If you cannot execute the shots as they apply to the elite player, are you saying that your imagination is enough? Moreso, if the anwer is a "yes" then is walking the course sufficient and is playing the holes therefore not required?

That's a valid question, especially regarding walking the course.

But George is right, the ability to envision the interaction between architecture and player isn't limited to one's own game. IMHO, it does take more than walking the course for most of us. however.

I am a short hitter, but I play a fair amount with players who are 50 to 100 yards longer off the tee than I am. During rounds with them, I am very interested in how their length changes the options they have a hole.

I am a lowball hitter, but I have several friends who hit it VERY high--and long. Because I am interested in how golf courses work, I pay attention to how their games interact with the course. In fact, I would say that I know more about their games and how they should manage their way around the course than they do.

I am a 10.something index, but I also sometimes play with guys who are scratch. I learn a lot from playing with them, some of it applies to my game, and some of it is enlightening about how golf course design affects them.

Almost none of them, however, give a damn about how my short drives interact with architecture. In fact, some of them are remarkably dense about how golf course design and maintenance affect weaker players.

But some good players are very perceptive about this.

So, I'd say that there's little or no correlation between playing ability and the liklihood of a someone understanding architecture and its effects on all levels of skill.

If there is a a correlation, my instincts tell me it is inverse, if only because bad golfers are far more interested in watching good players than the reverse.

K

Shane,

It is you who have no idea, as you have - not surprisingly - COMPLETELY missed the point.

Just in case you are occupying the back seats in the lecture theatre sniggling with your mates over some porn DVD one of you swiped -  

Photography is a TWO-DIMENSIONAL representation -

- OF A THREE-DIMENSIONAL world.

Got it? Two-dimensional representation of a THREE-dimensional world. You do have to be part of that THREE-DIMENSIONAL world in order to make those THREE-DIMENSIONS appear as THREE-DIMENSIONS on the two dimensional reproduction of film or paper.  It actually takes quite a lot of skill, talent, technique, OBSERVATION and yes, IMAGINATION in order to be able to do so.

Repeat every hour for the next day or so so you can begin to comprehend. Two-dimensional represesentation of a THREE-DIMENSIONAL world.

On a thread a long time ago, you surmised that I was perhaps incapable of understanding Barnbougle's 4th hole because of my pitiful, woeful, sad derelict game, as opposed to the unholy, God-given talent that you possess which enabled you to understand all.

I perfectly understand the hole and how it relates to the mighty and gifted such as you.

I just don't think the options presented are terribly interesting.


Disclaimer: This was not an angry post.

Nice try, Shane.

One of the differences between us is that you couch your personal attacks - "If you think that architecture can be fully appreciated in 2 dimensions then you really do have no idea. Or no game. Or both " - in rather more gentle terms than I so you can act all wounded and sanctimonious when someone does give you a bollocking back.

I have stuck to the topic.  Quite a number - the majority? - of posts here have refuted your original hypothesis, and some of the respondents - shock gasp horror - seem to be quite good players. Not that you seem interested in accepting their point of view, of course.

You attempted to disparage me talking about something you either know very little or nothing about, and I shot you down.

Maybe - no, definitely - if you had responded in a different manner in the first place and not attempted a cheap shot, you would have received a calm and measured response back.

Or at least one without capitalisation, and a reference to porn, which I agree is becoming a little overdone.



 

Dr Gurnett,

"I go easy on you here Mark because I know how fragile your ego is when it comes to discussion on your game."

You should be performing at the Comedy festival with work like that.  My ego is far from fragile when it comes to discussion of my game, although I would like to see your case notes so I can ascertain how you arrived at such a startling conclusion.  You might have to burn that thesis and hand back your PhD.

I know my game is crap. That's why I am doing something about it.  Maybe when it gets back to the level it was a few years ago I will understand golf architecture better.  According to your original argument, I should be able to.

I don't continue to miss any point.  I think George Pazin's two posts, and Patrick Mucci's, are concise, succinct and perfectly flawless responses to your original thesis.  You are merely pointing out the others' arguments to support your weak question in the first place. That isn't to say their points have no merit, but rather George's and Patrick's are well reasoned.

Don't take this the wrong way Shane, but I would surmise that you have very little imagination. That is why you continue to doubt that imagination - and knowledge - is enough for the poorer player to see what the elite does. It all comes down to the individual.

And I don't slag everyone on a personal level - only certain types are the recipient of my venom and anger.

