Architect 'v' Player.

[Marc Haring]

Ok. So you hit it like John Daly off the tee but with Fred Funk accuracy. You kill your irons at the stick all day long and you chip it like Phil. On top of that, you’ve got the silkiest putting stroke since Ben Crenshaw.
Problem is, you can’t shape a shot and much like me, you haven’t got a brain when you step onto a golf course.

Dumb question but are there any courses where you wouldn’t take the course apart. Are there courses out there where the architect will outwit you every time?

[Brent Hutto]

So a similar question would be this...

Are there any courses where hitting it sufficiently long, high and straight and putting well are not sufficient to shoot a good score?

I think the generic answer is that with no wind, that combination will work well on any course.

Conversely though, with sufficient wind on almost any course you're going to have to manage your game and your ballflight to score well.

[Marc Haring]

Yes. It’s just that if one watches the coverage of say The Masters, we are constantly regaled with comments of how if the shot is played at the pin and the result is a putt of just a few feet but from the wrong side of the hole the next putt is infinitely more testing than one of many times the length but from the right side.
Perhaps I should rephrase things to ask that, if one had two golfers, one of high ability and the other a lesser golfer but a greater thinker, what courses would most benefit the latter?

By the way Brent. Did you get my replies to my mail regarding a Kent trip? It’s just that my Email facility has been a headache recently.  

[JakaB]

Perhaps I should rephrase things to ask that, if one had two golfers, one of high ability and the other a lesser golfer but a greater thinker, what courses would most benefit the latter?

The one with highly contoured greens of course...

[Brent Hutto]

Yes, Marc. Thank you very much. That trip seems less likely for 2005 right now but maybe one day...

[TEPaul]

"Perhaps I should rephrase things to ask that, if one had two golfers, one of high ability and the other a lesser golfer but a greater thinker, what courses would most benefit the latter?"

I'd put them on a golf course like Stonewall and the thinker would very likely come out on top. It's a thinker's golf course---a course where one needs to "read" the architecture more than most. If some great ball striker who didn't think well hit it right at all the flags on that golf course, he's liable to find himself in some trouble!  

[T_MacWood]

"First of all, GCA is not rocket science.  If you haven't figured out yet where you can and can't miss on a golf course, like Matt Ward would say, time for some serious lessons (in this case, lessons in playing smart)....
And even if you're a complete idiot rockhead and can't see that above the hole on #11 at Pasa or on the wrong side of the green on #6 at NGLA or #7 at Friar's Head or whatever is a death-trap..."

Dave,
I find it amusing that a player would have such a thorough grasp of these holes (and courses) after a single play. To cite these courses as examples of GCA not being "rocket science" says something about your view of golf architecture. I think you could spend several years trying to figure out those three and still be in the dark.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Maybe the great course tempts the better player like the snake with the apple. I'm no dumbass, but on occasion, I've gone flaghunting for seemingly no good reason..

[T_MacWood]

"No course can be a really great course unless it requires knowing"
        ~~Tom Simpson

[T_MacWood]

Dave
“But I can figure out a golf hole.  Some things are complicated.  Some things are simple.  Figuring out golf holes is simple.”

See ball, hit ball. I appreciate your many posts describing the strengths and weaknesses of your own game. It seems to be your primary interest and the subject of numerous posts…along with the many different games and bets you enjoy….and of course the subject of sandbagging…which are all intertwined….fascinating! I also appreciate your love affair with Medinah. It is obvious architectural interest, strategy and mental stimulation are very important to you….ehhhm.

Perhaps you have some special ability to immediately comprehend the intricacies of golf courses like the NGLA and Friars Head after a single play. Unfortunately I don’t have that ability, in fact--before we discovered your superhuman ability--I would say anyone who claimed they understood those two courses instantly, or cited them as examples of the simplicity of golf architecture, was either a fool or an idiot.

