[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

the golfers intellect ?

Is it the golfers failure to understand the quirky feature that causes him to criticize or dismiss it.

In the thread about Sitwell Park, Mike Clayton references the nuances of shots required to get to various hole locations.

Isn't the ability to understand architectural features a critical component in electing how to interface with them ?

Have golfers become less perceptive as more and more artificial aids assist them ?

Example.

The golfer takes out his laser range finder and determines that the hole is 162 yards, 2 feet and 3 inches from his ball.
Is he so focused on that element that he ignores or discounts all of the other elements, such as the ones Mike Clayton referenced when playing the 13th green at Barnbougle ?

Has the modern golfer, with the assistance of equipment that provides for higher, straighter shots, lost his ability to see and recognize ALL of the tactical signals presented by the architecture ?

Has modern day equipment hastened the process of ignoring the tactical signals presented by the architecture ?

And, have architects responded to this "modern golfer" by eliminating nuance and quirk ?

When many golfers see greens like # 1 at NGLA or # 7 at Friar's Head, their sole focus for analyzying the green is in the context of putting.  They never give thought to the approach and recovery issues presented by the green.

Have golfers become less observant of architectural features and how they interface with their games ?

[JESII]

Have golfers become less perceptive as more and more artificial aids assist them ?

YES!

Pat, I would include consistently softer playing conditions with the equipment issues you brought up as an explanation.

What would be the point of trying a creative shot into that green at Barnbougle* if the ball is going to stop dead on impact.

*this is not an indictment of Barnbougle Dunes, merely an example of common maintenance practices today.

I would say that green should come with a mandate that it must be kept as firm as possible.

I would say no to your initial question though...what would be the intelect of a guy trying to bounce his shot up one of those humps if the ground is soft?

[Ken Moum]

This isn't a new problem, and I have long believed that it is a product of the American insistence on keep a medal score for EVERY round.

See:

If too much attention were paid to the vitriolic outbursts of unsuccessful competitors in medal rounds, there would not be a first class hole left in golf...There are some leading players who honestly dislike the dramatic element in golf. They hate anything which is likely to interfere with a constant succession of threes and fours. They look upon everything in the "card and pencil spirit." -- Alister Mackenzie

"…with our own best courses in America I have found that most of our courses, especially those inland, may be played correctly the same way round after round. The holes really are laid out scientifically; visibility is stressed; you can see what you have to do virtually all the time; and when once you learn how to do it, you can go right ahead, the next day, and the next day, and the day after that." -- Bobby Jones

"It must be remembered that the great majority of golfers are aiming to reduce their previous best performance by five strokes if possible, first, last and all the time, and if any one of them arrives at the home teeing ground with this possibility in reach, he is not caring two hoots whether he is driving off from nearby an ancient oak of majestic size and form or a dead sassafras. If his round ends happily it is one beautiful course. Such is human nature." -- A.W. Tillinghast

I do not believe in forcing a run-up shot in preference to a pitch in every case. But, when one goes to the trouble of placing a bunker across the left side of the green in order to force the tee shot toward the right side of the fairway, why destroy its effect by soaking the green so that any sort of pitch over the bunker will hold?  -- Bobby Jones

"Great strategic holes primarily challenge thought. Knowledge of what to do is not immediate. It must be sought. The line of skill is not obvious but is concealed in the line of thought. This first has to be determined, and thought is fallible. Sight is rarely so. On a penal course we see what to avoid. A good shot is the mere evasion of evil. But on a strategic course we must study what to conquer. There are indeed optional safe routes that may be taken. In most cases the ball may be kicked to the hole without encountering a hazard. But the shot must weather hell." -- Max Behr

"Rough is a curse that clever design should be able to do without and we should take no notice of what we see from America on our televisions. It is moronic and one-dimensional to think the game is better when it is played from long green grass." -- Mike Clayton

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

KMoum,

Those are GREAT quotes.

JES II,

Agreed, conditions determine play.

Ergo, inconsistent conditions are the bane of golfers.
And, unfortunately, today's mind set is for perfect consistency.

TEPaul's "maintainance meld" is really the key.

[JESII]

KM,

Great collection there.



Pat,

I think TEP needs to develop his IMM a bit more. When I asked him how rough height factored in, he said he hadn't even considered rough. I think it is key, especially if fairway manitenance costs are substantial.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

JES II,

Not to divert the thread, but, I think the issue of rough height is a seperate issue, one that can be fine tuned once the IMM is achieved.

[John Kavanaugh]

Pat,

Are your friends and playing partners outside this site really that ignorant.  I can not recall meeting a scratch golfer that did not understand the basic principles of gravity or angles.  If it don't work it ain't quirk...Great players always find the best route to the hole.

[John Goodman]

Pat -

I think part of it involves the kinds of courses golfers become accustomed to playing.  This was true in my case - having never really experienced quirk before traveling to GB&I.  I've found the same to be true for golfers with whom I've traveled - what struck them as "tricked up" at the beginning of the trip was fascinating to them by the end.  Playing on true links with constant wind for the first time factored into this as well.

John

[Mark Bourgeois]

John, I agree about the nut of this being the line.  You're saying great players don't need technology to find the line, right?

