Choi Hypothesis: Enjoyment of GCA is inversely proportional to...

[Richard Choi]

... how much you care about the score.

Whenever I think about a round where I really enjoyed the golf course architecture and really got completely absorbed by the beauty and intellectual challenges before me, I hardly remember what I shot that day.

In fact, one of the most enjoyable and enlightening round that I have ever played was on the opening day of Old Macdonald. I played two rounds that day, the third group and the last group. I think most people would remember their first round (especially on the opening day) far better than their second, but for me, the second round was far more memorable (except for JC Urbina putting me in a headlock at the 1st tee ) and educational. Why? Because I already played a round where I cared about my score (in the morning, I shot 82) and during my second round I just wanted to explore the course and learn about it as much as I could.

During the second round, I hit my balls to places where I thought it would be interesting, not to places where I needed to be to score well. I intentionally hit into the Eden Bunker (ditto for Road bunker) to see exactly how initimidating it was (VERY!) and used a putter from 150 yards out on the Sahara just because I could. And since no one was behind us, we started making up our own holes. We played back to the Eden green from Sahara fairways and played the Road Hole green from the Sahara tees. It was more fun (and EDUCATIONAL!) and exhilirating than any round I can remember (that is with my feet swollen and blistered).

I feel like I got to know the course far better than I did in the morning because I was out there as a golfer-explorer-student and scores were not my conern at all. The next time I play a course of architectural note, I intend to do more exploring and less scoring.

When you are focused on scoring, you get annoyed easily by the quirks and bad bounces. You don't want obstacles between you and the hole and you want all hazards to be in view. And I don't think that is what GCA is about. Less you are focused on scoring, more you can enjoy the architect's intent and all the variety that is available to you.

What do you think? Does my hypothesis stand up to scrutiny?

[Sean Leary]

I thought the Choi hypothesis was that all courses bow down to Chambers Bay....

[PCCraig]

Richard:

I think you are very correct.

I generally keep score when I play, but can still take away alot from the course. However, when you play a course that can be an information overload like Old Macdonald then it helps to forget about score and to just enjoy hitting different shots.

Another way to enjoy a course without worrying so much about score is to play match play or team matches. Match play can be a great way to become aware of the different strategies for yourself, as well as for your partner. Team matches are also a fun way to see a course...alternate shot is a blast to play for me especially when my partner hits a cut of the tee as I usually don't see the right side of holes very often

[Richard Choi]

I thought the Choi hypothesis was that all courses bow down to Chambers Bay....

I have more than one hypothesis...

[John Kavanaugh]

I get more enjoyment from a pie when no one tracks how many pieces I have eaten.

[Scott Szabo]

I thought the Choi hypothesis was that all courses bow down to Chambers Bay....

Funny, I was thinking the same thing....

[George Pazin]

For me personally it is more independent than inversely proportional, but that's a bit nitpicky.

[Dan Kelly]

For me personally it is more independent than inversely proportional, but that's a bit nitpicky.

I don't think it's nitpicky at all, and I agree with you.

I don't find this at all true: "When you are focused on scoring, you get annoyed easily by the quirks and bad bounces. You don't want obstacles between you and the hole and you want all hazards to be in view."

As recently as this summer, I've been quite enchanted by the architecture -- including the quirks and bad bounces -- of a course (Minikahda) that was beating me to death, in competition ... even as it was beating me to death.

But, then, maybe I've never been so focused on scoring as some others I've played with.

(Wait. There's no maybe about that!)

Now that I think of it ... it might be that my appreciation of a course's architecture depends on its showing me, via the score it allows me, what a pretender I am.

[JESII]

What do you think? Does my hypothesis stand up to scrutiny?

Depends!

You put EDUCATIONAL in caps for a reason...why is an education important?

When you discover an "Architects intent", is it ever not founded in presenting a challenge or opportunity to scoring?

You also discuss "exploring" at the expense of a focus on "scoring", what could be learned through exploration that cannot be learned when you're trying to score well?

[rjsimper]

Not even close.

You assume that "enjoyment of" and "analysis of" are synonymous.

Part of the joy (read: enjoyment) of good GCA is the ability to execute the required shot, be it dictated by the architecture or chosen by the player from the available options as a means to the end. Good architecture is not the size of the devil's asshole or the ability to hit out of it - it is the placement and fear of being in it in the first place because it would negatively impact your ability to post a good score.

