GCA "Blank Stares"

[Dan Herrmann]

I'll second Pine Valley.  I live about 40 miles from PV, and I'm amazed how many guys  I work with that golf have never heard of it.

I like to think of myself as something of an evangelist for GCA locally.  So far, so good.  Friends have been out to play Bandon, know how special golf in Philly is, have an appreciation for Gil's work at our club, and don't fret if there's some brown in the fairways (not that we'd have any after 16" of rain since 7/15!)

[Buck Wolter]

I was recently in a group with a well-traveled golfer who had recently played most of the biggies on Long Island. I asked him if he would rather play Shinnecock or NGLA everyday and the other 2 guys looked at us like we were talking another language.



BTW his answer was Garden City.

[David_Elvins]

I was playing golf with a cricket/drinking buddy yesterday. Our discussion about the 5th green at Traditions GC in Surrey went like this:

Me: Wow, that is awesome, there is so much movement in there.
Him: Huh? What the fvck are you talking about? You're away.

To be fair though, Scott, I can imagine myself saying something similar when we do eventually catch up for a game. 

I knew I was in trouble last week when playing a friend's home course that I had never played before and I told him that the 9th green looked like it was  rebuilt by so and so in the early 90s and the 14th green looked like it had been rebuilt by someone else 5 years ago.  Just glad there wasn't anyone else in the gorup.

[Matt Harrison]

My most frequent blank stare:

A buddy says that we should add more trees to a certain hole, or start a tree planting program.

I politely disagree, and say that we need to start an agressive tree-trimming and removal program.

On the Bandon topic, for me, much worse than people not hearing about it, are the couple guys I know that have gone out there and don't "get it." 

[James Boon]

Most people I discuss courses with who are not on here will know who Alister MacKenzie is, so if I tell them they should go and play Cavendish, its an Alister MacKenzie course, they know what I'm on about, even if the prompt "you know, designed Augusta National" needs to be added.

However, if I mention Colt, Fowler, Simpson, Park or anyone else, most golfers have no idea what so ever.

As far as other architects work is concerned. I know some golfers over here will have heard of Pete Dye because of either the Ocean Course hosting the Ryder Cup or the TPC at Sawgrass but anyone else be it Ross or Trent Jones, tends to get a blank look. I should though add that unlike Adrian, I managed to get an early copy of Tom Doak's Anaotomy of a Golf Course so I've been aware of his work for a while.

My wife often refers to me being on "that golf geek website again" and I am well aware of my own geek like tendancies, so the fact that I know some of this stuff whilst most people don't, doesnt bother me. But as Scott hints at, no harm in trying to show them the light! 

Cheers,

James

[Eric Strulowitz]

This could be amusing.....

I just had to start a topic on this because, while I don't claim to be anywhere near an expert on GCA as many on this site are, I am aboslutely amazed and baffled at times when I try to carry on a conversation with other golfers about golf, golf courses, GCA's and other ideas and topics that are at the core of this discussion group.

I titled this thread as such because I often will try to start a conversation with someone at the course, and attempt to drop a few key phrases or words, only to be greeted by a "blank stare." If I can ask 3 consecutive "Are you familiar with.....", "Do you know who.....is?", or "Have you ever heard of....." without getting any affirmatives, I usually abandon the conversation, shaking my head and wondering how these people ever manage to get themselves out of bed in the morning.

So here are a few phrases and words I've used that, surprisingly, get me alot of blank stares:

Pine Valley
Tom Doak
Royal County Down
Ground game
Sand Hills
Ballyneal
Not playing the back tees
Match play

There are tons more......but I'll let you all share yours. 

I could not agree more.  It is amazing how little most so-called avid golfers really know about the game.

I am a junkie with clubs.  Amazing, that very few golfers understand concepts like torque, swingweight, flex, etc.  They have no idea of what fitting is all about and how to find the club that best fits their swing.  Little do most golfers realize that they would play a whole lot better with a shaft of 43-44 inches, regular flex, and lost of 11 degrees or more.  It is macho to play stiff and nine degrees, that is mostly what I see out there.

