For the architects - Would you want to know?

[George Pazin]

Tim Bert's stat analysis of the Bandon courses is pretty interesting.

A little Bandon Analysis per Tom Doak's request

Tim came up with this gem:

I think Doak could learn a lot about his design if he had a post-mortem study of every score on every hole by every range of handicapper that ever played one of his courses.

So I'm asking the board (and hopefully not bored) architects:

Would you want to know this info? Do you think it might influence remodel decisions? Future decisions?

Have you ever asked any clients to track things like this? Do you ever look at the scorecards, if a client choosing to collect them from members to determine hole handicaps?

As always, I expect all the architects to participate, or I'll be filing a complaint with management (not).

[Mike_Young]

Tim Bert's stat analysis of the Bandon courses is pretty interesting.

A little Bandon Analysis per Tom Doak's request

Tim came up with this gem:

I think Doak could learn a lot about his design if he had a post-mortem study of every score on every hole by every range of handicapper that ever played one of his courses.

George,
My question to Tim would be...What would Tom or anyone else learn from the stated practice above?  
IMHO golf is not meant to be played with a calculator, white belt and pocket protector....play barefooted with three clubs and you will learn more.
Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

Do you think that CBM would be interested in a statistical analysis of NGLA ?

Do you think it would have swayed him in terms of fine tuning NGLA and influencing future designs ?

Donald Ross at Pinehurst # 2 ?

Flynn at Shinnecock Hills ?

AWT at Winged Foot ?

AM at Cypress Point ?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Yes, I most certainly do think it would have interested every single one of those architects.

[George Pazin]

I don't know if they would, but they should.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, there is something we've called "the scoring spectrum" or "scoring spectrum barometer" that pertains to holes that some feel can be used as a pretty accurate barometer of architectural interest and quality. That kind of "scoring spectrum" can only be accurately analyzed through scoring data collection.

If I were an architect I would love to know stuff like that as it just may help show why some holes are truly strategically interesting and challenging and some aren't.

[Tim Bert]

My question to Tim would be...What would Tom or anyone else learn from the stated practice above?  
IMHO golf is not meant to be played with a calculator, white belt and pocket protector....play barefooted with three clubs and you will learn more.
Mike

Hi Mike,

I agree with your comments.  I do, however, think that there would be a lot learned (not necessarily changed) from this exercise if it were reasonable to conduct such a study.

I've heard Tom Doak and others comment that designs should test the best player and remain playable for others.  Even with a moderate sample size of high handicappers and average golfers, I think much could be learned.    

(I say average, but I mean low teens or high single digit golfers, which I think are better than average.  I think this board often tends to skew the conversation of average golfer because of the skill of so many here.  Based on my experiences and from what I've seen on golf courses, I'd venture to guess the "average golfer" couldn't break 95 from the blue tees or maybe even white tees at a course of average difficulty if he/she played the ball down and attempted to follow the rules of golf.)

I think you could learn a great deal about the holes you are building.  It may not (and probably should not) change the way you design in the future, but it would still be an interesting study for anyone with an analytical mind.  I bet Tom Doak would love to know if #6 at Pacific Dunes really plays as a hard par for scratch golfers, but an easy bogey for 15 handicaps.  

I'd be concerned if he started pandering to the numbers instead of remaining focused on building great golf holes.  If nothing else, it would be useful information that might help him confirm some of his suspicions about his design work.  

[Tim Bert]

By the way, Mike.  White belts are back in fashion with the youth of America (and Europe) on the golf course.  I might just have to wear my white belt and bright yellow pants to the Dixie Cup.  Don't make me prove a point through bad fashion!

Funny that you mention barefoot with three clubs, as Jason McOlgan (also attending the Dixie Cup) and I once played the back nine of a course with three clubs and no shoes.  We weren't quite barefoot as we structured the rules that we had to wear socks, which was a bit disgusting because it had just rained about 0.5" and the ground was quite soggy and muddy.  We didn't learn anything that afternoon, but we had fun!  Perhaps we could play the Sunday singles with this format?

[Ian Andrew]

A great design has nothing to do with a formula. If statistics and checklists could produce a great course - it would happen far more often.

Intuition remains far more important than planning. I’ve watched architects plan out the directions of the threes, balance their nines and spend time insuring certain aspects of their design philosophy are achieved. Once an architect sticks to a philosophy or pattern they tend to make fewer mistakes but rarely touch genius either. Often greatness comes from letting go of preferences and going completely contrary to the obvious.

[Tom_Doak]

I was happy to know those things about Pacific Dunes.  Of course, I have played Pacific Dunes many times with a wide variety of fellow players, so I have some experience with it and I wasn't likely to overreact to Tim's numbers.

I don't think I would want to know those numbers for Barnbougle right now, because I haven't played it very many times and I would not want to jump to conclusions based on the numbers.  (The numbers in both cases have a lot to do with wind conditions.)

