[Anthony Gray]

  Aren't 99% just out to knock the ball around?

  Anthony

[Dan Kelly]

  Aren't 99% just out to knock the ball around?

  Anthony

99.44% -- though I think a considerably larger number of golf players recognize it when they see it.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

How do you define great?

I think most public course recreational golfers care more about conditions than "great" architecture. Convenience and cost are also major factors .

It's only golf nuts on this site that travel all over the world to play the "great" courses.

[JC Urbina]

Anthony,

I know that,

100% experience it.
80% are curious about it.
50% want to learn about it.
25% seek out more of it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the average golf architecture book sells about 3500 copies, although the more generalized CW book, over two versions and several printings sold over 100,000.  But, that had a list of who designed the courses and a glossy overview of gca, not the theory of the George Thomas or Ross books.

That suggests golfers want to know a little bit about what they play, almost as a nameplate, but doesn't necessarily say they seek out great architecture.

[David Cronheim]

I think a majority of golfers enjoy playing a great golf course. Now what they define as "great" is a product of what they have seen and what their expectations are. However, if the golf boom of the 90's taught us anything, it is that (at one time) there was a demand for high end public golf. Additionally, county courses have improved and raised the bar in terms of expectations in a government run facility.

So perhaps I'd say sum it up as most people are looking for a good course, but don't understand the difference between a good course and a great course.

[Anthony Gray]

  I took 7 guests to my course yesterday. a Greg Norman Design. All played it for the first time. Not one comment about architecture.

  Anthony

[PCCraig]

0.0000000000001%

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am going to go the other way. A BIG PERCENTAGE are looking for great architecture. I think 75% care about the quality of the golf course or allude to wanting to play those courses if they can afford it. Of course often they just play the nearest course, with their buddys or want a cheap game.

I think of the 75% carers, they will be looking for what is great architecture in their opinions and that will include things we dont care for on here.... ie most people like water features.

I think in the UK if you polled the masses on the top courses in the country, you might see The Belfry very close to the top spot. Almost certainly it would be top 10, whilst it barely breaks the top 100 in the magazines and gets boohooed on here if it scrapes 99.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Anthony,

One of my favorite golf memories was playing Palmer's Fossil Creek in Ft. Worth soon after it opened in the 80's.  The group I got paired with wondered why the tees were labeled "the General" ,"Army" , "Charge" etc.  When I explained that Arnold Palmer's group had designed the course, they still didn't get the connection.

Back to the original question, golf courses are art, and golfers know what they like.  Based on all I know, that impression is largely based on maintenance, but also they recognize attractive bunkering and design, even if they don't understand the strategic nuances, largely because they cannot use them.  Hence, its all about the look.

[Jim Franklin]

  I took 7 guests to my course yesterday. a Greg Norman Design. All played it for the first time. Not one comment about architecture.

  Anthony

Maybe that says something about your course lacking great architecture. Don't know what course, but I actually like some of Greg's work.

[JMEvensky]

I think of the 75% carers, they will be looking for what is great architecture in their opinions and that will include things we dont care for on here.... ie most people like water features.

I agree--it's just a question of how one defines great architecture.

I'd also add that a lot of people confuse architecture with maintenance.What some might consider a great course architecturally,frequently means that the course was maintained better than what they usually play.

I think if you polled golfers as to why they think ANGC is great,more people would comment on the grass than the routing.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I know that 100% experience it.

Very nice Jim

The average golfer certainly knows better architecture.

[Terry Lavin]

I'd say most golfers are looking for an interesting, fun and imaginative golf course.  Some are looking for very challenging golf courses.  Some are looking for "playable" golf courses.  To me, that means they are looking for great architecture, even if they don't have a working vocabulary of architectural terms and even if they don't know who the architect of the course is.

[Sean_A]

I am going to go the other way. A BIG PERCENTAGE are looking for great architecture. I think 75% care about the quality of the golf course or allude to wanting to play those courses if they can afford it. Of course often they just play the nearest course, with their buddys or want a cheap game.

I think of the 75% carers, they will be looking for what is great architecture in their opinions and that will include things we dont care for on here.... ie most people like water features.

I think in the UK if you polled the masses on the top courses in the country, you might see The Belfry very close to the top spot. Almost certainly it would be top 10, whilst it barely breaks the top 100 in the magazines and gets boohooed on here if it scrapes 99.

Adrian

If the Golf World book is anything to go by, the punters give Belfry 3 stars. - that isn't top 200.  Its the nobbie experts which give The Belfry kudos - not the punters. 

I think the average golfer dreams of playing great courses, but settles for great value.  That about sums me up as well.