Analysis might be enhanced by not keeping score, by hitting repeated shots 100 different ways, and I do this from time to time...and often re-hit shots that have multiple options (assuming it's a casual round and I have the time) but analysis is not enjoyment. Perfectly playing a 4th tee shot to a back left brings me far less joy than does hitting the same shot on my first try in the course of a scored round.

The object of golf is to finish the round in as few strokes as possible. Good architecture comes into play because it provides golfers of all skill levels various ways to accomplish that goal.

Put a back pin on a biarritz. You may get your jollies from the simple sight of seeing a bump and run go down into the valley and appear on the other side. I get mine because doing so gives me a chance at a birdie.

Not caring about score also takes the option out of play on many great holes. Many great holes are considered such because there are options available, and potentially risk-reward. If there is no score, then there is no risk. Why would anyone who is physically capable of making the shot in question ever choose otherwise if score was irrelevant?

Part of the genius of the 13th at Augusta National, for example, is precisely the assumption that you do care about a score. If you don't care about a score, there is no option. If you have 235 to the pin and the ability to hit it that far, why would you lay up if you aren't playing for a score? The option is out of play.

Think of it this way - if you hand me my clubs and put me in the 13th fairway at Augusta, 235 out and just said "Play the hole", I'd wail away at it without a second thought. How is that enjoying the architecture? The outcome doesn't matter.

But if you put me in that same spot, having just hit my tee shot there and I am -2 on my round to that point, then you'd better believe that I am presented with the decisions that were intended with the design of the hole - safe or bold, guarantee a 5 or go for a 3/4?

Caring about a score is the kindling that ignites good architecture. Without it, golf is a glorified driving range.

[Mike Hendren]

I get more enjoyment from a pie when no one tracks how many pieces I have eaten.

"Ooh I do like pie!"

http://wildwomanofthewest.xanga.com/731825702/todays-menu-stymie-and-spanky/

Bogey

[Richard Choi]

Way to bring it, Ryan...

[Sean Leary]

Not even close.

You assume that "enjoyment of" and "analysis of" are synonymous.

Part of the joy (read: enjoyment) of good GCA is the ability to execute the required shot, be it dictated by the architecture or chosen by the player from the available options as a means to the end. Good architecture is not the size of the devil's asshole or the ability to hit out of it - it is the placement and fear of being in it in the first place because it would negatively impact your ability to post a good score.

Analysis might be enhanced by not keeping score, by hitting repeated shots 100 different ways, and I do this from time to time...and often re-hit shots that have multiple options (assuming it's a casual round and I have the time) but analysis is not enjoyment. Perfectly playing a 4th tee shot to a back left brings me far less joy than does hitting the same shot on my first try in the course of a scored round.

The object of golf is to finish the round in as few strokes as possible. Good architecture comes into play because it provides golfers of all skill levels various ways to accomplish that goal.

Put a back pin on a biarritz. You may get your jollies from the simple sight of seeing a bump and run go down into the valley and appear on the other side. I get mine because doing so gives me a chance at a birdie.

Not caring about score also takes the option out of play on many great holes. Many great holes are considered such because there are options available, and potentially risk-reward. If there is no score, then there is no risk. Why would anyone who is physically capable of making the shot in question ever choose otherwise if score was irrelevant?

Part of the genius of the 13th at Augusta National, for example, is precisely the assumption that you do care about a score. If you don't care about a score, there is no option. If you have 235 to the pin and the ability to hit it that far, why would you lay up if you aren't playing for a score? The option is out of play.

Think of it this way - if you hand me my clubs and put me in the 13th fairway at Augusta, 235 out and just said "Play the hole", I'd wail away at it without a second thought. How is that enjoying the architecture? The outcome doesn't matter.

But if you put me in that same spot, having just hit my tee shot there and I am -2 on my round to that point, then you'd better believe that I am presented with the decisions that were intended with the design of the hole - safe or bold, guarantee a 5 or go for a 3/4?

Caring about a score is the kindling that ignites good architecture. Without it, golf is a glorified driving range.

Great post Ryan. However I think you just lost your membership to The Beardpullers Society....

[Dan Kelly]

I think you just lost your membership to The Beardpullers Society....

That's OK. He can be the Founding Chairman of The Beardrippers Society.

[rjsimper]

I cherish my memberships to both.

But truthfully - I love hitting extra shots after I've holed out (again, if I have the time) if I wanted to test my strategy and didn't correctly execute my shot the first time, or trying my second choice shot if I opted for another choice on my first play.

