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

[Andrew Brown]

Interestingly, in the reading I've done over the years, I fail to recall noting the types of handicaps architects have.

Whilst obviously tour players "playing credentials" speak for themselves, I ask a question; How good a golfer should an architect be?

I ask this in the sense of designing courses that have strategic values, routing sites that give a sense of challenge to different skill levels, creating greens complexes that will challenge recovery shots, utilising bunkers that allow recovery play etc.

It is my guess most architects have played the game of golf with some semblance of advanced or above average skill level. Would I be correct in that idea?

Please note that my question is probably naive, I'm not trying to get the guys who are architects here to reveal this factor of their life 

Regards
Andrew

[Tony Ristola]

Geoff Shackelford's The Golden Age of Golf Design reveals most architects were good to expert golfers at some point.

I think it's similar today, and will remain so. The better golfers know the shots and psychology on the whole at a deeper level. But that's only one part of the equation. Getting it transferred on the ground is another.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think you need to be able to think like a scratch golfer and think like a rabbitt too. I am not sure the actual numbers matter. Statistically though better golfers are architects, generally haven been scratch at some stage.

[Brian Phillips]

Geoff Shackelford's The Golden Age of Golf Design reveals most architects were good to expert golfers at some point.

I think it's similar today, and will remain so. The better golfers know the shots and psychology on the whole at a deeper level. But that's only one part of the equation. Getting it transferred on the ground is another.

Tony,

Could you please define 'expert'?  I would not class a single handicap golfer as an expert but I would class a touring pro as one. 

What is your definition?

Cheers,

Brian.

Hope all is well.

[Jim Nugent]

Lots though not all top architects were/are real good players.   Notable exceptions:

Mackenzie was average (around 15 or 20 handicap?);

Raynor hadn't played at all when he started his GCA career.

Has Doak been any better than around an 8?  While good, that's far from outstanding. 

[Bryan Bergner]

I think it's a great asset to be a very good golfer as an architect.  But more importantly,an architect  should be able to put aside any ego as a very good golfer and remember that players of all abilities are going to play that course.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

In truth, most gca's do not have great handicaps. I know, as I ran the ASGCA golf tourney for a few years.  Some are quite good, and others are really terrible.  Most are typical mid handicappers.

Design is really a separate skill set from playing, so there is IMHO, no real connection.  Obviously, the architect must understand the game, which doesn't necessarily require the ability to " execute the theory."  There have been a lot of really bad courses by those who got in it from a land planning perspective, or engineering perspective, etc.  On the other hand, there have been some great courses by hacks.  So, it runs the gamut, much as golfers run the gamut from serious as Hogan to funny as Zoeller.

As recently discussed, Tour Pros have no clue (in general) and are usually at best, editors to the design.  Even a trained gca who is a good golfer presents some problems - the good players almost inevitably tend to design the harder courses.  While we still need a few of those, sometimes we get them when and where we don't really need them.

In the end, its probably a good thing that the handicaps in the gca ranks tend to reflect the handicaps of the golfing public in general.  Then, its just a matter of picking the right gca for the job at hand.

[Carl Rogers]

This issue might be more of a function of the range of golfing (and golfer) experiences that an individual might have over the course of many years and the ability to translate as wide a range of those experiences in to a course.

One of the better trends, imho, in the world of GCA, is designing holes that give the 20 plus handicapper a chance to make a par.

[Tony Ristola]

Geoff Shackelford's The Golden Age of Golf Design reveals most architects were good to expert golfers at some point.

I think it's similar today, and will remain so. The better golfers know the shots and psychology on the whole at a deeper level. But that's only one part of the equation. Getting it transferred on the ground is another.

Tony,

Could you please define 'expert'?  I would not class a single handicap golfer as an expert but I would class a touring pro as one. 

What is your definition?

Cheers,

Brian.

Hope all is well.

I would classify the class of lower single digit golfers in the Golden Age era as expert. It was a different game back then.

Today for the most part too. They've hit enough shots, I'd presume at a variety of courses, and felt some pressure associated with competitive golf. They'd have played with better class golfers.

As a percent of the golf population, which is the top 1% or less, most in this class would qualify as "expert".

Jim,
Raynor and Mackenzie were really the only exceptions. Both had extraordinary access to valuable info-insight.

Jeff,
I'm sure in the past most of the very good architects could play fairly well at some point.

[TEPaul]

"Re: How good a golfer should an architect be...?"


To be what? A good golf course architect?

I don't think it matters all that much and I think golf architecture's history proves that out. I think to be a good golf course architect one basically just needs to be very observant and about a pretty good number of things which certainly includes a full understanding of how the general shots of the entire spectrum of golfer ability relates to golf course architecture.

[Tom_Doak]

Andrew:

You could Google any number of condescending quotes from Gary Player or Jack Nicklaus to the effect that you have to be a great player [i.e. you have to have won major championships in the 1960's and 1970's] in order to be a good golf course architect.

I agree with Tom Paul, that all you really have to be is observant.  However, I can't think offhand of a great architect who was never better than a 10-12 handicap ... that's what MacKenzie was later in life.  I do think there is SOME point at which it's almost impossible to relate to the shots a great player can hit, but I sure don't think you have to be one.  [The famous quote by MacKenzie on this subject was along the lines that a great player would have difficulty being a good architect, because they generally lack imagination, and because they want to see all their own good shots rewarded.]

