Is it ever good to consider your own play in evaluating a course?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

I've told this story before, but in my one visit to Rustic Canyon I played with Eric Iverson and Jim Urbina and Sara Mess, and we spent three hours deconstructing the course from there on our way to Palm Desert.

Sara had been an intern for only a week and she was just blown away that the rest of us were talking about places on the course where we hadn't even played from!

I would not be able to do that so easily on an average course -- but if a course is really good, it will stand out to my eye right away because it's different, and I will notice a lot of those features.  Not all of them, of course, but a lot of them.  And then I'll know I want to go back.  And if a course does not have features like that, it's pretty easy to see that it doesn't, and that's that.

George:

I agree with you that few people have played very many courses in every possible condition.  However, I lived in Great Britain & Ireland for long enough to understand that the wind can blow hard from all sorts of directions, and the best holes still work no matter which way the wind is blowing.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Very, veeery interesting there.

Perhaps you'd explain to the highly anticipating viewers and contributors of this website what some of the details are you were looking at on Rustic Canyon of which you speak and from which none of you played from. I know I sure would like to hear some or all of that.

By the way, regarding what you said to George about the wind, reminds me again of how interesting I thought those two side by side holes of Pacific Dunes were (#5 and #6). I think in a certain seasonal wind the one that is a par 5 can play as a par 4 and the one that is a par 4 can pretty much play as a par 5. I call that kind of thing "architectural par skewing" and I think it's very cool as it can give certain players virtual strategic brain-lock!!

[Jud_T]

sh*t,

now I have to make the 2 1/2 hour drive up from Carlsbad...

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

What happens at Rustic Canyon, stays at Rustic Canyon, at least as far as internal Renaissance Golf discussions are concerned.  Sorry.  Plus, it was five or six years ago now (it was the same day Ronald Reagan's body was lying in state just up the road, the traffic was horrendous), so I've forgotten a lot of it.

I'm just saying that three of us pretty easily understood whether or not a shot from the right side of the fairway would have faced different results, even if none of us had actually hit our drives to the right.

We tried to go there incognito, and pretty much succeeded, although Jim Urbina pushed the envelope a bit by asking the guy in the shop repeatedly whether it was a Geoff Shackelford design.

[George Pazin]

I'm just saying that three of us pretty easily understood whether or not a shot from the right side of the fairway would have faced different results, even if none of us had actually hit our drives to the right.

I can certainly understand keeping specific things internal, no problem with that, but could you give us some clues as to what you notice in situations like this? Perhaps even using a different course, even one of your own, as an example? Are they obvious things? Not obvious?
A bit of each?

Mostly I'm just interested in how you notice other elements of a golf course, particularly things you think someone not involved in building would overlook or miss entirely.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

You have to remember that Tom Doak's skill sets, when it comes to architecture, are exponentially greater than the average golfer or GCA.comer.

What he sees in a flash, doesn't necessarily get recognized in 10 visits by the unprofessional eye.

[George Pazin]

I understand that, that's why I'm asking him for advice!

I'm not expecting anyone, least of all myself, to be anywhere near as proficient as Tom or Jim, etc., I'd just like all of us, especially me, to be a little better.

[Tom_Doak]

George:

Our fourth, Sara Mess, probably has a higher I.Q. than the other three in our group.  But she was a competitive golfer, so she wouldn't worry about where else she might have hit her tee shot; she'd just go to it and figure out how best to play from there.

Jim and Eric and I are used to working on designs in the field.  When you are building a green, you are thinking about all the angles of approach and how to design it to favor one over another; and once you are used to that, then every time you walk on a green, you analyze it and think back to where the best approach might have come from.

Most design analysis on really good courses is done from the green backwards.  That seems lost on a lot of players.

[Mark Pearce]

Can you think of a championship course that tests the strongest players that's fun for golfers of all abilities

Yes.  Muirfield.  Dornoch.  Carnoustie 

Three courses I played as a (poor) 19 handicapper in the past and had a blast. 

And you played all three from the Championship tees used in the Opens ?

No.  Just Muirfield.  And it was tough.  But still fun.  More recently and as an 11 'capper, I played Hoylake off tees about 100 yards shorter than for the 2006 Open and just two days after the Open finished.  That was a blast.  I played comfortably better than handicap.  That's what real fast and firm can do.

Sometimes, Patrick, the arrogance of the good player shines through too brightly in you. 
To imagine a weaker golfer cannot "play" these courses and enjoy them is nonsense. 