But never in my life have I taken more satisfaction from pulling off the shot on subsequent attempts than I did or would have if doing it properly the first time.

[rjsimper]

In match play you still care about score. In fact, you care about two scores.

It's just score per hole, not score per 18 holes.

Richard:

I think you are very correct.

I generally keep score when I play, but can still take away alot from the course. However, when you play a course that can be an information overload like Old Macdonald then it helps to forget about score and to just enjoy hitting different shots.

Another way to enjoy a course without worrying so much about score is to play match play or team matches. Match play can be a great way to become aware of the different strategies for yourself, as well as for your partner. Team matches are also a fun way to see a course...alternate shot is a blast to play for me especially when my partner hits a cut of the tee as I usually don't see the right side of holes very often

[Tim Pitner]

I'm not good enough to care too much about my score but, no, golf is a game meant to be played and good courses have value because they provide more interesting fields for the game.  It's not about the fields themselves. 

[Rob Rigg]

Even if you don't keep score - it is still pretty cool to make a birdie - especially on a cross-country hole. Which means you are kind of keeping score. I see Ryan's point.

Executing a really cool shot is one of the reasons I love to play the game. On that side I agree with Rich - when you don't "care" about score you are often more willing to play the bold shot instead of the safe one.

Score definitely has its place, but so does hitting fun or challenging shots - IMO. Especially when you play a course for the first time and there is so much to discover.

On a boring target golf course you might as well keep score - keeps things interesting'er.

[Jud_T]

The funny thing in my experience is the less you care about score, the better you tend to score.  The trick is to actually be able to play without a care in the world or without actually having any idea of how you're scoring, easier said than done...

[Mike Wagner]

Richard,

I think you're right.  In my experience, not caring about score has come at only one place....Ballyneal.  It's way too much fun to REALLY care.  It would be nice to go super low there one day, but until then, I'll have fun hitting all sorts of shots I can't anywhere else.....or maybe it's putts I can't hit anywhere else.....or maybe it's the wind....or maybe it's hitting 5 irons from 105....or maybe it's putting from 105....

BTW, why were your feet swollen and blistered?  You need some better shoes...

[Peter Pallotta]

Richard - your hypothesis is true for YOU. Why try to universalize it? Is it less true for not being uniformly or universally applicable? And if gca is an art (like poetry or music), how can we prescribe how it is best appreciated? I first read "The Waste Land" 25 years ago, as part of my studies for a university degree; as part of a test in other words. Did it impact me less powerfully because of that? I still read it today, sitting with a coffee and a smoke on the back porch, for the sheer pleasure of it. Do I (necessarily) appreciate it more now? I do appreciate it DIFFERENTLY, yes - but that's because I'm 25 years older than I once was, and everything changes.
Peter

[John Kavanaugh]

Playing golf without score is like Edwin Moses running without hurdles.  A pursuit can not become noble unless it is measured against failure.     

[John Kavanaugh]

As much as some days I wish I could, I feel sorry for people who try to avoid passion in their lives. To think you can simply look at an architectural feature and understand its value without putting something at risk reminds me of when I was 12 and thought I understood the nuance of a girls kiss.  I still don't but at least I am not so naive that I would tell my sons not to try because eventually we all end up with a broken heart.  How anyone can wax poetically about the art of these playing fields without feeling the pain of failure is not only robbing themselves they are hurting those who through fear may follow their simplistic lead. I'm sorry but the world has not magically changed into a place where sometimes people and their opinions are not just dead wrong and this theads premise is a perfect example.   

[Scott Warren]

I have always felt the risk/reward nature of golf almost requires that you be keeping score to fully get the tearing inside of "do I take Option A or Option B?".

If I'm just playing around I am always going to go for the hero shot or low-percentage recovery because if it doesn't come off, there is no punishment.

For the golfer keeping score, the decision to go for a tight pin, bite off a bit more of a diagonal tee shot or aim for a tiny gap in the trees rather than punching out has true risk/reward, and for me it's only when keeping score that you discover how well the architect has balanced the options to make both simultaneously feel like the one you really ought to take.

[Sean_A]

I don't buy the Choi Hypo because I always know more or less what I "shot" and if I am happy with the way I played or not.  In fact, I would agree with Scott in that some tally even if matchplay must be kept to really bring the sting of architecture to life.  This is one reason I always like to play for a bit of money.

Ciao