In many of my visits to great courses I have been fortunate to have the time to play the course AND to walk around to study it and photograph it.  On my trip to the UK, I would get to a new town at mid-day, play the course, walk it and take pictures that evening and the next morning, and move on down the road ... or occasionally, if I arrived late, I would do the photography first and play the next morning after taking pictures.

Now that I look back on it, I'm not sure which is the better approach.

I think most people would say have a walk around first, so you understand the course a bit before you go try and play it.  Peter Jacobsen told me years ago he'd rather do that on any new course, so he could see the course the first time with positive thoughts and not form an immediate bad impression of the holes where he hit a poor shot.

But, contrarily, if you play the course first you are seeing it as it's meant to be seen ... and if you screw up the third hole, you will go out later and dissect what you did wrong and form a better impression of the hole in your mind, won't you?  And isn't your final impression ultimately the most important?

TomD:

Some would probably say it doesn't or shouldn't matter which you do first.

I don't agree with that at all, however.

I'd much rather walk a course I've never seen before and play it later. But I must admit the reason I say that these days is because I'm sort of looking to compare how the course may look different in various ways from how it plays---eg particularly spatial reasons and visual deception.

I'm looking at architecture now and that's what I'm interested in. I just don't think one can get the full impact of how different a course may look to the way it plays if you're playing it never having looked at it before. Basically I don't think you have the time to fully appreciate the difference. The reason is, it never can be more than a quick look and then you hit a shot. I'd rather give it a day for the difference to have more of an impact through thought.

When I played tournament golf I'd only want to play the course first in practice and then those problems and solutions between the difference in look and in play would immediately come to the fore.

Back then I wasn't that interested in looking at and appreciating architecture in and of its own context---I was just interested in figuring out the best way to score well and hitting shots on it gave me that instant feedback I was looking for with only that purpose in mind.

But today it's the opposite.

If a course looks different in various ways, particularly spatially, from the way it plays, it tends to impress me more than if what you first see is basically what you get in play.

Today, I like more time to appreciate the differences in look vs play. And if some things about the course look really different from the way they play, then that really interests me a whole lot and I come back again to try to study the particularly reasons that is the case.

Those holes and aspects tend to be what impresses me most.

I'm sure you can tell from all this I am not in any way a fan of this cliche and idea that "everything is right there in front of you". I take that to mean that what you at first see is pretty much what you get---eg no real surprises.

What I like about architecture is various forms and nuances of visual deception.

I just think this is the type of thing that makes golfers engage more with golf courses simply because they have to. This is the kind of thing that the idea of "mystery" is made of and I think various degrees of "mystery" make for good to great golf architecture.

TomD:

Actually, I would hope that this thread, particularly in the context of what I said about about visual deception and such, would get into that area in discussion.

I probably only know some of the very basic artistic and "scale" type techniques of how an artist or architect fools with a players "eye", particularly spatially.

Obviously, if you make a bunker in the middle of a fairway appear smaller than it may be by enlarging what's around it like fairway you make that hazard feature appear to be farther away than it may actually be.

I just think this kind of thing is so interesting in architecture, particularly if a golfer finds his ball is landing much farther out than he at first thinks it can by just looking at what's before him.

To me this is a form of "empowerment" for the golfer and if there's something he didn't expect to reach that he needs to deal with in a risk/reward sense, then what could be better than that?

Frankly, even if it catches him up the first time the fact that he hit it farther than it looked like he could, well, then, that's at a very minimum, pretty exhilerating for him.  

Tom, what do you think of walking the course backwards first?  My son would always walk a new course backwards when he was playing competitively. He believed he could see how to approach the hole better.

Tom,
Aren't Peter’s comments what you’d expect from a touring pro.  His focus is more on his game and how he plays then anything else.  How one plays should not impact their impressions (I’d keep Peter off the review panels)   Furthermore, if you screwed up the 17th hole at St. Andrews because you aimed too far right over the corner, does that mean the hole sucks?  If you are focused on your game it might.  

I think the answer to your question is to decide what it is you want to accomplish (e.g. good photos, nice causal walk, grind out a solid round, study certain holes,…) and the decision what to do should be obvious.  

Note:  By the way, if time is limited, anyone who calls themselves a "golfer", plays!  Last I checked, you still get to walk the golf course and even take photos when you are playing  
Mark

Tom P:

I have long wondered why all the courses which win "best new" awards are extra-large-scale courses, and perhaps your observation about scale is part of the answer ... because panelists enjoy their drives landing further than they expect!

