How good a golfer should an architect be...?

[Sean_A]

I think an archie needs to be good enough to understand what are reasonable expectations in the quality of scratch, mid cappers and high cappers.  I spose for some archies that may man they don't play the game and for others it may mean they are scratch.  This question is like how long is a piece of string?

Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 

My vote is that some modicum of skill helps , or at the very least an understanding of trajectory .  Perhaps the new age golfer, highly skilled , one golf ball , might not understand some of the subtleties of the pitch and run , and the ground game.

 For 95% of them , these skills are no where near as important as hitting the ball high and far, so the appreciation of same might shift to the less accomplished player , Hmnnnnnn , that 's an interesting thought.

Now I'm all twisted on this one, perhaps the lack of golfing skill gives one a better perspective on the shank, duff, sclaff , dub, dribble , et al 

better think this one thru again  LOL       

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

You are right.  This question has been asked forever and there really is no right answer. And, if there was one, then we wouldn't solve it here anyway......

As mentioned, the job of the gca is to reasonably predict how every type player is going to play the course.  Whatever his golfing background, he will have to fill in the gaps for some other classes of players.  What makes one level of play an advantage over another in this regard?

In truth, good players ask for about the same stuff in a course that average ones do - WYSIWYG architecture, receptive targets, putts that stop near the hole, etc.  A solid design is a solid design.  Now, there are ways to encourage different shot types for good players that a poor golfer might not consider, but those aren't that hard to learn to design.  From the forward tee thread a few weeks ago, it appears that designing for the 130 yard hitter to even play the course is just as hard to learn as designing for Tiger anc company.

[Neil_Crafter]

How good is Bill Coore?

I guess on the fact of it, I'd have to say that Bernard Darwin had a pretty good eye for what constituted great architecture, and I don't recall him being very good at playing the game.

Mike
Darwin was a British International representative and played in the Walker Cup matches of 1922. He was a fine amateur player and definitely one that you would put in the category of a "good golfer".

Tom D
Mackenzie did I believe get his handicap down as low as 5 at Alwoodley by 1921, in 1907 it was 11. I think he was a competent player in his later years, and he appears to have worked hard on improving his game as he got older.

Personally, my lowest handicap was scratch. I come from a family of golf pros - father, uncle, cousin and sister all pros.

[Chris Cupit]

Michael Riley is still a scratch golfer.  I know he won The Anderson at Winged Foot (Four Ball event) back in the 90's and played in at least one USGA Mid-Am or Am.

But I do not think an excellent golf architect is necessarily even a golfer

I'd much rather have an exceptionally observant architect with no golfing experience but a willingness to spend time watching others play instead of a great player who feels like he "knows it all" already and doesn't need to watch any more golf.

The worst combo may be an architect whose best days are way behind him and who only remembers the game they (think) they and their contemporaries played 25 years ago!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Chris- I think many architects are probably 25 years from their golfing best. I think the key good points are the understanding of all standards of play and in part as my golfing skills have declined its easier for me to see how lesser golfers get around, I can still think like a scratch golfer but I am 13 hcp now. I think if you are a tour player you might be a little blinkered in this area.
I think a good architect could more likely come from a superintendent background, someone who understands how a course has to be maintained. On this site we often look at certain golf courses but we dont think much about courses that are built to lower budgets and/or need to be maintained to relatively low budgets in order to provide golf at a lower cost to the user. That skill is seperate from just understanding architecture from the strategy and shot value parts. Trying to get a good course built for a low figure is oftn quite a disciplined procedure. It was quite interesting to look at the Weston super Mare thread and see MacKenzie features that are no longer there now because they were too expensive too maintain.

[Tom_Doak]

Adrian is right that most architects are past their golfing primes.  However, it's important to still get out there and play, and not lose touch with what makes the game fun.

I only got to know Robert Trent Jones Sr. late in his life, but I doubt he played ANY golf the last 15-20 years of his career, and I thought it affected his work.  The only golf he saw was how the pros played on TV and it must have looked like it was getting too easy ... hence his last courses were all very difficult, from Ballybunion New to Treetops to the RTJ Trail. 

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't know how good at the game architects past and present were/are, but I'd be curious as to how many of them truly LOVED the game, throughout and for the whole of their careers.

My grandfather thought the hardest thing about making a career out of something you loved was STAYING in love with it when it became a JOB, i.e. when you HAD to do it.  Since he thought it was near impossible, he figured the best job was being a dentist - clean work, good pay, and you'd never fall out of love with it since you never loved it in the first place.

