You gotta love a guy

« **on:** November 17, 2007, 08:09:16 PM »

who, in decribing ideal hazard placement, writes:

"Imagine, for example, a hole guarded by three buried land mines. The first-time visitor would walk blindly through the course and, thanks to the laws of random chance, probably not trip one in ten tries; but the wise would have a hard time taking one step for fear of their lives."

Tom Doak, explaining what he wants the better golfer to think about over a shot!

The thread by Ian got me reading Ian Andrew's website as well as Tom Doak's. Great stuff on each!

« **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2007, 11:54:38 PM »

I missed that thread or where ever that was written. But, I agree... you gotta love a guy that can say it like that. Thanks for bringing it back here.

« **Reply #2 on:** November 18, 2007, 07:00:56 AM »

It's in his essays on his website

« **Reply #3 on:** November 18, 2007, 08:35:55 PM »

"Imagine, for example, a hole guarded by three buried land mines. The first-time visitor would walk blindly through the course and, thanks to the laws of random chance, probably not trip one in ten tries; but the wise would have a hard time taking one step for fear of their lives."

Bill Brightly:

Thanks for highlighting this! This is beautiful and you are so right, You gotta love a guy that thinks this way!

I called my husband over to read it and he howled.

« **Reply #4 on:** November 19, 2007, 10:15:22 AM »

Sounds like penal architecture to me...especially when in the context of a recent quote from Crane (I think) on the definition of Penal versus Strategic.

« **Reply #5 on:** November 19, 2007, 10:37:20 AM »

Quote

"Penal and strategic school," -- "result of bad shot postponed by bad strategic position."

Posted by Peter Pallota in the initial post on his Crane thread.

« **Reply #6 on:** November 19, 2007, 11:07:43 AM »

Quote from: JES II on November 19, 2007, 10:15:22 AM

Sounds like penal architecture to me...especially when in the context of a recent quote from Crane (I think) on the definition of Penal versus Strategic.

Well, yeah, I guess you would have to put a land mine in the penal category...but that is not the point...read the entire essay, and I think it will make sense:

http://www.doakgolf.com/essays.asp?e=besthazards

« **Reply #7 on:** November 19, 2007, 11:38:34 AM »

Bill,

It does clear up that he's not necessarily thinking in land mines in the deathly result sense...but what I found most interesting in there was that Tom very clearly deliniates between good players and average players by their ability to perceive obstacles around the course...he seems to equate the "first time visitor" and the "average player walking blindly through the course"...if not, why wouldn't these same "land mines" affect the average golfer that knows about them?

« **Reply #8 on:** November 19, 2007, 11:57:17 AM »

JES,

Absolutely! My guess is he would LOVE to hear that you were wetting your pants the whole round, shooting a nerve-wracking 74, while a higher handicap went around the course blissfully shooting 100!

« **Reply #9 on:** November 19, 2007, 12:03:01 PM »

My point is that he seems to think the higher handicapper wouldn't remember these "land mines" upon repeat visits...do you agree with either my reading of the piece or that position on the perception capabilities of 100 shooters?

« **Reply #10 on:** November 19, 2007, 12:09:16 PM »

I dont think "remember" is correct, I think his design goal is for the higher handicapper not to be worried about a hazard, while the better player takes it all in before he swings.

« **Reply #11 on:** November 19, 2007, 12:17:04 PM »

OK, that certainly jives with is comments on here, but in the frequent conversation on here about whether or not better players have a better eye for architecture, that essay seems to lay Tom's vote in the yes column...

Why wouldn't the 18 handicapper have fear of a hazard that a scratch does have fear about? Is it that the scratch doesn't think they can afford to lose any shots and the 18 knows they are going to?

« **Reply #12 on:** November 19, 2007, 12:38:08 PM »

Well, since TD is not on yet...I'll take a stab at this...

Sure, the higher handicap's expectations are lower. And a "fairway" hazard is probably a welcomed miss, bogey is still a good result, while you might have just seen par go off the table...In addition, a scratch player has about 4 options to mull over: lob wedge (oh sh__, dont want to skull this) 3 wood punch (wish I was as good as Tiger is at this) 8 iron bump and run (now where do I land it and how far will it run out?) or putter (geeze, thats a lot of fairway to putt through and it is a little wet.) While the higher handicap says: give me the putter and let's get this on the green someplace!

There is a difference between "having an eye for architecure" from an appreciation standpoint and a playing standpoint.