It's not nonsense, it's a fact.
Tell us, how as a 19 handicap, from the Championship tees at Muirfield, Dornoch and Carnoustie, you interfaced with the architecture, the features when you played ?Pat,
It was 17 years ago I played Muirfield in those conditions.  Even you couldn't give a blow by blow account.  I know I had fun, though.

At Hoylake, I had trouble at 4 because with my right to left flight there was no way I could hit and hold that green.  10 was an easy birdie chance, since my 5I lay up ran 210 yards.  Other than that, the fact I know the course, having played it several times meant I knew how to get the ball round.

The others, I played from the yellow tees.  Isn't playing from the right tees important?

He/she may not score well, or play to their handicap but they can still have a great deal of fun. 

How so when it's impossible to interface with the architectural features,, save at the green end ?  There goes that arrogance again.  How do you know whether I can "interface" with the architecture?

Far more, in fact, than on some flat, short, boring course where playing to your handicap is no challenge.

As a 19 handicap how can playing at any golf course NOT be a challenge for you ?When it's a flat, boring course when playing to your handicap is no challenge.  It's very sad that you have only one way of looking at golf and a complete disdain for those less skilled than you.  Can I use the word arrogant again?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can you think of a championship course that tests the strongest players that's fun for golfers of all abilities

Yes.  Muirfield.  Dornoch.  Carnoustie  

Three courses I played as a (poor) 19 handicapper in the past and had a blast.  

And you played all three from the Championship tees used in the Opens ?

No.  Just Muirfield.  And it was tough.  But still fun.  That's a contradiction in terms.

More recently and as an 11 'capper, I played Hoylake off tees about 100 yards shorter than for the 2006 Open and just two days after the Open finished.  That was a blast.  I played comfortably better than handicap.  That's what real fast and firm can do.

Sometimes, Patrick, the arrogance of the good player shines through too brightly in you.  
To imagine a weaker golfer cannot "play" these courses and enjoy them is nonsense.  

It's not nonsense, it's a fact.
Tell us, how as a 19 handicap, from the Championship tees at Muirfield, Dornoch and Carnoustie, you interfaced with the architecture, the features when you played ?

Pat,
It was 17 years ago I played Muirfield in those conditions. 17 years ago ?  ?  ?

Even you couldn't give a blow by blow account.  I wouldn't bet on that.

I know I had fun, though.  How do you know it if you can't remember it ?

At Hoylake, I had trouble at 4 because with my right to left flight there was no way I could hit and hold that green.  10 was an easy birdie chance, since my 5I lay up ran 210 yards.  Other than that, the fact I know the course, having played it several times meant I knew how to get the ball round.

The others, I played from the yellow tees.  
Isn't playing from the right tees important?

It is, that's why I'm surprised you played from the WRONG tees at Muirfield when your handicap was higher ?
Why did you play from the wrong tees ?
I realize that it was 17 years ago and you might not remember, or, you might conveniently remember what you'd like to remember.

He/she may not score well, or play to their handicap but they can still have a great deal of fun.  

How so when it's impossible to interface with the architectural features,, save at the green end ?  

There goes that arrogance again.  How do you know whether I can "interface" with the architecture?

It's NOT arrogance, it's COMMON SENSE.
You were a 19 handicap and played Muirfield from the Championship tees for the OPEN.
As such, you couldn't interface with the architecture except at the green end, so stop posturing that you did, it's disengenuous.
19 handicaps don't interface with the architecture from the Championship tees at OPEN VENUES.
So please, stop being disengenuous.

Far more, in fact, than on some flat, short, boring course where playing to your handicap is no challenge.

As a 19 handicap how can playing at any golf course NOT be a challenge for you ?

When it's a flat, boring course when playing to your handicap is no challenge.

Could you list five flat, short, boring courses where you played to your handicap ?
Could you not go back 17 years or more, but, address the question in the context of the last year ?  

It's very sad that you have only one way of looking at golf and a complete disdain for those less skilled than you.  
Can I use the word arrogant again?

You can use whatever words you like.
I don't have any disdain for golfers less skilled than I.
I do however, have a disdain for those who are disengenuous.

[Mark Pearce]

Can you think of a championship course that tests the strongest players that's fun for golfers of all abilities

Yes.  Muirfield.  Dornoch.  Carnoustie  

Three courses I played as a (poor) 19 handicapper in the past and had a blast.  

And you played all three from the Championship tees used in the Opens ?

No.  Just Muirfield.  And it was tough.  But still fun.  That's a contradiction in terms.No, it's not.  Why can't tough be fun?  Or can you only enjoy it when it's easy?

More recently and as an 11 'capper, I played Hoylake off tees about 100 yards shorter than for the 2006 Open and just two days after the Open finished.  That was a blast.  I played comfortably better than handicap.  That's what real fast and firm can do.