Ciao

[Mike Tanner]

Maybe the NGF should do a survey. But then they'd have to define "great architecture."

From my subjective perspective and experience, mostly public access and resort courses, I'd have to say most of the golfers playing them want good conditioning/maintenance and timely visits from a cutie driving the beverage cart. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There may be a general awareness of architectural quality based on whether they think a hole is fair or unfair, although that determination is likely to be the result of the score posted on said hole. Very few have the ability or inclination to dissect a hole or identify the strategy in its design.

I think a lot of players in this population are familiar with player architects like Palmer, Nicklaus and Norman, maybe even Pete Dye and Tom Fazio. They wouldn't know any of the Golden Age architects or present-day treehouse favorites such as Doak or Coore & Crenshaw (maybe Crenshaw, because he was a touring pro).
 
I think it's a question of awareness. Given the exposure to great architecture, I think most players would gain appreciation for it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

But in naming the few big names in your post, you reinforce my notion that they don't know, don't care, so they go for the nameplate.  Nameplate=good architecture for many of them, even if they do come away frustrated with a high score, vaguely underwhelmed, do they critique a nameplate course harshly? 

How many would seek out Mike Nuzzo's Wolf Point because of the architecture, at least beyond this site?

[Jed Peters]

Golfers or people who play golf?

The two are not the same.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think Terry has it right. 

Peter

[Kalen Braley]

In my experience...very very few.

They mostly just want the usual things that have been hashed over time and time again:

Casual round on a nearby course.
Good beverage cart service on hot days.
Green fairways and greens.
Pretty ponds.
Something that's affordable and doesn't cost too much.
A course marshall to prevent 5+ hour rounds.
Bunkers that are raked.

Even driving only an hour away to play something far more interesting is almost never an attractive lure when the local muni is only 10 minutes away.

When you think about it, its really not out of the norm for basic human behavoir.  How many would go back to the club house and not think twice about having a bud light after a round at your favorite epic course?  Yet in beer terms, Bud light is a Doak 1, and even I wouldn't drink it, even if it was free.

So for just about anything in life, there are geeks who have websites who discuss/compare/contrast their "passion" and only appreciate the best of the best and can't figure out why everyone else doesn't know any better.

Well karma is a bitch and just know there are just as many if not more beer snobs out there who mock you and wonder why they hell you drink Miller, Bud Light, Coors, etc, etc.   

[Melvyn Morrow]

No Anthony, because the majority of Players do not understand the game so do not understand GCA, its groups like us who try to understand and like GCA.

The lessons need to teach more that how to hit a ball, but do the Professionals understand? I fear it’s lack of this understand is what in part hurting the game, well as we know it – it’s not about distance, it is all about navigating a courses designed with Natural and Manmade hazards to test skills and let’s not forget, promote skills.

Melvyn

[Mike Nuzzo]

How many would seek out Mike Nuzzo's Wolf Point because of the architecture, at least beyond this site?

Jeff
Are you serious?
It is one man's personal course.
At least you are saying it is great architecture - thank you for that.


Would your average neighbor rather play Colonial or Glen Garden CC?

[Eric Smith]

  I took 7 guests to my course yesterday. a Greg Norman Design. All played it for the first time. Not one comment about architecture.

  Anthony

None of them made a comment about the stacked sod bunkering throughout the course? Isn't that part of the architecture?

[Anthony Gray]

  I took 7 guests to my course yesterday. a Greg Norman Design. All played it for the first time. Not one comment about architecture.

  Anthony

None of them made a comment about the stacked sod bunkering throughout the course? Isn't that part of the architecture?

  E,

  No but they all enjoyed jumping into the cement pond after the round.

  Anthony

[Adrian_Stiff]

Pretty much ALL golfers understand risk and reward and whilst thats only one facet of golf course architecture it tends to promote the dramatic shot to carry a lake and reward or lay up and take your medicine. Sub consciously I think golfers understand about missing on the right side to allow an easier shot next up. Most people associate 'the look' of a golf course in their assesment of great architecture.

I think maintenance of a golf course can affect the architecture, mowing patterns and heights, those things do cause effect to the strategic play and the look.

If you are talking about Redans, well I am one who thinks they are absolutely crap and I think 95% of golfers will not like them but its an opinion, I have only built one and it was a bit forced on me, we compromised a bit but its unpopular.

Raters and the treehouse tend not to like water, but its still the minor opinion. Contoured greens wont be everyones cup of tea either, better players seek fairness in a course and see that as a step to greatness. Everyone wants something different but one thing is a definite....you wont plesase everyone.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()