Tim Bert's stat analysis of the Bandon courses is pretty interesting.

A little Bandon Analysis per Tom Doak's request

Tim came up with this gem:

I think Doak could learn a lot about his design if he had a post-mortem study of every score on every hole by every range of handicapper that ever played one of his courses.

So I'm asking the board (and hopefully not bored) architects:

Would you want to know this info? Do you think it might influence remodel decisions? Future decisions?

Have you ever asked any clients to track things like this? Do you ever look at the scorecards, if a client choosing to collect them from members to determine hole handicaps?

As always, I expect all the architects to participate, or I'll be filing a complaint with management (not).

George,

Do you think that CBM would be interested in a statistical analysis of NGLA ?

Do you think it would have swayed him in terms of fine tuning NGLA and influencing future designs ?

Donald Ross at Pinehurst # 2 ?

Flynn at Shinnecock Hills ?

AWT at Winged Foot ?

AM at Cypress Point ?

I don't know if they would, but they should.

My question to Tim would be...What would Tom or anyone else learn from the stated practice above?  
IMHO golf is not meant to be played with a calculator, white belt and pocket protector....play barefooted with three clubs and you will learn more.
Mike

Hi Mike,

I agree with your comments.  I do, however, think that there would be a lot learned (not necessarily changed) from this exercise if it were reasonable to conduct such a study.

I've heard Tom Doak and others comment that designs should test the best player and remain playable for others.  Even with a moderate sample size of high handicappers and average golfers, I think much could be learned.    

(I say average, but I mean low teens or high single digit golfers, which I think are better than average.  I think this board often tends to skew the conversation of average golfer because of the skill of so many here.  Based on my experiences and from what I've seen on golf courses, I'd venture to guess the "average golfer" couldn't break 95 from the blue tees or maybe even white tees at a course of average difficulty if he/she played the ball down and attempted to follow the rules of golf.)

I think you could learn a great deal about the holes you are building.  It may not (and probably should not) change the way you design in the future, but it would still be an interesting study for anyone with an analytical mind.  I bet Tom Doak would love to know if #6 at Pacific Dunes really plays as a hard par for scratch golfers, but an easy bogey for 15 handicaps.  

I'd be concerned if he started pandering to the numbers instead of remaining focused on building great golf holes.  If nothing else, it would be useful information that might help him confirm some of his suspicions about his design work.  

A great design has nothing to do with a formula. If statistics and checklists could produce a great course - it would happen far more often.

Intuition remains far more important than planning. I’ve watched architects plan out the directions of the threes, balance their nines and spend time insuring certain aspects of their design philosophy are achieved. Once an architect sticks to a philosophy or pattern they tend to make fewer mistakes but rarely touch genius either. Often greatness comes from letting go of preferences and going completely contrary to the obvious.

I should also mention that the PGA Tour does this -- their ShotLink measures every shot by every player every week, showing where drives land and which lead to birdies or bogeys.

Has it made the architecture of TPC courses better?

I'd love to know, but I am not likely changing a thing.

Data is good.
What one does with it is what matters.

Mike,

I'm confused....you would like to know but wouldn't change. So, doing nothing with the data is what matters???

 

Exactly.    


I was more thinking for future work... for example: If I were the only one to be able to play my ripples I'd only use them on my own course.  

George,

You have had an interesting spectrum of replies to a fascinating question.

I don't see how such information couldn't have at least a modicum of benefit to either a hole or two or three.

They obviously design holes,but courses overall, to play a specific way,whether it's supposed to be a wholly difficult course, or one with some give and take etc.  

They are only human, and cannot possibly know with any certainty that a hole that exists firstly in their mind, and only afterwards on the ground, plays exactly as intended.

And they must have an intention for their hole,musn't they?

Mark:

The data that has been suggested doesn't really indicate "how the hole plays".  The fact that you top your tee shot 11% of the time and make 6 instead of 4 would have little bearing on my thoughts on a hole, other than to tell them not to grow long grass in front of the tee, which I hate anyway.

George — It would make my head hurt, and frankly (or, in your case, Georgely) I would take the Rhett Butler opinion.

I say data is good. I think I know the basics of making it playable for the average Joe, but as TePaul says, its always good to remember what you don't know. I expect I would find a few situations that didn't play the way "the book" says it should for average joes, and that I could use that info in future designs.  

In truth, where most of us are a bit weak is in designing for "average Josephines."

In evaluating a course for acquisition, we have always sent out one or two foursomes of players to rank and rate the course fron differennt sets of tees.....we send one our our professionals, a low handicap, a mid-handicap and a high handicap...if availbe we also try to send a female employee or spouse to play from the regualr womens tees to get their impression.  Each hole is ranked by tee shot, approach shot and how they believed the green to be viewed; on a scale from 1-5 , with 1 being the worst and 5 being the best....at the end of 18 holes we look at the aggregate to see how the place was observed....same type of hard look at the clubhouse, mainetence area, etc...this is how we quantify if the facility fits our brand.

Very scientific but also subjective..