I have had the great fortune of playing Pine Valley.  I am amazed as to how many have never heard about the place, have no idea..  And other than a few big name clubs aborad like St. Andrews and Muirfield, , no one had ever heard of clubs like Rye, or Wentworth, or Ballybunion, Royal County  Down, etc. 

Most golfers could not care less about golf designers.   I know very few who could name 5 top designers, like Fazio, Dye, Jones, etc .   And even if they could, forget about FLynn, Colt,  Tilly, etc.

It is equally amazing as to how little most golfers know about the rules of golf.  And basic rules, like the meaning of the different stakes, and grounding the club in the sound.  Have yet to really meet anyone exicted about history and architecture, that is why I love this forum.      It's really a shame, because there is much to be enjoyed about this game from a purely aesthetic and historical standpoint.  I believe it adds to ones enjoyment while on the course.

[Emil Weber]

Me: I love TOC, the game is just so much more interesting there.
All my mates: That place is so boring. No trees. Not spectacular. So boring, dude.

[Scott Sander]

I tend to get blank stares when I talk about width.
Some people want the course to dictate specific lines of play.  They want to make 5 decisions a round: whether to lay up or go for it on the par 5s, and what to drink at the turn. 
Other than that, they view on-the-ground ambiguity as an annoyance.  I don't 'get' them and they don't 'get' me - but we can still enjoy the game together. 

[Scott Warren]

I tend to get blank stares when I talk about width.

I reckon you'd want to be pretty clear and specific when telling your buddies you prefer width over length!

[Matt MacIver]

"Short grass can be a great defense against a course, and make it more fair and interesting for all levels."

"A course with more angles is more interesting."

"Let's mix up the tees...play a few golds but through in a few reds for variety."

[rjsimper]

What strikes me most about some of these responses is the overwhelming feeling that everyone here thinks that the golfing public is generally ignorant about the history and the finer aspects of the game.

I think the wine analogy is a good one, except for the fact that when the wine aficionado and the wine hack are done trying to talk, they both drink the wine, and they both end up with the same empty glass...akin to the golf aficionado and the weekend duffer ending up with the same score every time.

But what it really comes down to, IMO, is a question of golf as art versus golf as a game. Many GCA participants are in the former camp.

I consider myself a fairly good player - a low-ish single digit handicap. However when it comes to architecture study, beard pulling, and feeling the architecture, I am no such thing - I'm an 80s shooter at best, occasionally breaking 80...which still makes me better than the vast majority of the golfing public on topics like many mentioned in this thread.

Back in high school, I played basketball. I had a several "Above the Rim" brand tee shirts that featured various trash-talking style basketball sayings or epigrams. One of them comes to mind:

"You can talk the game, but can you play the game?"

For all the talking that I can do about the game, and of course I love to talk about it otherwise I'd never be on this site or any other golf discussion...I'd much rather be able to play the game. There are guys that I play with that are plus handicaps that could not tell me what Cypress Point, Pine Valley, or Merion are...let alone Barnbougle, Kidnappers, or Sand Hills, yet these guys can spank me up and down a golf course, maybe even lefthanded.

My point is, we can get offended, shocked, surprised, floored at people not knowing some of the things in this thread. Some here feel its an obligation to teach, enlighten, or at least to try...but how many of the people that you've come across that were unenlightened ended up beating you with a lower score on that or any day...and if they did, doesn't that mean that in the grand scheme of golf and the ultimate drive for lower scores...that they are the ones winning?

Maybe we are the ones that need enlightenment on occasion. I'm not saying that playing well and being learned are irreconcilable, however if someone chooses the former path and excels in that area, how is it different from an average player learning all the history and architectural nuances of the game whilst shooting a modest store?  And, who is anyone to tell someone in the other group that they're doing it all wrong?

Rant off

[Ben Sims]

Ryan,

I would say that the majority of people on this site aren't associated with the golf business.  I would say of those that are in the golf business, only 10% of those must play well to be reputable.  Mike Young plays pretty close (+/-) to scratch.  I bet it doesn't matter a damn bit how good he plays as to whether he gets a project or not.