I was a 6 handicap at my best.  Actually, it got down to 4, but only for a fleeting moment.  I think I'm officially an 11 now but I don't think I'm going to win many net events, even at that.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Our own Jim Lipe may be currently the best playing architect....and that includes Nicklaus and Player.  I believe Jim Enge is very good too, although I have never played with him.  JC 

[Tom_Doak]

Jonathan:

Steve Smyers and Ken Dye are excellent players, too.

There are a lot of younger guys in the business who are good players as well.  Tripp Davis is certainly one of them.

[Charlie Goerges]

Golf would have to be about the only area where a designer is expected (by some) to be terribly good a using whatever it is they design.

How good (at racing) are the guys who design F1 cars? Or tracks for that matter?

How good at baseball are the guys who design baseball stadiums?

How good at graphic design are the guys who created photoshop or illustrator?

How good at banking were the guys who designed the banking system?

[Mike_Cirba]

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.

[Adam Clayman]

Understanding the sport is paramount. Not the game. Caddying or superintendency would likely be more important to creating quality mediums for the sport than how one executes their shots.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

Bernard Darwin was a very good player. Bill Coore is or was a good player too. He went to Wake Forest and was on the golf team even if he says he wasn't good enough to play much. In my opinion, one should not fall into the trap of analyzing a good golfer's career competitive record to determine if he has a really good golf and architecture IQ or not.

[Ian Andrew]

The better golfers know the shots and psychology on the whole at a deeper level.

BULLSHIT

I'm tired of people propagating that myth.

The ability to hit a ball efficientlly and the understanding of strategy have nothing to do with each other.

[Anthony Gray]

  I think the architect should be just bad enough a player to know how fun the game truly is.

  Anthony

[TEPaul]

Ian:

I don't think good architects need to be or have been good golfers but one thing I really do draw the line on is golf architects who play golf left handed.

What left handed golfers and left handed golf architects are apt to create conceptually and otherwise has the potential to be incredibly confusing to me, and I think at this point I need to slap on left-handed architects and their left-handed ARCHITECTURE a new term.

And so, here it is;

"DYSLEXIC ARCHITECTURE" (assuming left handed architects look at things backwards).

I mean what the hell am I suppose to do on a left handed golf course with left handed architecture---throw out everything I've ever known about right handed shot values or perhaps learn to play golf left handed which in my particular case is a virtual impossibility?  



 

[Charlie Goerges]

Ian:

I don't think good architects need to be or have been good golfers but one thing I really do draw the line on is golf architects who play golf left handed.

What left handed golfers and left handed golf architects are apt to create conceptually and otherwise has the potential to be incredibly confusing to me, and I think at this point I need to slap on left-handed architects and their left-handed ARCHITECTURE a new term.

And so, here it is;

"DYSLEXIC ARCHITECTURE" (assuming left handed architects look at things backwards).

I mean what the hell am I suppose to do on a left handed golf course with left handed architecture---throw out everything I've ever known about right handed shot values or perhaps learn to play golf left handed which in my particular case is a virtual impossibility?  



 

Tom, it's easy to deal with. Just face backward off the tee and hold a mirror up over your shoulder (in the manner of a rear-view mirror), and spy the hole and formulate your strategy. Then simply close your eyes turn, tee, and hit. It's really quite simple!

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

I agree with you about strategy ... I could teach any smart twelve-year-old kid the principles of strategic design, i.e. bunker at left of fairway and at right of green.  That's how we all got interested when we were twelve.

But, I do think it's important to understand the mechanics of golf shots reasonably well to design something great that fits with the land.

What you see with a lot of professional players is that they dumb down that side of the equation, because they don't understand the topography that well.  They tend to flatten everything around the landing areas and the greens, instead of factoring it into the equation of how big to make the targets. 

In other words, for all their shotmaking ability, in design they tend to think in 2-D instead of in 3-D.  And so they throw away their single best claim to having an advantage as designers.

[Steve Okula]

Why couldn't an architect just consult with expert golfers on the design? I know when I'm seeing a great course for the first time, I like to play with a low handicapper or pro, it reveals another side to the course that I don't get topping and slicing the ball around.

 golfers run the gamut from serious as Hogan to funny as Zoeller.

A better choice than Zoeller would haver been Trevino, who won more majors and was miles funnier.

[Charlie Goerges]

As a way of studying this question, I think I'll conduct an experiment with the Armchair Architecture Contest. I'll collect the handicaps or guesstimated handicaps of the participants, and see whether they correlate with the ratings given by our blue-ribbon panel.

I doubt there will be much correlation, but we'll see (though it is an admittedly small and self-selecting sample).


A personal opinion if I may. Design is a specialized and special discipline. I suspect that good designers in the various media have more in common with each other than any of them do with their "users". (This is excepting converts like Jack Nicklaus, Ben Crenshaw etc.) E.G. Jeff, Ian, Tom, Tony, Brian, Adrian (and anyone else I'm missing on this thread) has more in common with a good industrial or automotive designer than with me or anyone else on here, including very good players.

All this is a long-winded way of saying that the playing ability has little to do with how good they are at designing courses, though they may be very good players. They need a basic language/understanding of how the game is played, that can be gained watching good players. In fact if that was the only way they got that understanding, it might be said that they would be more versatile/varied, because they would be studying more than only one person's game (their own).

[Joe Hancock]

I personally don't like it when either the golf pro or the architect are better than me...but that's not important.

I just like it when Ian talks dirty....