Maybe the issue isn't only technology but whether the architecture allows a player to find the line. Aren't holes like 10 at Riviera great because there is no one line?

Patrick,

Wethered and Simpson put this problem down to bunkers!  They wrote that the "profusion of bunkers (landmarks)" enabled golfers, especially American golfers, to find the line without too much thinking, and to "bring a stereotyped and scientific precision into action." (Emphasis added.)

The connection between bunkering, "scientific precision," and the elimination of "thinking": isn't that interesting?

The larger point from W&S is that ideally there is no one line of play and golfers should receive no help from the architecture in locating it (suppressio veri).

Otherwise, the line becomes everything, and everything else becomes marginalized. I can see how technology "assists" in this problem...

Mark

[Geoffrey Childs]

Pat
NO

If a player is familiar with a course he/she will inevitably find the best way to play a hole and approach differnt pin locations. Yardage is only an aid to begin the thought process required for the shot at hand.

If a player is at a resort or unfamiliar course he/she will use yardage as well as other "visuals" and guides to choose a play but obviously will not have enough knowledge to make the most inteligent choice.  Yardage might play a more important role in these situations.

[Chris Kane]

Mackenzie, Jones, Tillinghast, Behr, Clayton...if this isn't licence to double his design fee, what is?  

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat:  I would be willling to bet a substantial amount of money that a vast majority of golfers, no matter what their handicaps, would find The Ridge to be a far superior course to Hidden Creek.  They don't care about quirky or different strategies in playing a hole - they care about how the hole looks (Eye candy)and how well they can score on it.  And the fact is that most of their friends do as well, so they will join a club solely because of those features and how much they will impress their friends and clients. It would be a mystery to most of them as to why Hidden Creek is a gem.

[Ken Moum]

About 9 out of 10 golfers I know use the term "good hole" the way it's usually used on television -- as a synonym for "hard hole."

It's easy to make a hole hard.... it's hard to make a hole interesting.

K

[Jeff Goldman]

Ergo, inconsistent conditions are the bane of golfers.
And, unfortunately, today's mind set is for perfect consistency.

TEPaul's "maintainance meld" is really the key.

Pat,

Doesn't "today's mind set for perfect consistency" also support a dislike of quirk?  If that is true, it seems to me that often the golfers who hate that imperfect conditions and quirk the most are often the better golfers, who want perfect bunker conditions and more often want to play their usual aerial shot to the pin.  They don't like "that clown stuff" that can make them change their play, like having to run it on greens from an angle.  

I could see a little of this when interviewing architects for the project at my place.  The guys that seemed to be most concerned with better players wanted to maximize "fairness", and get rid of some really unique features.

[Dan Moore]

I thought the answer to the Subject Line lead in would be ability.  I don't think intellect necessarily has anything to do with it.  MacKenzie has it I think.  It is the competitive medal round mentality that dislikes quirk and nuance.  

[JESII]

Mackenzie, Jones, Tillinghast, Behr, Clayton...if this isn't licence to double his design fee, what is?  

If he isn't already double their design fees he needs a business counselor, and quick.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Patrick refers to the "modern golfer" in his initial remarks, but the quotes from MacKenzie, Jones, Tillinghast, Behr, indicate this is an old problem.

IMO, dislike of quirk has little to do with intellect or ability, it's part of an overall approach to the game.  If you think golf is best played out of a motorized cart, on a perfectly manicured unnaturally graded surface, with everything in front of you, in the USofA, then regardless of how high your IQ or low your index is, as John Kavanaugh says, you're simply "ignorant."  

[Mark_F]

the golfers intellect ?

Is it the golfers failure to understand the quirky feature that causes him to criticize or dismiss it.

Spot on, Patrick.

I would be pretty careful, though.  When I stated the exact same thing about someone's failure to understand the quirk at my home course, I was rudely shouted down by the ignoramuses in Melbourne.

It's far easier to criticise something a golfer doesn't want to understand as gimmicky, instead of trying to think about where the hole may fit in the routing and why this works here now, or imagine the different ways a particular feature may be played.

Golfers want more and more straightforward features -

- a green MUST be hit with a shot hit with backspin.  A green that may require a topspin running shot is ridiculous.

-  everyone expects to see the bottom of the flagstick. Anything else is gimmicky.

- greens MUST be proportionate to the size of the club used to hit it, regardless of the surrounding terrain's ability to work shots toward a smaller target.

- missing a fairway HAS to mean that you can still reach the green, even though other options were presented to you and you failed to take advantage of them.

I just wonder when a device that measures wind speed becomes available to the golfer so that they can have the exact distance and the force required.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,

Are your friends and playing partners outside this site really that ignorant.  I can not recall meeting a scratch golfer that did not understand the basic principles of gravity or angles.  If it don't work it ain't quirk...Great players always find the best route to the hole.

JakaB,

It's only due to hi-tech equipment and playing conditions, that the prefered route is the direct aerial route.

As Mike pointed out, direct aerial approaches to certain locations are not rewarded with great outcomes.