As for the rest of us.  We're not pros.  We don't make our living playing golf.  If we choose to be very knowledgeable whist we struggle at the game and become better--though never good--what's the big deal?  My father-in-law can beat me 4 of 5 times on the course.  I guarantee you he is jealous of how much I know about golf courses compared to him.  He realizes I don't care if I shoot 85 or 95.  It doesn't affect my day.  My biggest joy is experiencing great golf courses; it's secondary to shoot a great number. 

That's why I love golf.  I'll never be good enough to play ball at Turner Field with Chipper Jones and the boys.  And as such, I'll never set foot on that grass.  But standing on the 11th tee at Pasatiempo in the same spot as Bobby Jones and trying to hook it across the barranca was pretty cool.  Only in golf.

[JLahrman]

Your wine analogy deserves to be dissected further. Sure you're no wine aficiando. It's red or white, good or bad, and you don't really care to be educated further. But what kind of wine do you drink the majority of the time? No doubt one you perhaps found by accident, or was convienient at the local store, and just happened to fit your taste or your budget. But surely you don't drink only one kind of wine all the time. So what causes you to buy a different bottle? Friends recommendation? Advertisement? What may cause you to splurge on a more expensive bottle (assuming cost is an issue with you)? A name brand winery? A rating of some sort? The fact that it is "organic"? And if someone did introduce you to a new bottle of wine, one you may have never heard of before, and you kind of liked it, and then they filled you in on where it came from, a bit of the process, the history of the winery, the reasons behind the tastes you were experiencing.......is it not possible, if not probable, that you may take even more of a liking to that particular bottle, and choose to buy it again, on your own, or even share it with others who've never tried it before?

Just because you don't WANT to be educated doesn't mean you shouldn't be..........

Maybe I should be educated further, but I'm telling you I'm not going to be.  I'm educated on enough things in life and have too much crap floating around in my head already.  I'm not going to use brain cells on wine.

If you leave the decision to me, I swear I pick the bottle of wine based on price and if the label is interesting.  It's pathetic, but there's a lot of people like me.  I don't see how it's that different than picking a golf course based on the attractiveness of the cart girls and the quality of the grill.

[JSPayne]

Ryan,

Your comments can bring this discussion to a very philosophical level. But I think you hit it on the head when you said we are comparing golf as an art vs. golf as a game.

I think all that the majority of commentors of this post are claiming is that, regardless of what kind of player you are, and the fact that the goal of "golf as a game" is to shoot lower scores, nothing can be lost by gaining some knowledge on GCA.

To extend that thought, I would venture to say that it behooves the better golfer to WANT to learn more about GCA. If you're scratch or near scratch, or even just like to play competitive golf, I think a basic understanding of the courses you will compete on, the GCA who designed it, his design styles and intentions and how he pictured the game being played there can only improve your game and give you a competitive edge over the rest of the field. Some golfers may pick this up naturally, without even knowing it, but further insight provided by those of us who know may be all that golfer needs to have a light go off and elevate their game to the next level.

Furthermore, as Ben writes, it could even benefit the poorer golfer to have all this education as well. I know if I take a friend or family member to a special place, if they didn't know it was special, all they would be trying to do is score well. And if that didn't happen, they might be frusterated, disappointed and even dislike the course just because they had a bad day. Whereas if I fill them in a little about the history, the architect and design, the changes that have been made over the years, etc etc (this happens nearly every time I bring someone to Meadow Club, because most have no clue it even exists, let alone how special it is), they start to see beyond their game, and they enjoy the course, and have questions about it. Most of the time, this causes them to forget about their score so much, and enjoy the round better........and sometimes, not thinking about the game so much actually helps them play BETTER.

[rjsimper]

Ryan,

I would say that the majority of people on this site aren't associated with the golf business.  I would say of those that are in the golf business, only 10% of those must play well to be reputable.  Mike Young plays pretty close (+/-) to scratch.  I bet it doesn't matter a damn bit how good he plays as to whether he gets a project or not.