Many of Dr. MacKenzie's courses were very-large-scale designs to start with (not just Augusta and Royal Melbourne, but Alwoodley and Pasatiempo before the trees) and I am sure he believed the courses were more enjoyable for that reason ... remember his quote about the average player enjoying making a carry which was not as difficult as it looked.

When time permits, ideally, play, walk, play it again.  

I've never been biased against a new hole because of a bad shot.  I don't understand that logic.  

I think bookending a careful study of each hole with your motor experience results in a more complete and solid understanding of the course.    

JMorgan,

I would do it differently and walk, play and then walk it again.

Brian

Mike:

It's tough to make time to see a lot of new courses nowadays, since we are pretty busy.  

If I was being honest, I have to say that at this point I think I'm more likely to come up with something new by staring at topo maps of the properties we are working on, than by borrowing from another course.  [I've seen a lot I could borrow from already.]  I've had some of my best ideas just from looking at an idle contour line or two.

I think it's important to get out and see other courses and not get caught up in just your own work -- it seems like most of the busy architects get stuck in a rut because they are only seeing their own.  It's not about "learning" so much as "remembering" things you've lost track of after months of looking at nothing but dirt.  I don't think Nicklaus learned anything from us directly at Sebonack, but I do think we reminded him of some pieces of golf courses (such as inside rolls in greens) which he had gotten away from in his design work but surely has seen a lot of in his playing career.

Personally, I don't think it's as important to "keep up with the latest trends in design" by seeing the latest and greatest, even though I have gone to see places like Chambers Bay and Pronghorn and Black Mesa and MPCC when I was in the area to pay my respects.  I want to stay ahead of trends, not follow them, so if I'm having some influence on others' work then I need to find a new twist.

Is it my responsibility as a player to try to figure out the best way to play a course? Assuming I can handle all of the other reasons and expectations for venturing out for a round of golf (ie: socializing, excercise, pace of play, etc...) isn't the primary focus while playing golf to "beat the course"?

Isn't it the architects responsibility to best enable all of the "other" things that bring us to the golf course while also providing the most interest he can within a challenging golf course? Keep in mind, I do not use the word "CHALLENGING" in the context of solely challenging the scratch players game! I use it in the context of challenging all skill levels to an optimal degree because my opinion is that it all comes down to standing on the tee and trying to figure out how best to play the hole. In Stroke Play, that means the lowest number of strokes you can on a given hole. In Match Play that means in a lower number of strokes than your opponent.

Either way, I see it as a contest between the Architect (and the elements; which he cannot control) and the Player (and his game; which he cannot control).

I think this post has a place on this thread because the above responses illustrate my biggest disagreement with the general opinion of posters on GCA...but...the opening post from Tom seems to suggest that yes, the goal of the player should be to try to find the best way to play the hole/course...and I find this very compelling from an architect...especially a very high profile architect...and one that has repeatedly stated on here that he does not consider it anywhere near his highest priority to design his courses with a focus on the top players. Or, maybe what he says is that he does not design his courses with the intent of protecting par from the top players.

Regardless, are you really playing golf if you spend an inordinant amount of time looking at the rest of the property at the expense of looking at what the architect put in between you and the hole?

Jim S:

I think you've misunderstood me if you've taken my meaning that I don't make it a priority to challenge good players.  What I mean to say is that I don't make it a priority to challenge good players in the ways they prefer to be challenged ... i.e. straightforward exams of hitting it long and straight, rewarding a good approach with a flat 10-foot putt, and so forth.  And, while I definitely don't worry much about "defending par," I do want to make my courses challenging to good players (as I would think you'd understand if you had played more of my courses).

At the same time, golf courses are often enjoyed by the majority of other players at other levels entirely, and I believe I think about those players and what is fun for them, a lot more than some other architects do.

Sully:

I have yet to meet a practicing architect who does not much care about challenging good players. Some may imply they don't but it seems to me all one has to do is look at any of their courses today, particularly some par 4s. The fact that a good many of them are much longer than has been designed before pretty much makes that point. I have yet to meet an architect who instinctively does not care if the good player set thinks his course is a pushover.

Frankly, I see this fact evidenced in the routing process. It's sort of a spatial thing. If the architect doesn't provide for the room at the tee end he will basically run out of space to challenge the good player.

TomD;

I know it is and I think golf architecture can go with that just fine. But I know just about any architect I know feels if a good player has a short iron in his hand it's pretty hard to challenge him even at the green end no matter what you do architecturally.

That's one of the reasons I developed the mix of the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" philosophy that to a large extent relies on the ideal degree of green surface firmness (no more than a light dent to a well struck wedge).

In my opinion, that's the key to defending even great green-end architecture from very good players.