You can be a middling player and a great student of architecture, as long as you know how to put yourself in the mind of a scratch player. I think that is VERY hard to do if you are not a scratch, but not impossible. Just like you can be an expert in art history without knowing how to paint. But if you are also a great painter, it is probably much easier to understand all the nuances of the best painters.

Conversly, a scratch player can be a total dummy about golf course architecture, he just sees the shot and hits it where he needs to be. He can look at a hole, figure out that he needs to aim five yards left of the pin, and hit it there. He need not care if he's playing a Tillinghast or a Flynn or a Pete Dye course. (In fact, I have a whole theory that the best players "play dumb", but that is a whole other thread.)

« **Reply #13 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:26:34 PM »

Quote from: Bill Brightly on November 19, 2007, 12:38:08 PM

Conversely, a scratch player can be a total dummy about golf course architecture, he just sees the shot and hits it where he needs to be. He can look at a hole, figure out that he needs to aim five yards left of the pin, and hit it there. He need not care if he's playing a Tillinghast or a Flynn or a Pete Dye course. (In fact, I have a whole theory that the best players "play dumb", but that is a whole other thread.)

Now this is an interesting thread--one that begins to address the disconnect between GCA and the actual playing of the game.

Bill, If you are talking about good golfers playing tournaments, I'm not sure why a scratch player should care at all about who designed the course. In those cases, the mission is to score low, and most of the brain is consumed with that mission. However, during recreational rounds, I find better golfers to be more acutely aware of architectural features and patterns than the average joe.

For some reason, the prevailing attitude here seems to be that good golfers aren't able to grasp the nuance of quality GCA, yet the average golfer is somehow better equipped to do so.

« **Reply #14 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:46:30 PM »

Oh, I don't know about that...I think there are a bunch of single digit handicaps on this site who feel that the higher handicap guys don't have a clue about what it means to challenge the scratch...

Or put differently some scratch players feel that they grasp everything going on with a hole, while a higher handicap can't possibly "see" the entire hole.

« **Reply #15 on:** November 19, 2007, 08:36:47 PM »

Oh, I don't know about that...I think there are a bunch of single digit handicaps on this site who feel that the higher handicap guys don't have a clue about what it means to challenge the scratch... Or put differently some scratch players feel that they grasp everything going on with a hole, while a higher handicap can't possibly "see" the entire hole.

Seeing the entire hole; seeing most of the hole; seeing some of the hole...whatever...

I think it may be the case that a higher handicap golfer may see quite a bit more of a hole than a low handicap person would imagine... The perception that the entire hole isn't seen may be because the higher handicap golfer's skills are more limited and as a result, they go for the shots that are within their comfort zone.

I have seen shots that, for whatever reason, I have chosen not to try because I am reasonably sure that the shot is well-beyond my reach.

Back to the original comment, it didn't sound penal to me. To me his comment reflects tremendous creativity.

« **Reply #16 on:** November 19, 2007, 08:38:37 PM »

Margaret,

What about a land mine is not penal?

Jim

« **Reply #17 on:** November 19, 2007, 08:40:42 PM »

I think the land mine was used more in the sense that it is hidden by being buried, not in that it brings about instant death to those who happen upon it.

Paranoia builds with discovery.

« **Reply #18 on:** November 19, 2007, 08:53:30 PM »

And what happens when you make a misstep? Or is this just a psychology experiment?

« **Reply #19 on:** November 19, 2007, 10:33:25 PM »

"Imagine, for example, a hole guarded by three buried land mines. The first-time visitor would walk blindly through the course and, thanks to the laws of random chance, probably not trip one in ten tries; but the wise would have a hard time taking one step for fear of their lives."

-------------

Margaret,

What about a land mine is not penal?

Jim

No question, in the literal sense, a land mine can kill, dismember...

The man who wrote that statement is creative; he's an artist. Those words spoke to me of challenge, some obvious and others... If his intent were penal, a first-time visitor would need more going for him than the laws of random chance.

There have been many times that I have beat myself on a course by thinking too much and other times when I didn't think enough.

News:

Bill Brightly

RJ_Daley

Bill Brightly

MargaretC

JESII

JESII

Bill Brightly

JESII

Bill Brightly

JESII

Bill Brightly

JESII

Bill Brightly

Walt_Cutshall

Bill Brightly

MargaretC

JESII

Kyle Harris

JESII

MargaretC