[Tom_Doak]

I should also mention that the PGA Tour does this -- their ShotLink measures every shot by every player every week, showing where drives land and which lead to birdies or bogeys.

Has it made the architecture of TPC courses better?

[Mike Nuzzo]

I'd love to know, but I am not likely changing a thing.

Data is good.
What one does with it is what matters.

[Joe Hancock]

I'd love to know, but I am not likely changing a thing.

Data is good.
What one does with it is what matters.

Mike,

I'm confused....you would like to know but wouldn't change. So, doing nothing with the data is what matters???

 

[paul cowley]

I should also mention that the PGA Tour does this -- their ShotLink measures every shot by every player every week, showing where drives land and which lead to birdies or bogeys.

Has it made the architecture of TPC courses better?

Tom...its been my experience that Shotlink helps you know what you want to ignore.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Exactly.    


I was more thinking for future work... for example: If I were the only one to be able to play my ripples I'd only use them on my own course.  

[Ian Andrew]

No course gets more of this type of scrutiny than Augusta National. Fazio takes 4,000 of his lead associates and monitors play over the four days. The last few years of changes were influenced by this process.

I watched the Penn Amateur played at CC of Scranton. I watched half the field lay-up and play for position on the shorter fours (the older guys) and the other half hit driver at everything (the college guys) all day. That showed me that some choose to trust their skill rather than use their brain - it also taught me that older players stay competive through intelligent play. The day did reinforce some new bunker locations to deal with the aggressive play - but nothing that already wasn't up for discussion.

[Mark_F]

George,

You have had an interesting spectrum of replies to a fascinating question.

I don't see how such information couldn't have at least a modicum of benefit to either a hole or two or three.

They obviously design holes,but courses overall, to play a specific way,whether it's supposed to be a wholly difficult course, or one with some give and take etc.  

They are only human, and cannot possibly know with any certainty that a hole that exists firstly in their mind, and only afterwards on the ground, plays exactly as intended.

And they must have an intention for their hole,musn't they?

[TEPaul]

"No course gets more of this type of scrutiny than Augusta National. Fazio takes 4,000 of his lead associates and monitors play over the four days."

Ian:

Is that right? Fazio only takes 4,000 of his lead associates to ANGC? I didn't know he played office favorites like that. I think he should be more equitable and take all his lead associates to ANGC for four days.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

The data that has been suggested doesn't really indicate "how the hole plays".  The fact that you top your tee shot 11% of the time and make 6 instead of 4 would have little bearing on my thoughts on a hole, other than to tell them not to grow long grass in front of the tee, which I hate anyway.

[TEPaul]

"other than to tell them not to grow long grass in front of the tee, which I hate anyway."

TomD:

That's interesting. Recently, I was just thinking how much I'd like to see long grass in front of tees on some courses. It seems to me to be able to accomplish a lot such as helping hide tees in front of other tees as well as to help decrease the visibility on various holes. I'm sort of on the opposite side of the coin from this "Everything is right in front of you" camp.

[Forrest Richardson]

George — It would make my head hurt, and frankly (or, in your case, Georgely) I would take the Rhett Butler opinion.

[paul cowley]

To the threads question.....no, I would much prefer to operate in a vacuum, thank you.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I say data is good. I think I know the basics of making it playable for the average Joe, but as TePaul says, its always good to remember what you don't know. I expect I would find a few situations that didn't play the way "the book" says it should for average joes, and that I could use that info in future designs.  

In truth, where most of us are a bit weak is in designing for "average Josephines."

[Matt MacIver]

I like stats but they can only tell you so much as it pertains to GCA, because no two 15 handicaps are the same.  

Playing from the 6600 yard tees the 15 who can bomb it might have a tremendous advantage over the 15 who bunts it out there 220 and is left with long second shots.  Especially if he's on that day, the fairways are firm and the wind is down.  

Of course the bomber also loses two balls a side OB, while the short- knocker has a great wedge game.  Hence they're both 15s.  

So cross bunkers will only be in play for the bomber on some holes, and those tricky greenside slopes will aid the better short- game player.  Hence, the need for variety.  

[Bruce Katona]

In evaluating a course for acquisition, we have always sent out one or two foursomes of players to rank and rate the course fron differennt sets of tees.....we send one our our professionals, a low handicap, a mid-handicap and a high handicap...if availbe we also try to send a female employee or spouse to play from the regualr womens tees to get their impression.  Each hole is ranked by tee shot, approach shot and how they believed the green to be viewed; on a scale from 1-5 , with 1 being the worst and 5 being the best....at the end of 18 holes we look at the aggregate to see how the place was observed....same type of hard look at the clubhouse, mainetence area, etc...this is how we quantify if the facility fits our brand.

Very scientific but also subjective..