Being presumptious, I will speak on behalf of the good player.  (Or at least this player).  I, for one, when playing for score, for the most part, could care less about the architecture.  I try to drive it about 300 in the fairway, then I try to hit it in the center of the green.  I don't hit run-ups.  When I hit my drive in the trees I try either pounding it over the trees or punching out to the front of the green.  There really isn't much thought to it.  In fact, its been repeatedly stated to me that the best players are the dumbest - they don't constantly think about the consequences (I think Tiger proves this statement wrong however).

When playing social golf, I think the good player can appreciate the architecture just as well as the bad player...they just need to know what they are looking for.

Doesn't this whole debate come down the appreciation of the game; how it's supposed to be played and an understanding of the subtleties of it?

In baseball, there are great hitters and bad hitters.  Many players lose track of the fact that the point of the game is to get more people to cross home plate than the other team.  Bad hitters can be productive players when the understand the game....great hitters can be unproductive players when they don't.  

Golf is no different in my opinion.  Skill level doesn't matter...it's what between the ears and in the soul that matters.

I too believe it comes down to the person’s appreciation of the game & what is important to them. The greatest architects of all time have come from a variety of skill levels in regard to golfing ability.

I don’t believe the understanding of golf course architecture is particularly difficult, if the person has a willingness to understand. That doesn’t mean it is easy to design a course, but understanding what has been done is not hard.

If imagination is enough, then why play?

Shane,

If imagination is enough, then why have sex ?

I can see I am going to have to add you to the list of Melbourne ignoramuses Shane. Your selective paraphrasing may work in the scabrous ether of ISG, but not in the real world.

I DID NOT say that "just" taking photographs is sufficient.

"Photographing golf courses CAN reveal more about the architecture than playing it . Observing the play of light across the ground reveals all the fascinating details that MAY be missed in the harder light of later in the day and which a player may never go near."

Your English comprehension is utterly appalling.

If you don't think the above quote has some truth to it then you are a lost cause.

Or better still try it yourself.

Go to a course and observe the play of light at the end of the day across the landscape.

You might be surprised at what you will see.

Mark,

I think you missed the original question.

Shane is not asking if a poor player can understand architecture, nor inferring that they can't.  I believe the question is more can a poor player understand architecture as it applies to the elite player.

The only inference is that of course an elite player can understand architecture as it applies to a poor player, because at some time or another, they were a poor player, the same is not true in reverse.

My feeling is that one gets a very different understanding of a golf course when they play it as compared to if they simply walk it. When you walk a course you play each hole in your mind, and the optimist in you has each imagine stroke having the desired result - thus providing you with an 'apparent' understanding of the architecture from an elite or at least 'very good' players perspective.  The same could be said if spectating an elite field play a certain course.

On the other hand, when you actually play the course and you are forced to execute the shots you imagine, reality can bite you, and you could possibly miss the point altogether.

There's plenty to be said for playing the shots to gain an understanding, but if you lack the ability to consistently keep it on the planet, then perhaps you might be well served by walking a course in addition to playing it.

Things like fairway bunkering in particular can often not be understood by poor players, as they have such a fear of sand, they simply aim as far away as possible without considering the variety of options in front of them.

So rather than say that its a stupid question, instead your viewpoint is that the answer to the question is "yes, the poor player can appreciate the architecture as it applies to the elite player, here are some examples...."

I don't think its a stupid question, but I do contend that no matter what standard of golf you play, there are those that get it and those that don't.  Furthermore, of the ones that do get it - they can still have wildly differing opinions on many architectural nuances.

This of course comes from someone whose game ranges from extremely poor, to quite good on any given day.

I actually prefer your favourite response James.

The classic "I can't be bothered", or the even more classic "The kids are running amok," that people use to hide the fact that they have no idea what they are actually talking about in the first place and then hide behind the whiny "don't be so abusive' argument to cover up that fact.

MF, could you please give some examples of my 'favourite response'.  I've just scanned all my posts here and have been unable to find anything that approximates your description.  The commentary on your ongoing abusiveness actually related to how it is being used to cover what is either your lack of knowledge or abject laziness in bothering to support your positions.  The end result is there is now simply little chance of having a sensible discussion whenever you become involved.  Which is very sad.

Danny:

So nice of you to join us.  How many of those stellar 100 posts you have made have been on a topic you started, I wonder, as opposed to pithy coments.

You didn't make those remarks here, of course. You know where you did, so be a man and stop pretending you didn't.