“The more I studied the Old Course, the more I loved it, and the more I loved it, the more I studied it.”  ~~Bobby Jones

…also prone to wax poetically and to hyperbole, including a fair amount of wild exaggeration and gobbledygook...back to sandbagging!

[T_MacWood]

"So go ahead -- tell me, what is so intricite about any golf course you want to tell me about.  Do me a favor and pick one I've played.  I'd suggest NGLA, since I've played it once and by all accounts (including my own), it's about as complex as they get.  Tell me what I can't understand about it."

I admitted I don't have a complete grasp of those two courses after one play...you're the genius here. I'll pick the simplistic Friars Head....tell me the clear cut strategy or strategies involved in playing all 18 holes. Taking into account pin locations, wind and other seasonal considerations.

[T_MacWood]

Dave,
Good one. That makes perfect sense. I'm going to explain the subtle compexities and strategies of Friars Head (the ones you claim either aren't there or are easily discovered) after making the point that only an idiot or a fool would believe he understood those things after one or three plays.

If its so simple, break it down for us smart guy.

I'll help you get started: Stroll to the first tee, grab your driver, hit it as hard as you possibly can (somewhere between Rt.48 and the sound), shuffle to your cart, go find it. This is where the complex strategy comes in: Strategy A grab your wedge, aim for the flag. Strategy B pitch back to the fairway...see Strategy A. Take the cart up to the green, park it strategically, get out and try not to three putt.

Next hole, stand on the tee, grab your driver, hit it as hard as you can...

If you aren't willing to break it down, perhaps Ken Bakst, who has probably played the course as much as anyone, could weigh in and explain the utter transperency or complexity of the golf course....as the case may be.

[Jeff_Brauer]

While both Tom and Shivas have good arguments, I have to slightly side with Dave on this one.  While a gca fan would probably want to make the game/course more complex, a competitive player is driven to make it simpler.

Tom, is it possible that emotionally, us GCA fans want a course to be so subtle as to never be figured out?  

Most players of great skill do figure out courses sooner or later - thats one reason the scores at repeat tour venues go down over time.  Granted, wind changes and pin positions can make a course different every time you play, but after you've played a course in most typical winds, and seen the pin postions, etc., what more can a course hide from you?

[T_MacWood]

Dave
Where is the flag on #1? What are the wind conditions? Is there a preferred location of the fairway or angle to approach from? ...how does the postion of pin effect your decision making? What are the five or so regular pin postions on this hole? What about the contours of the green....are all sections of the green of equal difficulty? If you are going to miss the green (perhaps your tee shot found rough or worse) what are the places to miss, what are the places to avoid on a miss? What is the prevailing wind on this hole? Does it shift from season to season? Is it best to approach with lower or higher trajectory? If so why?

[THuckaby2]

Pick ANY course you want.   Any one.  Explain a subltle strategic complexity to me that I can't see.  I'll buy you a beer if you can come up with anything that isn't patently obvious to anyone with a brain for golf who pays attention.  

Dave - now you know I am with you on this as a general concept.  I fully agree with you that it's not rocket science figuring out the correct play on a golf course.  But I also want a beer.  So I present to you....

Pasatiempo #2.  There's a lot going on there that isn't obvious to the eye, and even after repeat playings remains very strange, very difficult to discern.  I can explain it here if you wish, but you know the hole.  And remember, this isn't just about YOU, as a long hitter.  You said "anything that isn't patently obvious to anyone with a brain for golf who pays attention".  Short hitters have brains and pay attention also...

Basically, the entire lay of the land LOOKS like it should kick left, up by the green.  Yet, time after time the ball kicks right, seemingly up hill.  It takes a LOT of study and experience to see why... and even after that, even up close, it's still very difficult to discern.  Man I gave it a good hard look yesterday, this after 20+ years of playing the course, and I still am not 100% certain why this occurs.

This is obviously an exception to the general rule, which you are very correct about.  But exceptions do exist, and I am thirsty.

TH

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
Obviously not all golf courses are difficult to 'figure out.' And with the complex courses there is figuring out and there is figuring out.