I'm sure there are no easy answers/formulas. I think Mr. Nicklaus loved the competition even more than the game, while Mr. Plamer loved (and still loves) the game, while Mr. Macdonald loved the IDEA of the game and its fields of play most of all, while Mr. Ross was mainly earning a living through the game he enjoyed, while Dr. Mackenzie loved the architecture of the game and Mr Crump loved the challenge of the game and the pursuit of greatnes itself etc.

Just rambling, sorry

Peter 

[Greg Murphy]

I'm a bit surprised that every post so far has defined the architect's job so narrowly, as one of creating a test of skill. Certainly, a golf course ought to test skill but a great golf course ought to do so much more, just as a great musical score ought to test more than technical virtuosity. Isn't the ultimate test the experience and emotion an architect may evoke with a course? I have no idea how good a player Mark Parsinen is. Pretty good I imagine but it would not surprise me a bit to hear that he's no competitive star. Same for Mike Keiser. These guys get it. And really good players I think can forget it because emotions like anticipation, surprise, fear, awe, are either irrelevent to or get in the way of execution. Nicklaus might be the classic example if it is true that he really doesn't enjoy playing golf, only competing at golf.

TD mentioned thinking in 2D rather than 3D with respect to land contours. I think there is a fourth dimension that relates to the emotional component of golf courses. One player that I imagine has been able to play in 4D is Ben Crenshaw so it is no surprise that he was probably the first touring pro of the modern era to really get it when it came to golf course design.

Bottom line. I think it is easy for really good players to come to ignore the fourth dimension because they are so focused on execution. They don't care if a course is pedestrian or inspiring. It's all about whether the course can separate and reward or punish competitors for their strengths and weaknesses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

That's not a ramble.  I am happy to report that I get as giddy at the chance to design golf courses as I ever did.  I walked a new property new year's eve in 16 degree weather, no hat, no gloves and never felt better!  Other than international travel, that part still hasn't gotten old.

You make an astute point that there are different ways to love the game.  Certainly, the 70 year olds walking muni courses love it just as much (maybe more) than a tour pro or even the rest of us who don't yet know that it might be a missing component of our lives one day.

That said, I recall an old time gca asking me if I had the choice to play courses or design them, which would I rather do?  My immediate answer was "design them" which shocked the living willy nillies outa him.  He would have given up design and played, given or forced into the choice.  I guess I fall in the category of loving the IDEA of the game and its fields of play most - perhaps that is why I like CBM work!

Greg,

I certainly didn't say the job was just providing a test of skill.  Hell, let em bounce it in from adjacent houses, I don't care! (I once nearly made a hole in one off the side of a hotel.....so, you can tell I design to my game!)  But its true that so many players focus on score.  I like to focus on individual shots - like running one up just because the opportunity is there, even if never practice that shot.  There is something to be said for courses that ask for a wide variety of shots, but don't necessarily punish those that try and fail to execute.

[Mike_Young]

I think it is important that an architect have been a good player at one time whether it be now or in the past and I think it is critical that he have played enough where he understands SCORING......we see so many courses today that are very well manicured.....landscaped....desirable courses but there is no subtlety......the subtlety that can determine difficulty w/o many golfers knowing WHY they erred is something I think is so often missed and comes from playing at a certain level.....

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - thanks. And it's great to hear you talk about your enduring love of the art-craft. I was remembering a story about pianist Teddy Wilson. His trio had a long-term engagement at one of the New York hotels in the 1960s, and all of the best singers of the day would drop in to hear him and, more often than not, sit in for a few songs. When asked who among these greats was his favourite, he said Frank Sinatra. Being a big fan of Sinatra's, I was curious to read why, and assumed it had something to do with Frank's phrasing or musical taste or the tibre of his mature voice. Instead, Teddy said it was because "Frank still loves to sing". And that always struck with me. Teddy wasn't talking about hacks or amateurs, he was talking about the great jazz and popular singers of his day, the ones with the longest and most successful careers -- and yet the implication was that many of them did not still love to sing. Anyway, that's the ramble I was about to continue to ramble with originally...

Peter   

[Matt Day]

I watched David Graham in a practice round at my home club (Joondalup CC) in 1987 going feral about the work of Trent Jones Jr, and the main theme of his moaning was how could a 12 handicapper design a golf course?