Sometimes, Patrick, the arrogance of the good player shines through too brightly in you.  
To imagine a weaker golfer cannot "play" these courses and enjoy them is nonsense.  

It's not nonsense, it's a fact.
Tell us, how as a 19 handicap, from the Championship tees at Muirfield, Dornoch and Carnoustie, you interfaced with the architecture, the features when you played ?

Pat,
It was 17 years ago I played Muirfield in those conditions. 17 years ago ?  ?  ?

Even you couldn't give a blow by blow account.  I wouldn't bet on that.Sadly, I believe you.

I know I had fun, though.  How do you know it if you can't remember it ?I can remember enjoying myself.  Remembering every shot?  That's for you.

At Hoylake, I had trouble at 4 because with my right to left flight there was no way I could hit and hold that green.  10 was an easy birdie chance, since my 5I lay up ran 210 yards.  Other than that, the fact I know the course, having played it several times meant I knew how to get the ball round.

The others, I played from the yellow tees.  
Isn't playing from the right tees important?

It is, that's why I'm surprised you played from the WRONG tees at Muirfield when your handicap was higher ?
Why did you play from the wrong tees ?
I realize that it was 17 years ago and you might not remember, or, you might conveniently remember what you'd like to remember. Because, in 1992, there was only one set of tees at Muirfield, so that's where we played.  In fact that's where every member and guest at the club played that day.  The tees hadn't been moved forward, so everyone played from the Open tees.

He/she may not score well, or play to their handicap but they can still have a great deal of fun.  

How so when it's impossible to interface with the architectural features,, save at the green end ?  

There goes that arrogance again.  How do you know whether I can "interface" with the architecture?

It's NOT arrogance, it's COMMON SENSE.
You were a 19 handicap and played Muirfield from the Championship tees for the OPEN.
As such, you couldn't interface with the architecture except at the green end, so stop posturing that you did, it's disengenuous.
19 handicaps don't interface with the architecture from the Championship tees at OPEN VENUES.
So please, stop being disengenuous. I'm not being disingenuous.  You are being arrogant.  As someone who clearly has no understanding as to what it'slike to be a 19 handicapper (and there are hundreds of different types of 19 handicapper) why do you believe you have a better understanding of how it is to play these courses as a 19 handicapper than someone who has actually been there?  It's that arrogance again, isn't it?

Far more, in fact, than on some flat, short, boring course where playing to your handicap is no challenge.

As a 19 handicap how can playing at any golf course NOT be a challenge for you ?

When it's a flat, boring course when playing to your handicap is no challenge.

Could you list five flat, short, boring courses where you played to your handicap ?
Could you not go back 17 years or more, but, address the question in the context of the last year ?   No.  Because I am no longer a 19 handicapper, and have not been for several years.  However, your point is unbelievably stupid.  Any 19 handicapper will be able to list courses where they have played to their handicap, or they would not have that handicap.

It's very sad that you have only one way of looking at golf and a complete disdain for those less skilled than you.  
Can I use the word arrogant again?

You can use whatever words you like.
I don't have any disdain for golfers less skilled than I.All the evidence suggests you do.  At least you have no clue what we do, or do not enjoy.
I do however, have a disdain for those who are disengenuous.I haven't much time for arrogance, either.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can you think of a championship course that tests the strongest players that's fun for golfers of all abilities

Yes.  Muirfield.  Dornoch.  Carnoustie  

Three courses I played as a (poor) 19 handicapper in the past and had a blast.  

And you played all three from the Championship tees used in the Opens ?

No.  Just Muirfield.  And it was tough.  But still fun.  That's a contradiction in terms.No, it's not.  Why can't tough be fun?  Or can you only enjoy it when it's easy?

IF it's so much fun, why don't you play those tees every round ?
Why did you mention playing from the "right" tees if it's so much fun from the Championship tees ?

More recently and as an 11 'capper, I played Hoylake off tees about 100 yards shorter than for the 2006 Open and just two days after the Open finished.  That was a blast.  I played comfortably better than handicap.  That's what real fast and firm can do.[/color]

Sometimes, Patrick, the arrogance of the good player shines through too brightly in you.  
To imagine a weaker golfer cannot "play" these courses and enjoy them is nonsense.  

It's not nonsense, it's a fact.
Tell us, how as a 19 handicap, from the Championship tees at Muirfield, Dornoch and Carnoustie, you interfaced with the architecture, the features when you played ?

Pat,
It was 17 years ago I played Muirfield in those conditions. 17 years ago ?  ?  ?

