Correlation between Ability and Appreciation?

[JSPayne]

How direct is the correlation between golf ability (handicap essentially) and appreciation for GCA?

After playing with many players of varying handicap, it seems to me that the higher handicappers find it easy enough to grasp the basics: that course was hard, has really narrow fairways, had difficult greens to putt, had too many bunkers, etc. And the lower handicappers are more likely to pick up on and use to their ability the more subtle features: needing to hit lower, running shots into greens, planning tee shot placement, finding the right tier on a green, etc.

We all wish people knew more about and appreciated great GCA more, and I don't think a person's ability to appreciate is more limited by how skilled of a player they are, but my question mainly is: Many say the percentage of courses that are built with more bland GCA presently is much higher than in the past.....can this be attributed to "building for the masses" and thus needing only to adhere mainly to the architecture "basics" to build a course that the majority (read: high handicapers) of golfers will enjoy and appreciate? And perhaps also correlates into the recent boom (if we can call it that) of more GCA intensive courses that cater to the "core golfers" who are usually lower handicap and have plans to stay with the game even in the current tough economy?

[John Kavanaugh]

Some people of lower ability use intelligence as a crutch to demonstrate their worth to the game.

[Phil McDade]

I've always wondered, and have begun to think it's maybe true, that there is something of a classic "bell curve" appreciation to golf architecture:

-- The average hack simply looks at the basics -- uphill or downhill, dogleg right or left, bunkers/water/hazards I need to avoid -- and plays accordingly.

-- Then you have a range of golfers who recognize the design elements put in place by the architect, and play accordingly, taken into account things like: options how to play a hole w/ wide corridors, the use of the terrain in a classic Redan, utilizing bump-and-runs when conditions merit it, others.

-- Finally you have golfers playing at the very high end of the game -- pros, some scratch players -- who simply think all of these design elements are a lot of hooey that get in the way between the tee and hole, and represent essentially a bunch of visual fluff. I've read interviews w/ PGA pros who tend to think this way -- their ability to hit a target (be it a spot on a fairway, or a certain part of a green) is so good that all of the other stuff that everyone else thinks about, and looks at, is shunted aside.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I actually think that difficulty is increasing which in part is harming the game. 

The golden age archies always seemed to include an easy way and a tigers line.  Modern designers on the courses (we actually discuss) often simply create difficulty in what may be an attempt to receive rankings from at least one publication.  Ressistance to scoring and slope are all too important. 

Interestingly, one of our favorite designers, T. Doak, doesn't always build courses that are tremendously difficult.  Pac Dunes is actually very straightforward in no wind. 

While lower handicaps may be able to play the harder courses, that doesn't mean I think they are better.

[Adam Clayman]

One of the misnomers is that great players make great architects? So, the general premise about appreciation may be under defined or semantical.
 
A good player will understand how to score better, but, that doesn't mean he appreciates the architecture any better.

I'll cite my round at Desert Forest as a case in point. I had one of my worst days hitting the ball. One of those where if I zigged, I needed to zag. I could hear the member thinking, "this guys a panelist?"

But after our round sitting in the bar, It appeared I was the only one that could discuss the architecture by remembering almost every feature, and the nuances of the course. So, you cannot judge the book...

On another thread one poster quantifies the quality of the course by the green speeds and grass choice. That's not appreciating architecture.




 

[Sean_A]

I honestly don't think one's ability has much to do with appreciating architecture at the every day level so long as the person is reasonably savy - meaning he has been around the block once or twice.  Now, if we are talking about how the pros play that may be a different story.  I have been around the game practically all my life and have seen pros bang it many times.  Still, I am not all that confident about figuring out what is or difficult for pros once we get away from the obvious extremes.  I get it from a theoretical aspect, but these guys really are on an other planet.  Perhaps this is why I don't ever concern myself with back tees and long courses and it may explain why I am anti-length despite all the progress with equipment.  I know what the outcome for me will be.  A lot of hybrids from the fairway and lot of laying up because folks can't reach greens in reg unless I nut a drive.  As it seems is often the case, I don't want how pros play to influence current design for the vast majority of us and hence the reason why we have this wierd penchant for creating so many sets of tees based on yardage.  With very few exceptions, at this level, I have to believe there is some element of "I have to be able to hit the shot to truly understand it".  How much this is worth in appreciating architecture I can't say.