And, you can't view every architectural discussion in the sole context of scratch or better, players.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat
NO

If a player is familiar with a course he/she will inevitably find the best way to play a hole and approach differnt pin locations. Yardage is only an aid to begin the thought process required for the shot at hand.

Geoff,

I would disagree with that.

First, noone hits the same shot every time they play a hole.

Secondly, I've observed golfers play a hole over a period of 10-20+ years and they still haven't figured out how to play it, in the context of their game.[/color]

If a player is at a resort or unfamiliar course he/she will use yardage as well as other "visuals" and guides to choose a play but obviously will not have enough knowledge to make the most inteligent choice.  Yardage might play a more important role in these situations.

I think hi-tech range finders promote tunnel vision.

Making an intelligent or lucky choice from the tee doesn't mean that the golfer will end up where he intended.  In most, if not many cases, he'll end up in a different location every time.  And, like the GPS system that adjusts itself when the driver makes a wrong turn, the golfer will have to restrategize, based on his new location, which, isn't a skill that the great majority of golfers possess.

Remember too, that most golfers plan and try to execute shots well beyond their ability.  That may be ego, but, it's also an acknowledgement that they're ignoring the tactical architectural signals.

Getting back to the dislike of quirk, do you think the inverse ratio applies ?[/color]

[Michael Moore]

Is it the golfers failure to understand the quirky feature that causes him to criticize or dismiss it.

Pat -

I'm going to say no, that this kind of criticism is not a matter of comprehension but rather a matter of taste.

Can you give an example of a feature that is poorly understood and tell us what you might say to someone to help them better understand it?

[Geoffrey Childs]

Pat
NO

If a player is familiar with a course he/she will inevitably find the best way to play a hole and approach differnt pin locations. Yardage is only an aid to begin the thought process required for the shot at hand.

Geoff,

I would disagree with that.

First, noone hits the same shot every time they play a hole.

Secondly, I've observed golfers play a hole over a period of 10-20+ years and they still haven't figured out how to play it, in the context of their game.[/color]

If a player is at a resort or unfamiliar course he/she will use yardage as well as other "visuals" and guides to choose a play but obviously will not have enough knowledge to make the most inteligent choice.  Yardage might play a more important role in these situations.

I think hi-tech range finders promote tunnel vision.

Making an intelligent or lucky choice from the tee doesn't mean that the golfer will end up where he intended.  In most, if not many cases, he'll end up in a different location every time.  And, like the GPS system that adjusts itself when the driver makes a wrong turn, the golfer will have to restrategize, based on his new location, which, isn't a skill that the great majority of golfers possess.

Remember too, that most golfers plan and try to execute shots well beyond their ability.  That may be ego, but, it's also an acknowledgement that they're ignoring the tactical architectural signals.

Getting back to the dislike of quirk, do you think the inverse ratio applies ?[/color]

Pat - I totally disagree with everything except your point that many golfers try to execute shots beyond their ability.  Even then I think most do so mainly when there is nothing on the line.  I guess our experiences with players at their home course or one they are familiar with are different.  Do you generally hang out with morons?  

I think your inverse ratio with respect to liking or disliking quirk is not related to intelect per se but more to a players interest in architecture, history of the game and his/her ability to accept the random nature of a ball bouncing where it may sometimes.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

I thought the answer to the Subject Line lead in would be ability.  I don't think intellect necessarily has anything to do with it.  MacKenzie has it I think.  It is the competitive medal round mentality that dislikes quirk and nuance.  

Dan Moore,

I was thinking about that today.

Quirk can ruin a medal play round, emotionally and physically, and therein lies an inherent reason for the criticism and dismissal of quirk.

And yet, who didn't find the British Open at Carnoustie to be great theatre ?

Why has the viewing public come to demand birdies and pars with a few bogies, but, NO big numbers ?

Why has there been a movement to remove elements of luck from determining outcomes ?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat - I totally disagree with everything except your point that many golfers try to execute shots beyond their ability.  Even then I think most do so mainly when there is nothing on the line.  I guess our experiences with players at their home course or one they are familiar with are different.  

Do you generally hang out with morons?  

Only the ones I've met on GCA.com        [/color]

I think your inverse ratio with respect to liking or disliking quirk is not related to intelect per se but more to a players interest in architecture, history of the game and his/her ability to accept the random nature of a ball bouncing where it may sometimes.


Geoff,

I think the "dislike" has less to do with an interest in "architecture" and more to do with scoring and not being able to play the hole without less than satisfactory or disatrous results.[/color]

[Guy Phelan]

Have golfers become less observant of architectural features and how they interface with their games ?

Patrick,

There is no doubt as to this one; the answer is "yes." Most golfers confronted with the "quirks" of the links land discover that their high lofted sand wedge shots do not work. Run-up shots, pitch-and-runs and the bump-and-run are not that prevalent in many of the courses in the USA; however, in Great Britain they are common and the "desired" method of approaching shots.

For the most part the irrigation systems in place in the US leave little imagination to how we should play shots around the quirkiness that exists. The softness of the courses present little or no imagination. The "fun" with the quirkiness begins with a firm golf course. If we had firm courses the eact yardage is not as critical.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()