Do low scores, repetitively low scores, like 7, 8, 9 and 10 under par per round indicate that the architecture has failed to perform one or more of its functions ?

Does it indicate that the golfer never properly interfaced with the architecture during the course of his round ?

Quote from: Ted Kramer on April 19, 2005, 08:21:47 AM

Quote from: Tony Titheridge on April 19, 2005, 05:53:11 AM

Quote from: Ted Kramer on April 18, 2005, 06:16:18 PM

Yes.
The only way someone goes 10 under consistently is if they somehow render the course defenseless. If the course is defenseless, the architecture has failed.

-Ted

A course where a player shoots 63 is no easier than a course where the same player shoots 68. The question is what did that player do to compile his 63 that made him stand out from the couple of guys behind him who shot 65. So there might be a few consecutive birdie chance holes. That means a top player has to take those chances. Whereas on a tougher course, a player might be able to make a bunch of pars and not lose ground to anyone.

If you played Augusta only using #2, #3, #7, #8, #13, #15 on a 6 hole rotation three times to make 18 holes, you'd get a very low winning score. But the difficulty for that winner in beating the rest of the field (as opposed to Old Man Par) would be no easy task. Same could be done at TOC or Royal Melbourne.

The score doesn't determine if the course is defenseless. What is required for a player to beat his opponent(s) does.

The original question didn't say a thing about "beating anyone". If 10 guys play and 9 shoot 63 and 1 shoots 62 does that mean that the course played tough because the guy who shot 62 only won by 1. . .I fail to see the logic in that arguement.

-Ted

Ted,

I am not prioritising if the course played tough. I am prioritising my view that a course is not "defenseless" nor has the architecture failed simply as a result of low scores, even multiple ones.

If a par 4 averages 3.4 or 4.4, at 3.4 it is not tough. But the difference between 3 and 4 is as significant for that hole as the difference between 4 and 5 is for the tougher one. Thus, it is quite possible for each of these holes to have similar values in so far as good architecture helping to determine the one shot difference.

I would take Royal Melbourne's architecture on a day when 15 players shoot 68 or better with the leader on 61-62, than the architecture on a poorly designed bland and unimaginitive course where two guys break 70. The supreme danger to us all is when intelligent men use scores to determine the quality of the architecture.

Patrick,

I don't believe that low scoring needs to automatically indicate that the golfer is failing to encounter or interface with the architecture as intended. In instances where the artchitecture is structured on a hole to defy the player an easy par without expert execution of shots, then a tonne of birdies does mean it isn't working. But if the architecture can equally differentiate between the top execution and not, and the success results in birdie with perhaps an eagle chance whilst the failure results in a tough birdie or easier par, then the architecture has achieved the same aims as a tough hole sets out to even though the end result is one shot less.

I look at the great threads on here around holes such as #10 Riviera and discussion around the two back nine par 5s at Augusta. These holes average under par in a way that if 10 holes did so, the scores would all be very low. But the architecture is clever, extremely relevant and brilliant.

My concession would be that if a 7400 yard tour course with only one sub 380 yard par 4 and one easily reachable par 5 yielded a 26 under par winner and a few other guys banked up closely behind, the architecture possibly sucks.

...while it's easy to point to a group of fellows as a valid but extreme example, other hackers such as myself have been able to avoid the intended architecture vis a vis high tech equipment and greater distance off the tee and with irons.

Years ago, when I was younger, the centerline bunker complex at # 8 at NGLA presented a real challenge, strategically and from a playability point of view.

When I obtained my Biggest Big Bertha, that bunker complex was reduced to an attractive nuisance, in all but a good, or heavy head wind.

So, it's not just the elite who benefit.