Even you couldn't give a blow by blow account.  I wouldn't bet on that.Sadly, I believe you.

I know I had fun, though.  How do you know it if you can't remember it ?I can remember enjoying myself.  Remembering every shot?  That's for you.

At Hoylake, I had trouble at 4 because with my right to left flight there was no way I could hit and hold that green.  10 was an easy birdie chance, since my 5I lay up ran 210 yards.  Other than that, the fact I know the course, having played it several times meant I knew how to get the ball round.

The others, I played from the yellow tees.  
Isn't playing from the right tees important?

It is, that's why I'm surprised you played from the WRONG tees at Muirfield when your handicap was higher ?
Why did you play from the wrong tees ?
I realize that it was 17 years ago and you might not remember, or, you might conveniently remember what you'd like to remember. Because, in 1992, there was only one set of tees at Muirfield, so that's where we played.  In fact that's where every member and guest at the club played that day.  The tees hadn't been moved forward, so everyone played from the Open tees.

By coincidence, I was at Muirfield in 1992.

He/she may not score well, or play to their handicap but they can still have a great deal of fun.  

How so when it's impossible to interface with the architectural features,, save at the green end ?  

There goes that arrogance again.  How do you know whether I can "interface" with the architecture?

It's NOT arrogance, it's COMMON SENSE.
You were a 19 handicap and played Muirfield from the Championship tees for the OPEN.
As such, you couldn't interface with the architecture except at the green end, so stop posturing that you did, it's disengenuous.
19 handicaps don't interface with the architecture from the Championship tees at OPEN VENUES.
So please, stop being disengenuous.

I'm not being disingenuous.  You are being arrogant.  As someone who clearly has no understanding as to what it'slike to be a 19 handicapper (and there are hundreds of different types of 19 handicapper) why do you believe you have a better understanding of how it is to play these courses as a 19 handicapper than someone who has actually been there?  It's that arrogance again, isn't it?

Before I became a low handicap, I was a high handicap.
In addition, as recent as 2004 I was a high handicap, probably higher than 19.
So the next time you make absurd, inaccurate statements, know what you're talking about before you make them.[/color]

Far more, in fact, than on some flat, short, boring course where playing to your handicap is no challenge.

As a 19 handicap how can playing at any golf course NOT be a challenge for you ?

When it's a flat, boring course when playing to your handicap is no challenge.

Could you list five flat, short, boring courses where you played to your handicap ?
Could you not go back 17 years or more, but, address the question in the context of the last year ?  

No.  Because I am no longer a 19 handicapper, and have not been for several years.

What does that have to do with your naming five flat, short, boring golf courses.  Stop ducking the question.[/color]

However, your point is unbelievably stupid.  

No it's not.  You made a statement and I challenged you to name five flat, short, boring courses you've played that presented no challenge to you.
As yet, you've been unable to name any.[/color]

Any 19 handicapper will be able to list courses where they have played to their handicap, or they would not have that handicap.

That wasn't my question.
I didn't ask what courses you played to your handicap, I asked what flat, short, boring courses you found unchallenging ?[/color]

It's very sad that you have only one way of looking at golf and a complete disdain for those less skilled than you.  
Can I use the word arrogant again?

You can use whatever words you like.
I don't have any disdain for golfers less skilled than I.

All the evidence suggests you do.  

No, only the limited amount of evidence in your possession.
There's a broad base of evidence to the contrary, evidence which is not in your possession.

At least you have no clue what we do, or do not enjoy.

Another absurd, uninformed statement, absent the facts, your specialty.
Five years ago I was higher than a 19[/color]

I do however, have a disdain for those who are disengenuous.
I haven't much time for arrogance, either.

You're disengenuous and uninformed, which leads you to draw absurd conclusions.
Get your facts right before you type.[/color]

[Tim_Cronin]

Wow. I think the last few posts set a record for the number of colors used.

Anyway, I think Shivas makes the most salient point on this most interesting topic. How much weight do you give your results? Me, since I stink most of the time, not so much. But I know what an architect is getting at by placement of hazards, preferred line of play, bailout areas, etc., and can tell how well a hole works as I play it, or even as I walk it covering a tournament.
It's also wise to see what the rest of your group has gotten themselves into. One pal of mine hammers driver every time on a 4 or 5-par, no matter what the hazard (except some obvious water situations). He gets himself into more trouble than he should because he doesn't realize there are sucker driving areas on fairways just as there are sucker pins. He'd not be a good judge of the architecture, I'd think.
And as Tom Doak mentioned, looking at the hole from green back to tee can reveal much.