Someone may have arrived at a single way (or strategy) to play a hole based on numerous experiences (one to three in Dave's case)...but that doesn't necessarily mean they've actually figured it out. Maybe they have a game plan to play the Road Hole, for example, that they repeat, and maybe that plan works reasonably well for them (because they are skilled and consistant shot makers), however when they aren't on top of their game (for whatever reason) or the conditions change from the three times the played the course previously or maybe the pin was moved which effected the plan....they soon learn they really haven't figured it out. There are greens at the NGLA, and St.Andrews I presume, that defy being completely figured out. Anyone who claims they have figured these course after one or three trip is either a blessed individual or a dumb dumb.

And how do you know you have or haven't figured out a course after one or three plays? Doesn't it take numerous plays just to confirm your opinion that you have figured it out? I could say today I've figured out NGLA after one round, if I never the play the course again, I'll really never know for certain. Actually I know I haven't figured it out, hell I haven't completely figured out my home course yet.

[JakaB]

Look, I recognize that there is a difference between "hit it here or be dead" target golf and C & C and Doak stuff.  But that difference is NOT so damn mysterious that it takes years to figure out.  

Was it after the first, second or third time you played Friars Head that you got your head all the way up C & C's ass....at least you won't be lonely up there.   I would bet you a years pay (me a year, you a month) that C & C and Doak aren't the only working architects that build anything but target golf....and I consider you a friend....hug, hug...

[T_MacWood]

Dave
Somebody told me just as I was figuring it out by myself.

UNIVERSAL truths of smart golf that apply to every course as general rules?  Stuff like "right side of fairway is better when pin is left and vice versa", "miss fairways to the side where there is no fronting bunker in front of the green", "hit extra club into the wind and less club downwind", "play for the fat side of the green from outside 180, regardless of the pin", "never play to skinny parts of fairways or greens unless it gives you a HUGE advantage",  "don't put too much spin on shots into the wind if there's a severe back-to-front slope", "don't shortside yourself", "don't get over the hole on back-to-front greens", "avoid deep bunkers more than 150 from the hole", etc...?

Yes. I call these "Schmidts"...aka Universal Truths. They are true at Medinah,  or the city dump.

There are several factors that can complicate a golf course. As you said those cases when it is best to ignore the "Schmidts". Disinformation is common with golf courses that require knowing.

Also when there are very few or no visual clues. There is nothing more a good player wants than an obvious presentation of hazards that explains how a hole is played....like a penally bunkered hole....its very  clear what to do. Along that lines but opposite, when there are too many clues, it can become difficult to differentiate the true clues from the phonies.

There also the randomness of nature, which can be difficult to account for...from the undulating ground and the bounce and roll of the ball, to inconsistant rough or sand, to the unpredicatable wind.

Notice none of your "Schmidts" addressed the intracies of a course's greens and green complexes...more than half the game and often the most difficult to fully comprehend on courses like NGLA or St. Andrews.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Your points are fair enough. However, regarding:

"Also when there are very few or no visual clues. There is nothing more a good player wants than an obvious presentation of hazards that explains how a hole is played....like a penally bunkered hole....its very  clear what to do. Along that lines but opposite, when there are too many clues, it can become difficult to differentiate the true clues from the phonies. "

Whether clues or blind shots, after three plays Shivas will know the yardage, and visual deception should also be figured out.

I think there are three levels of thought on any hole, any time you play.  The first is position, like knowing to be below the hole.  The second is the "universal truths" that are undeniable golf ball physics in the wind.  The third is the fine shaving and distinction of applying those physics in every round, with slightly different attack angles, winds, cup locations, etc.  

You two may be arguing about the same point - just because you know to be below the hole in a certain location, and know you may need a high spin shot to get it there, there are still a zillion small decisions to make on line, swing plane and speed, etc. that never repeat exactly.  Thats what makes golf fun.

