[George Pazin]

You hear it so often it's become cliche:

"It's not how, it's how many."

But I believe when it comes to interesting design, "How" matters at least as much as "How many". In fact, I'd go so far as to say this is tied directly to the thesis statement of this site, promoting frank discussion of the world's best courses.

Thought experiment time -

Which would you prefer in a course:

1) A course that had distinct landing areas, each flat and perfectly maincured, and a green that was speedy but readily accepted high flying approach shots,

OR

2) A wide expanse of fairway, with a variety of lies and stances, and a green that favored approach shots from one side over the other.

Seems clear to me.

[TEPaul]

GeorgeP:

I think it's a sign of the times on this website that a thread like this one of yours gets overlooked without a single response. I don't know what GOLFCLUBATLAS.com has come down to anymore. Even if the contributors to this website have seen this theme and this question a hundred times it deserves a response.

As you can imagine I select #2. If you want me to explain in detail the reasons why all you have to do is ask about the specifics.

[Sean_A]

George

I don't think "It's not how, it's how many" refers to the type of course one is playing.  However, I readily agree that option #2 offers more opportunity to play all the shots-even the dreaded aerial game.  

I still get it wrong sometimes between choosing the high aerial, low aerial or kick in shot.  Usually, I select a low aerial shot when a high aerial shot would have been better.   It is these funky lies and sloped greens which leave me confused!

Ciao

Sean

[Mark_F]

George,

How hard is it, though, to find option number two?

At a reasonable price, and reasonable travelling distance?  

In the UK, no problem, because everything is close. And cheap.

What about the USA?

We tend to have this perception over here that the great classic courses are off limits to nearly all, and the new pay as you play courses are the bland, shallow affairs that perfectly embody option number one.

This thought process is even creeping in in Oz.  At next month's Aust. Open site Moonah Links there is a small piece in a current golf publication on the second course there, the Legends course, and how much more playable it is than its brawnier brother, because its 'fairways are generous and the putting surfaces gentle', and because (architect) Perrett's 'wide, cambered fairways that allow drives to bounce away from trouble on most holes.'

And this at the supposed 'Home of Australian Golf.'

And from the design partner of a five-times British Open champion.  

Disgrace is but one word that comes to mind.

[Lou_Duran]

George,

Golf is a game of how many.  To the best of my knowledge, you don't get style points or degree of difficulty bonuses from the Russian judges.

If you shoot 90 in a medal tournament, you beat those who shot 91 and above, no matter how more artful their rounds were.  In match, you can top a drive and skull a 5 iron into the hole and beat a guy who flirted with a hazard with his 300 yard drive to the ideal spot, then feathered a 9-iron to 3'.  Every time.

Perhaps you may have enjoyed your 90 more than the guy who shot 70.  However, you will not hear in the bar that George really had a good time, even if the game is for many of us exactly about that.  Now, if I shoot 70, you will definitely hear about it, for weeks, incessantly.

In regards to your hypothetical, of course nearly everyone here would go for #2.  I suspect that the best players in competition would choose #1.  However, it is seldom a simple choice of one or the other.

I haven't thought much about it, but it seems that most holes have an ideal line of attack (maybe Behr's line of instinct).  Varying from this line poses certain other risks and potential rewards.  It may be rough, bunkers, trees, and even water in your #1 courses, or uneven lies, blindness, poor angles to certain spots on the green in #2.  The challenges may be different, but they are challenges of shotmaking nonetheless.

If you are asking would I prefer to play Firestone-South or Cuscowilla, my choice is rather simple, Cusco, the #2 example.  But in other cases, I may prefer Paa-ko Ridge (sp) which is more of your type 1 than Black Mesa (closer to a #2).  I would wager that the really good players would go for Paa-ko.  And who am I to say that the aerial game is somehow less meaningful for them, particularly if the objective is how many and not how.

[George Pazin]

Lou, I understand and agree that golf is a game of how many, not how.

I think architecture and design is different. It is much more how than how many.

If not, then wouldn't the most revered course simply be the one you could go lowest on? I think Shivas hits on why how is more important than how many in design.

And it's a good thing I don't care if others aren't impressed with my 90, or I'd quit the game for sure!

[A_Clay_Man]

What I think George was attemoting was to see who here on the board prefers which style of GCA.

To me the answer is that the canvas shouldn't dictate so much as How. It should allow the golfer, through multiple options, to be creative in his management. The narrow, more target oriented approach, only serves to stroke the ego's of the analy accurate.

[Andy Troeger]

My take:

The benefits of option #1 are that it allows the player to test his/her game against the course, it forces them to play specific shots. These courses to me are fun to play from time to time, but I would think would probably be boring to play as a home course after awhile.

Option #2 allows for more ways to play the hole and gives more variety and options. It also allows more ranges of players to enjoy the play. They might not have the best angle, but they'd still have a fighting chance. These courses, while they would require multiple plays to learn and thus might not be as fun the first time around, (or maybe still would be depending on the course), would be more fun to play multiple times or to have as a home course.

Best option: favors the attributes of #2, but I think still incorporates some of both into the design.

[Lou_Duran]

Gentlemen,

Isn't the "how" relevant only in the context of "how many"?

If golf is a test, doesn't there have to be some quantification of the results?

Can a guy who normally shoots around bogey truly enjoy his 120 if he sprays it like Seve and putts like Shivas?

If a golfer has can keep the clubhead square for a long time down the target line and hits the ball solidly in the air, is his "how" some how less impressive than that of the guy who is hitting it quail high and bouncing it off the mounds, every once in a while toward the right direction?

Or, how about the guys who has learned how to eliminate one side of the course vs. someone like me who can randomly produce a double-cross going left or right?  My "how" may be more interesting in a perverse way.  I can guarantee that my "how many" will not touch the guy with control.   Only on this site might we find a few folks who would state in public that short and crooked is more fun, interesting, and inherently rewarding.
 

[Brent Hutto]

Dave S is perfectly capable of stating his own case but I think he means that the "how" that you can attempt when you don't care "how many" is much more exhilerating than the constrained "how" you're stuck with if avoiding a number like eight or nine is important to you.

Or something like that. What do I know, I'm stuck worrying about "how many" whether I like it or not. Perhaps one day I'll achieve enlightenment.

[Lou_Duran]

Shivas,

Nah, I've seen Seve spray the ball and also seen you putt.  The composite could not break 100, specially if I am hitting the irons.

You are also wrong about me not getting the point.   Enjoyment is the objective.  You didn't see me cry when I blew one of my best rounds over two or three holes.

Perhaps golf is one of those sports that the older you get the better you used to be.  However, one of the downsides of being numbers oriented is that you have a somewhat better reference of how you used to play.

BTW, my halfway house has not too much to do with scoring.  At the nice clubs, that's where I get my peanut butter and jelly crackers, fancy nut mix, and lemonade.

Technique has long been absent from my attainable objectives.  If I can get the club to stop from hitting me on the back of the neck at the top of the backswing, and slow down my transition, I can actually get the ball up in the air.  Sometimes I take great satifisfaction just from that.  Then I'll string two or three pars together, begin to think I know what I am doing, only to be quickly shown otherwise.

Come to think of it, the "how" may be even more tortuous than the "how many".   Just think of Hogan's typical dour countenance and his belief that he only hits one or two shots as he intended per round.  How often have I thinned one only to have it roll up next to the pin.  Not to be able to derive enjoyment from that (a poor "how", a very good "how many) would be a real shame.      

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()