As for the rest of us.  We're not pros.  We don't make our living playing golf.  If we choose to be very knowledgeable whist we struggle at the game and become better--though never good--what's the big deal?  My father-in-law can beat me 4 of 5 times on the course.  I guarantee you he is jealous of how much I know about golf courses compared to him.  He realizes I don't care if I shoot 85 or 95.  It doesn't affect my day.  My biggest joy is experiencing great golf courses; it's secondary to shoot a great number. 

That's why I love golf.  I'll never be good enough to play ball at Turner Field with Chipper Jones and the boys.  And as such, I'll never set foot on that grass.  But standing on the 11th tee at Pasatiempo in the same spot as Bobby Jones and trying to hook it across the barranca was pretty cool.  Only in golf.

Hey Ben,

Let me be clear, I am not saying that there is any problem whatsoever with you (the royal you) choosing to be knowledgeable - hell, I learn a lot from all the "you"s out there that do.

My issue is why do the "you"s in that group (again, the royal you, not you specifically) feel like this enlightenment is gospel that needs to be spread?

[rjsimper]

Furthermore, as Ben writes, it could even benefit the poorer golfer to have all this education as well. I know if I take a friend or family member to a special place, if they didn't know it was special, all they would be trying to do is score well. And if that didn't happen, they might be frusterated, disappointed and even dislike the course just because they had a bad day. Whereas if I fill them in a little about the history, the architect and design, the changes that have been made over the years, etc etc (this happens nearly every time I bring someone to Meadow Club, because most have no clue it even exists, let alone how special it is), they start to see beyond their game, and they enjoy the course, and have questions about it. Most of the time, this causes them to forget about their score so much, and enjoy the round better........and sometimes, not thinking about the game so much actually helps them play BETTER.

I can understand that, but doesn't the knife cut both ways?

Meaning, I know plenty of people that LOVE...I mean LOVE to the nth degree, golf holes with waterfalls, Ted Robinson designed courses, etc. They go about their business, they marvel in the looks on their guests' faces when they see the babbling brooks, and they are happy.  They shoot 75, win a few bucks, and proceed to get HAMMERED in the clubhouse post-round. A great day.

Now, if someone takes it upon themselves to "enlighten" this person about how artificial the waterfall is, how this is bad, how the architecture is boring, how the course is a missed opportunity, and if this member takes those comments to heart, now he doesn't like his home course so much.

Isn't that outcome the equally likely and polar opposite outcome of the example you mention above?

[TEPaul]

"And, who is anyone to tell someone in the other group that they're doing it all wrong?"


Ryan:

THAT really IS the ultimate question, isn't it?




"Golf and golf course architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."
(The Big World Theory)

[Andy Troeger]

I'm with Ryan S. and most of what he's said in his last few posts--most people see golf as a game or sport, not this artistic endeavor. AND, most of them want courses they would consider fair that allow the "best" golfer on any given day to shoot the lowest score--which still isn't going to fly with some here.

Not to mention, for most golfers 95% of the best courses are totally inaccessible especially in the USA due to being private or exceedingly expensive. Its probably better in other parts of the world. Its not like anyone can call up these places that are being mentioned and just go play--so why put in time studying them?

[Lou_Duran]

Among the beautiful things about golf- perhaps covered in TEPaul's big world theory- is that one doesn't have to be very good at it while projecting a high level of expertise.  Sort of like wearing a "Rolex" whose second hand doesn't sweep.  Some of us can't break 90 on a good day, but we know without having to Google it that the"K" in MacKenzie is capitalized, while the "d" in Macdonald is not.

A few gca related "concepts" which are confused and sometimes bring "blank stares":

Strategy/tactics
Ground game
Firm and fast
Architectural intent
Course setup
Course markings and boundary stakes

[tlavin]

"I'm going on a golf trip to Nebraska"

"I'm playing golf w/ 12 guys from the Internet, most of whom I've never met before."

