Ah, a topic at which I am actually an expert: selling carts, beer, balls, more beer, and affordable golf. Did I mention beer? The comments are fairly accurate. I know thousands of golfers, a couple of hundred that I might consider golfing buddies. Out of all, I know only one that might qualify as being interested in architecture on some meaningful level. Most golfers think of conditioning as architecture. They think bunkers are there to “frame” a shot or hole, or, even worse, to save one from a more severe penalty. Every year I get suggestions on course improvements like “we ought to put in a bunker on that steep bank between the green the pond (short par 3).” Yet, when I talk about ways to improve a hole, I can see their eyes glass over with boredom or get excited because I am talking about changing their favorite hole. I now avoid these conversations.
So, why does the average golfer choose one course over another? It’s not about the venue; it’s all about where their buddies play golf. Men, women, couples, kids, old and young—that’s the most common deciding element with the setting coming in second a long way back.
I think the way most average golfers would define a good strategic course is did the golf provide enough interest during a four hour round that I didn’t think about my overdue taxes, my impending divorce, the pink slip in my last paycheck, my daughter’s new tattoo, etc. etc.? In other words, just about any course would qualify for someone.
These comments hold true for golfers of all skill levels, not just the high cappers. Some of the dumbest ideas come from our best golfers, amateurs and pros.
In my experience, the golfers we find here in this DG are very rare creatures. To most we are nerds, whack-jobs, freaks, weirdoes, or worse. To each his own.