Ciao

[Ian Andrew]

And the lower handicappers are more likely to pick up on and use to their ability the more subtle features: needing to hit lower, running shots into greens, planning tee shot placement, finding the right tier on a green, etc.

We all have the ability to hit every type of shot - the difference in handicap is mainly consistancy - not imagination.

[Scott Sander]

I'd contend an innate curiosity is a larger component than ability in the makeup of a prototypical architecture fan.

If you don't long to learn more about why a hole includes this, excludes that, rises, falls, lifts your spirits, or fills you with dread, you'll be hard pressed to recognize, much less appreciate the thinking that went into the hole.

That said, I'm sure there are shots on many courses that I (an 11) have never considered and therefore cannot appreciate.  So, yes,  ability certainly augments curiosity - but I don't think it is an absolutely necessary component to appreciation.

[Mike Sweeney]

I played with Jim Sullivan last week for the first time and it made me question all the stuff that we talk about here. When you hit the ball dead straight off the tee 280 to 310, and the only real strategy is "should I hit a three wood here so I don't drive through the dogleg", it is a different game.

That said, I took a lesson yesterday for the first time in a year yesterday because at the end of the day, I really would rather have less appreciation for the strategy from the woods. 

I do follow the Mucci theory that you can't play too much golf, but I need to play better golf along with it.

PS Shivas, myself and a bunch of others need to stop the "busy with the kids" routine, because Sully has four of them between ages 1-5, and the guy looks like he is a short game lesson or two from getting back on Tour.

[George Pazin]

Some people of lower ability use intelligence as a crutch to demonstrate their worth to the game.

 

Nice post, Ian.

Mike, it's ironic you single out Jim's game as simplifying the game, as he is one of the most thoughtful and insightful posters on here, imho.

The strongest and simplest explanation for the existence of a correlation is simply that the better the player, the more time, effort, thought, etc. he has invested in the game, speaking generally of course. That doesn't mean a lesser player can't appreciate greatness and it doesn't mean a better player does, it simply increases the likelihood of both.

[Tom Huckaby]

PS Shivas, myself and a bunch of others need to stop the "busy with the kids" routine, because Sully has four of them between ages 1-5, and the guy looks like he is a short game lesson or two from getting back on Tour.

As a frequent user of said excuse, all I have to say is that it helps if one is a great player BEFORE the kids arrive.  And Mike, just how do you think Sully's short game deteriorated such that it's not tour level?

I shall not let you shatter my delusions.  Sans kids I would be decent at this game.  With kids, it's crapshootimus maximus. 

As for the question here, methinks George Pazin just summed it up perfectly.

[Tim Gavrich]

I think that in a lot of ways, "great architecture" for a 15-18 handicapper and "great architecture" for a scratch player are very, very different.  Why would a scratch golfer necessarily care about whether or not he can land an 80 yard wedge shot 20 yards short of the green and have it bounce on?  That may be important to the 15-18 handicapper, who is less certain of his ability to hit that wedge shot properly fundamentals-wise.  But the scratch player is good enough that if the green can hold his wedge shot, he's going to fly it to the green every time because that ability is more readily available to him than two his bogey golfer companion.

I think that the region of golf course architecture in which greatness should be recognizable to the widest range of players is green contours.  It's pretty hard to find an example like the one I gave above on a green, because anyone can lag a 60-foot putt to a foot from the hole.  It's just a matter of frequency.  The same paradigm is just not true of that wedge shot, or a 200 yard five-iron, or a 285 yard drive.  Not all golfers can do that.

The last thing I want to seem in this post is classist.  Yes, I'm approximately a scratch player.  Putting contests between my 10-handicap father and I are much more competitive than long-drive contests between us.

