly focus on difficulty, think of the issue in the context of variety.

Let's take four (4) par 3's as an example.
Using a 0, 10 and 20 handicap.

Wouldn't a configuration such as the one below provide challenge, interest and fun to all three groups ?

Wouldn't it cause all three groups to hit different clubs ?

Wouldn't it be a balanced examination of their game ?

                                0       10       20

                               240     200      175
                               190     175      155
                               160     150      135
                               130     125      115[/color]
                               

I thnk that accounts for about 2% of golfers, and wouldn't have any trouble judging a course designed for the other 98% just as much or more a complete success in any qualitative measurement.

But, you don't design golf course for a limited spectrum of golfers, you design it for the broad spectrum of golfers.

Aren't they entitled to the same challenges, the same variety, the same fun ?[/color]

[Adam Clayman]

The key is the trio of challenge, interest and fun. The best courses measure up in all three categories.

Interest must be the hardest one to get right because so many qualfied gca's have failed at it.

[JESII]

Is it commonly accepted that each course will (or can) provide identicle challenge, interest and fun for any two players?


I would think each course would affect each player somewhat differently in each of those three areas and therefore the goal should be to do the most for the most.


The only course I can think of that would seem able to satisfy each of those criteria quite well for a really wide range of players would be Shinnecock if the rough were short and the greens firm, but not lightening fast...PV is just too difficult for a huge number of people, and Merion would seem to sway heavily based on maintenance prep. Other than RCD, these are the only really premier courses I have played.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is it commonly accepted that each course will (or can) provide identicle challenge, interest and fun for any two players?

I don't believe it is.

Providing an "Identical" challenge, shot for shot, would be impossible, but, overall the challenge should even out, irrespective of where the challenge appears during the course of the round.[/color]

I would think each course would affect each player somewhat differently in each of those three areas and therefore the goal should be to do the most for the most.

It's a matter of a balanced presentation that evens out at the end of the round[/color]

The only course I can think of that would seem able to satisfy each of those criteria quite well for a really wide range of players would be Shinnecock if the rough were short and the greens firm, but not lightening fast...

You forgot the most important factor, the return to the original or widest fairway width.[/color]

PV is just too difficult for a huge number of people,

PV was created for a narrow spectrum of the golfing world[/color]

and Merion would seem to sway heavily based on maintenance prep.

I'd agree.
I've always felt that maintainance presentation at Merion made the course overly severe for most golfers.[/color]

Other than RCD, these are the only really premier courses I have played.

[JESII]

Pat,


Do you really believe that Shinnecock would (or even should) provide the same overall challenge for you as it does me at the end of the day? How could that be?


Re: Shinnecock, I though about the fairway widths, and you're probably right, although I do not recall playing them prior to about 1990 or so, that could really only help to balance the overall experience across a wide range of players.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Do you really believe that Shinnecock would (or even should) provide the same overall challenge for you as it does me at the end of the day? How could that be?

An examination of one's game does not require parity with another's game.[/color]

Re: Shinnecock, I though about the fairway widths, and you're probably right, although I do not recall playing them prior to about 1990 or so, that could really only help to balance the overall experience across a wide range of players.

[Phil Benedict]

I think it's really hard to generalize across different handicap categories. For example, the 1st hole at Yale has a forced carry over a pond.  I don't know the exact yardage over the water but my guess is 175-200 yards.  Most single-digit handicappers wouldn't even give the water a thought, but it would be a real challenge and create lots of interest for the high handicapper, although I am not sure about the fun part.

[Kirk Gill]

If it is the "thoroughness" with which a golf course tests the abilities of a player, then the diversity of the test provided would be paramount. The number of skills necessary to play good golf - putting, short game, driving distance, accuracy, aerial game, ground game, balls, mental toughness, etc......by necessity require a diverse test, if you want to cover all the bases.

No?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think it's really hard to generalize across different handicap categories. For example, the 1st hole at Yale has a forced carry over a pond.  I don't know the exact yardage over the water but my guess is 175-200 yards.  Most single-digit handicappers wouldn't even give the water a thought, but it would be a real challenge and create lots of interest for the high handicapper, although I am not sure about the fun part.

Phil,

That's why they create different sets of tees.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

If it is the "thoroughness" with which a golf course tests the abilities of a player, then the diversity of the test provided would be paramount. The number of skills necessary to play good golf - putting, short game, driving distance, accuracy, aerial game, ground game, balls, mental toughness, etc......by necessity require a diverse test, if you want to cover all the bases.

No?

Yes, you could say that.

Except for the part about the number of skills.
There, I think you have to consider relativity.
ie, the 10 and 20 handicappers don't possess the skills of the 0 handicap, thus their test would have to differ, otherwise it might be an unfair test.[/color]

[Phil Benedict]

Phil,

That's why they create different sets of tees.[/color]

I think there are certain types of hazards - forced carries over water being one - that have a psychological component that affect golfers of varied skill levels differently.  High handicappers are more prone to outright mishits than low handicappers, so shots over water are fundamentally more daunting no matter where the tees are.

[Tony Ristola]

Interesting shots, variety, flexibility, freshness (in that the course offers consistent opportunities to learn or relearn something) from tee to green. The last part (freshness) in particular because it offers a whole range of tests only time can reveal. The antithesis of mono-strategic courses and holes. Though such courses could have a few holes of that nature; dictating a narrow array of shots.

Great aesthetics are a nice addition but would not be necessary.  

[Jerry Kluger]

Patrick:  Your response: "That's why they create different sets of tees.", while sometimes correct, fails to take into account green complexes and contours.  

The lesser skilled player might have a better chance of hitting a green in regulation when playing the correct tees, but that still does not overcome his inability to deal with significant green contours.  I read once that for a player to break 80 he only needs to hit 8 greens in regulation, but I believe the presumption was that he would then be able to two putt.  

Let's take the example of Hidden Creek.  I would say that overall, it is not an overly intimidating course if played from the correct tees.  That is however, until one reaches the green, or at least the green complex.  The higher skilled player will find the recovery shots and the putting to be interesting and challenging.  The lesser skilled player will be confounded and totally lost - so much so that he might not want to play the course on a regular basis.

My conclusion is that green complexes and contours have become an important method of dealing with modern technology, but perhaps, it is doing so at the cost of losing the interest of lesser skilled players.

[Phil Benedict]

Patrick,

I'll give you another example.  On dogleg holes the skilled player needs to take into account driving past the dogleg into whatever trouble there is on the outside of the dogleg.  So he (or she) has to consider whether to try to shape his shot or take less club to avoid overshooting the dogleg.

The less skilled player, even if playing from front tees, may not have the length to drive through the dogleg and can hit whatever happens to be their normal shot without giving thought to the strategy presented by the hole.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Pat,
You were close.  
Here is the correct answer:

99, 112, 138, 146
111, 147, 170, 190
131, 162, 185, 205
151, 185, 205, 245

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()