The semantics are, is that the course you can't figure out, your swing, or the weather?  It is really some of each - for the course may be drier than normal, which is weather, but how a slope will react is the course, and of course, your shot.

[Brent Hutto]

So why do you hear stories about Ben Hogan or Phil Mickelson going to a major-championship course a week early to get in as many practice rounds as possible?

Would you say they are there learning something other than the subtleties of the course?

Or is it that they can understand the architecture of the course and the strategy it implies after walking it once or twice but they need to practice execution in a way that is only possible in situ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brent,

They may not be familiar at all with major sites, since there is little repeat play, save Augusta.  And, as you suggest, even someone who had played Shinny, would need to know about the new tees, fw cuts, and practice on the actual green slopes and contours as they exist that week......

And, they seem to think that playing it a few times gives them all they need to know. It it was Tom MacWood, he may feel he would have to play fifty or more times, but they don't! Again, basic strategy won't take long to figure out, but with Shinnys green speeds, some final adjustments are certainly "game time" decisions, even from day to day.

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
Most greens are tilted toward the approach...some more than others. That is where your "Schmidt" comes in.  On golf courses that require knowing like St. Andrews, there are many greens that slope away. Do you throw up in the air? Is there wind. Do you run it up? If so what will the ground do it. What is over the green? Is knowing the exact yardage that big of an advantage in that situation? In my mind that is the type of shot that requires the golfer to think, that requires judgement, not once or the  thrid time around but over an extended period of time.

If there are no clues off the tee, where does yardage come in. Maybe if you purchased a yardage book...you might know how far you need to carry the ball to make the angled fairway or if your Paddy Harrington and walk it off prior to hitting your tee shot. Do you frequestly use yardage books to assist you?

How does a yardage book help you understand the complexities of a green? More than half the game is on and around the green....that is also where you will find many subtleties that may not present themelves easily. If you believe you could understand the greens at NGLA after two or three plays or after a year or two...you are better man than me.

[T_MacWood]

Since when should we use a touring pro as measurement of golf course's complexity. The combination of their controll, skill and equipment have pretty much elimated the need for knowing on most golf courses. That is an unreal situation, the resourses at their disposal from exact yardages to group think on the best manner to attack a golf course elimnates a high percentage of knowing.

They have relagated what has historically been considered the most complex golf course in the world to pitch and putt. Although in October when the wind is up it still can get them. And they do not always comprehend the greens even under the best conditions at a St.Andrews or Pinehurst or Augusta National...occasionally these courses can make look silly and sometimes after years of experience....perhaps they haven't figured them out completely yet.

[T_MacWood]

Dave
Obviously your skill and judgement are to the point where no course can confound you....no wonder you don't care much for architecture.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Again, we basically agree, yet your response sounds contentious.  If you play TOC once, you know which greens slope away.  That wouldn't take hundreds of playings to figure out, would it?

Yardage is the start of most shot deliberations, I think.  If you have a blind shot, but know the course, you aim at something, and you figure the yardage, then hope.  But, you have learned that through subsequent playings.

It may take more than three rounds, agreed, to understand the complexities of green slopes from everywhere you might miss around the green.  However, having putted or chipped from the left does give some clue as to what it might do from the right - just reverse what happened from the other side.....and as Dave says, good players can estimate fairly well (as much as from hitting 1000 chips a year in 200 rounds versus the casual player hitting 200 over 20 rounds) the effects of slope etc, on their proposed shots.

As to touring pros, it is a difference of degrees between them and a low handicapper - they will pull off any shot type about 75% of the time, versus 50% for single digits, and 25% of the time for high handicappers.  However, there are many high handicappers who are proficient in thought, but not skill, rendering their strategic expertise somewhat void in many cases.

In the final shot planning, I agree with you, differing winds, firmness, etc. make the shot a little different every time - again that is why we play.  But can you name a course where a shot will break left one day, and right the next?

Again, I think its somewhat semantics - is the course, or the course conditions the thing that are difficult to figure out? What say ye to that premise?