[George Pazin]

But the scratch player is good enough that if the green can hold his wedge shot, he's going to fly it to the green every time because that ability is more readily available to him than two his bogey golfer companion.

Just out of curiosity, how good do you think you are at judging whether a green is capable of having Tiger (or any other tour pro) hit and hold a wedge?

[JESII]

How direct is the correlation between golf ability (handicap essentially) and appreciation for GCA?

How would Tom Doak and Jack Nicklaus answer this question?






"short-game lesson..."  

[TEPaul]

"How direct is the correlation between golf ability (handicap essentially) and appreciation for GCA?"


JSPayne

In my opinion, not very direct at all, and particularly when one gets into the aesthetic side of architecture.

[PCCraig]

I would have to agree with Phil and his bell curve theory. However I would move the curve of true appreciation of GCA to at least a 0-10 handicap. Anything more I don't think you can physically enjoy every aspect of playing a course.

[George Pazin]

However I would move the curve of true appreciation of GCA to at least a 0-10 handicap. Anything more I don't think you can physically enjoy every aspect of playing a course.

I guess the corollary to this is that the 0-10s you reference are also the most likely to think they know everything and can appreciate everything on a deeper level.

[Kirk Gill]

Some people of lower ability use intelligence as a crutch to demonstrate their worth to the game.

What if I lack both ability AND intelligence?

[John Kavanaugh]

Some people of lower ability use intelligence as a crutch to demonstrate their worth to the game.

What if I lack both ability AND intelligence?

If your thumb is green, grow..If your fingers nimble, write...If you can get in Cornell, design.  If all else fails http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-fold-a-t-shirt-in-2-seconds-explained

[Lloyd_Cole]

And the lower handicappers are more likely to pick up on and use to their ability the more subtle features: needing to hit lower, running shots into greens, planning tee shot placement, finding the right tier on a green, etc.

We all have the ability to hit every type of shot - the difference in handicap is mainly consistancy - not imagination.

Ian,
There is one exception to that. The long high long iron or drive cannot be played without clubhead speed which is only achieved by a very small group of (usually) very good golfers.

[Phil Benedict]

Long hitters (who aren't necessarily always good golfers) often have to consider hazards or dangers that don't affect short hitters (some of whom are good golfers).  Dangers on the outside of a dogleg come into play for long hitters, necessitating either strategy (using a shorter club) or shot shaping.  On the other side of the coin, long hitters can sometimes take an aggressive line on the inside of a dogleg hole, something that short hitters might not even consider.

[John Kavanaugh]

If you believe, as I do, that your ability to play has zero relation to your ability to critique architecture it must follow that playing a course should not be required to form an accurate opinion.  I have seen far too many 14+ handicaps talk out of both sides of their mouths on this issue only to satisfy their own self interest of playing courses under the banner of their enabler.   

[Adam Clayman]

it must follow that playing a course should not be required to form an accurate opinion. 

An opinion, ok. An accurate opinion, impossible.

[John Kavanaugh]

Adam,

I think it is in the realm of possibility that I understand the architecture of ANGC better than Ballyneal despite having not played the former. 

[Tim Gavrich]

But the scratch player is good enough that if the green can hold his wedge shot, he's going to fly it to the green every time because that ability is more readily available to him than two his bogey golfer companion.

Just out of curiosity, how good do you think you are at judging whether a green is capable of having Tiger (or any other tour pro) hit and hold a wedge?

I'm a scratch player, and I'd like to think I can tell to a certain degree.  But even so, my wedge game is very, very far from Tour quality.  However, I've played with a lot of players who are a good deal better than I am, and I think I can probably distinguish pretty decently.

The main point of my post (and I apologize if it was clumsily revealed) was that I think that there is often a difference between great architecture for a bogey golfer and great architecture for a scratch golfer.  Now, there are architectural features that are great no matter the ability of the player.  But the simple fact remains: different abilities of golfers play totally different types of games and utilizes different aspects of GCA during a round.