Thommo:

I would say it is poor understanding.  It's a green that is maybe 15 yards across.  It would need a pretty exact fade to hold it on perhaps the firmest green on the course, and considering the number of players who end up with the ball back at their feet at the base of the valley alongside, not very smart I would have said.

From my one round with you I wouldn't say your game veers from extremely poor to quite good - maybe quite wild to more controlled is more apt.

James:

I'll be happy too.

"I didn't really want to list examples as it would likely end up in a highly technical and dull 'it does/it doesn't' argument  (and the kids are running amok and I don't have time)."

There's one you missed. Here's another;

"Although there are a surprising amount of blind and semi-blind shots, which are arguably overdone (not that I'm in the mood for an argument)"

So you start a post but then can't be bothered to elaborate your thoughts, assuming you actually had any, since that is quite a good cover up in itself.  

Here's something else:

"Do you agree there is often less thought involved in the recovery shots at StAB.  Given the transition from green to the often vast short grass surrounds is regularly level and any movement around the greens usually fairly constant, was the construction perhaps too minimalist?"

That's a direct quote from you, in case you can't remember. My response, which of course you didn't answer;

The fallaway front and behind the first green is regularly level?

The right to left slope to the right of the second green is regularly level and fairly constant?

The gigantic upslope in front of the third green followed by the enormous fallaway at the rear of the the third green is replicated elsewhere?

The bump in front of the the 7th green?

The curvature around the 8th green?

How are the recovery shots around 10 replicated elsewhere?

Here are a few peoples' responses on the thread that you couldn't be bothered articulating your position on;

From James Bennet:
You said you chose to use a six-iron every time, whilst others might go with a putter every time.  How often did you get up and down using this approach?  Could you have done better by playing a different shot - perhaps a pitch on some occasions?  

Perhaps this range of greenside recovery options and choices should be viewed as similar to a 'strategic' golf hole whereby an easier route can be taken that avoids the bunkers, but makes a par more difficult.  And perhaps the addition of longer-grass at random spots at Dornoch adds a 'penal' aspect where such a hazard has to be avoided (by an aerial shot).  The Dornoch approach reduces the recovery options occasionally, the US Open approach (excluding Pinehurst #2 of course) specifies a single recovery shot (a lob), and the St Andrews Beach allows the player to choose what they wish, even if it isn't necessarily the best approach.

So, the US Open approach requires the least thought (lob every time) and the St Andrews Beach approach requires the most thought.  The other dimension is that Dornoch limits the options on occasion, forcing a player to vary his method.  Whereas St Andrews Beach does not force this limitation as often.

From Thommo:
This may be the case for some but I found it quite the opposite. I was constantly tossing up between bump and run / putter / wedge options.

Much like James L I also found myself falling back on the same recovery shot (or club) around the greens on most holes.

However, this is more due to the fact that I lack the ability to hit some of the subtle shots demanded of me when I missed the green, not an inherent design flaw in the green complexes themselves.

Greens like 2,3,5,7,8,10,14,15 and 17 all seemed to me to have many options in mode of recovery, depending on where you missed and how adept you are at executing a certain shot type.

From David Elvins:
I think that one reason that a lot of players go back to their default recovery shot is that the recovery shots are so hard.  The good player will vary his recovery shots to get within 3-6 feet of the pin.  THe slightly less confident player will always use his most trusted club to make sure he gets on the green or within 10 feet of the pin.

There are many "risk/reward" possibilities in the recovery play at St Andrews Beach.  And often no right answer.


So it would seem there are a number of people who disagree with your opinion.

I am not using anything to cover up lack of knowledge or abject laziness.

I have provided numerous examples a number of times on a number of topics that you - and others - have simply chosen to ignore because it didn't suit your preconceived positions.

You would also find there is plenty of sensible discussion to be had if you don't deliberately attempt to selectively quote me or ascertain - mistakenly, of course -  what my thoughts are in order to make silly points in order to support a weak or non-existent position.

David had a biff at the green I think, but I can't remember the result.  I of course was 10 yards left of the tee in the grass.

I would be very careful if I were you mentioning width in yards, since I think it is generally a given that your measurements of fairway width aren't exactly what one would call accurate...

If you played that hole ten times, what would you expect your score to be the majority of time?  Would you be satisfied with a four, or miffed that a three wasn't more common?

If you thought there should be more threes than you had, is it your execution that has been failing you, or your understanding of the architecture? i.e that perhaps a three is easier with a bump and run - or pitch - up the bank in front.

Or would you change your plan of attack and attempt to drive it high left and have a little chip across and down the green?