This, my friend, is a gca.com classic utterance.  I've had some considerable difficulty explaining the Internet golf hook-up issue.  My favorite was when Ash Towe came to town from New Zealand.  The Beverly caddie master asked me how I met Ash and I told him "on the internet".  "Only you would meet a man from New Zealand and have the balls to bring him to your club to golf," was his startled reply.

If only he knew how many people engage in this sort of behavior hereabouts...

[David Stamm]

Furthermore, as Ben writes, it could even benefit the poorer golfer to have all this education as well. I know if I take a friend or family member to a special place, if they didn't know it was special, all they would be trying to do is score well. And if that didn't happen, they might be frusterated, disappointed and even dislike the course just because they had a bad day. Whereas if I fill them in a little about the history, the architect and design, the changes that have been made over the years, etc etc (this happens nearly every time I bring someone to Meadow Club, because most have no clue it even exists, let alone how special it is), they start to see beyond their game, and they enjoy the course, and have questions about it. Most of the time, this causes them to forget about their score so much, and enjoy the round better........and sometimes, not thinking about the game so much actually helps them play BETTER.

I can understand that, but doesn't the knife cut both ways?

Meaning, I know plenty of people that LOVE...I mean LOVE to the nth degree, golf holes with waterfalls, Ted Robinson designed courses, etc. They go about their business, they marvel in the looks on their guests' faces when they see the babbling brooks, and they are happy.  They shoot 75, win a few bucks, and proceed to get HAMMERED in the clubhouse post-round. A great day.

Now, if someone takes it upon themselves to "enlighten" this person about how artificial the waterfall is, how this is bad, how the architecture is boring, how the course is a missed opportunity, and if this member takes those comments to heart, now he doesn't like his home course so much.

Isn't that outcome the equally likely and polar opposite outcome of the example you mention above?

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool; avoid him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not is a student; teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep; wake him.
He who knows and knows that he knows is a wise man; follow him.

[David Stamm]

"Golf and golf course architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."
(The Big World Theory)

Translation: Hell, they all can't be good.

[Sean Leary]

Flowus Interruptis

[TEPaul]

First, Chicago’s Shivas said this:

“And most people here think Rye is whiskey, not a golf course, and that Harry Colt invented a gun.”


And then this which is far more shocking:

“Here in the midwest, National Golf Links is the biggest blank stare generator of them all.
Almost nobody here has heard of it, let alone played it.”



Shivas:

Is that really true? If so that would certainly explain why us sophisticates in THE East have always and still feel the egalitarian obligation to educate the benighted masses out there in the country including the Mid Western region.

I mean if you poor people out there think Rye is JUST whiskey I suppose that means you people know how to feed and cloth yourselves, at least; and if you think Harry Colt invented a gun apparently you certainly can defend yourselves too, it would seem.

But if you poor benighted peoples out there ever want to get to the actual Sun-lit UPLANDS of LIFE (as in a higher form of HUMANITY) it certainly sounds like us Easterners must continue to educate you on the finer points of Civilization!

One can never understand the finer points of Humanity and Civilization or expect to be a COMPLEAT Man (as in “gentleman” or "Renaissance Man") without a fair degree of familiarity with NGLA!

It just cannot be done, My Good Man; or as our dowager/grand dames like to say: “It is JUST NOT DONE, My Dear!”

[rjsimper]

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool; avoid him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not is a student; teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep; wake him.
He who knows and knows that he knows is a wise man; follow him.

Man oh man, I do not think we could disagree more on this issue.
Some of my best golf friends have no clue about architecture...should I not be friends with them because they don't know what a biarritz is?
Teach him? Some people don't want to be taught and do not care - witness the Scott Warren example..."What the f are you talking about - you're away" to me that summed it up...and sometimes those guys are the most fun to play with.

I have played golf with architecture critics, I have played golf with guys wearing t-shirts, jeans, and tobacco stains who couldn't name a single architect.  I have had fun with both, and part of the beauty of the game is that there is space for all types of people.

What bothers me is the apparent objective of "total architecture enlightenment for all"