[Neil White]

I have found that my enjoyment of golf and golf courses has increased significantly the more I have learned about the subjects of both course architecture and maintenance.

Unfortunately many of those who I have played golf with, nearly 90%; have been unable to grasp the mechanics of golf course design and my offerings of different literary titles on the subject has only further compounded their misunderstanding.

What, in your opinion, is the best medium available to help assist the majority in their understanding of golf course architecture?

Spoken word? Visual - stills / TV? Written?

Is it in the architects interest to aide the majority in their understanding so that their work can be appreciated by the majority and consequently the majority can further enjoy the architects work?

I believe so, what do you guys think?

Neil.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Neil

The Game of Golf is not taught. The only thing that seems to be taught are lessons related to how to use the equipment in particular the holding and using the golf clubs.

I do not recall anyone of my friends in my early days talking about GCA or more importantly (IMHO) how to navigate (or if you like orienteering) over the course. Yet this was part of my introduction to golf, understanding firstly the course then how to best operate the equipment. I was told that there are invisible paths to the pin, totally governed by my quality of play, be it close to being no-existent or ranging fair to good, I just had to open my eyes while walking the course. A very valuable lesson, which I must put at the feet of my father and great uncles.

The problem has certainly continued to get worse over the years with just a small percentage of golfers understand GCA in relationship to their game. Few still that seem to care, but for me that gives the game its meaning, and why it can be translated to any course in the world, that is as long as it HAS BEEN DESIGNED first and foremost as a proper golf course utilizing Nature and the natural with – and this I believe is important some input by Man.

I believe that today we have the lessons for understand how to use the equipment but forgotten how to play or should I say understanding a golf course with their many lines of approach which offer challenges to the golfer whatever level his/her skills.

So in answer to your question, it should be via the Clubs and their teaching practices, yet the clubs are themselves the worst offenders. Sites like GCA.com are important, but we need to debate and talk about such items, nor sneer at others but full honest frontal debate. I also feel the starting point must be with accrediting a designer(s) for the design work with a simple Hole by Hole basic design brief (as we do not want to kill the experience of the unknown) on the Scorecard.

The single minded thought in the minds of many is winning or at least reducing ones score, yet this is a byproduct of a good round mostly achieved from a relaxed and totally in tune golfer with his game and environment.  Winning is just a bonus, but until many understand that they miss out so much on a great game, worst still the real quality of a great designed course and the real beauty behind the natural rawness of a links course.

 Melvyn

[Tom_Doak]

Neil:

I think one of the biggest problems with learning about golf architecture is that nearly everything is written [and diagrammed!] from the scratch player's perspective, though few of the readers are scratch players.  As a result, average players think that the architecture of a course is beyond them, just like they think shooting par is beyond them.

If someone took the time to take diagrams of a few holes and look at it from the subject's perspective -- say, a guy who hits it 210 yards off the tee, and has a tendency to miss to the right -- that guy would find that course management was very valuable to him, and then he would start to understand about architecture.

[Tim Martin]

Neil,

The desire to find out more about what makes courses great, which is probably motivated by a general love of courses (as opposed to golf) generally, is not something that you can impose on someone, I don't think. The two guys I go on most of my golf trips with: one of them is really getting into it, whereas the other really doesn't care and would almost be as happy at a Druid's Glen as, say, a Ballybunion. I can't see that ever changing and he's an open minded guy.

But, if you wanted to try, I would have thought a combination of written and visual would be the ideal place to start - World Atlas of Golf and Darius Oliver's Planet golf. Also, maybe they'd get in to watching some of the classic courses on Shell's Wonderful world of Golf.

Brian- I agree that the World Atlas of Golf would be a great indoctrination. Additionally just playing a bunch with someone who can point out the subtleties can jump start someone`s curiosity. I think you have to be exposed to at least a handful of courses with some architectural merit before you start to get interested or you have no real frame of reference.

[John Kavanaugh]

The best way to teach a friend about an architectural feature is to use it to defeat him.

[JMEvensky]

The best way to teach a friend about an architectural feature is to use it to defeat him.

There's method to your madness--this is really good.

How many times have you witnessed a bad player scream "lucky" when a good player knowingly uses a contour to get a ball from A to B?Eventually,they realize that sometimes the contours are there for a purpose--if you learn how to use them.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Contours, ah another of those things that make a course penal, well that seems to be the opinion of many who do not understand GCA and the ability to navigate through the course. If it appears negative because of the player’s lack of understanding, then it must be deemed to be against you when in fact it is generally neutral. But that’s what I mean when talking about the lack of understanding of how to play the Game, not how to use the equipment.

We should not blame the many, because if it is not explained with the lessons then how do they get to know or understand. It is a failure to communicate believing that it’s understood by all, but how can it be, it’s never really discussed in detail on this site by the Architects/Designers – wonder if they think we already know all about GCA as well as understanding the Game of Golf.

Sorry guys but I feel this starts and stops at your door, your sodding design, so…….

GCA.com is a good starting point so start talking to your customers, we are more than happy to listen.

Melvyn   

[Tom Kelly]

Get them to read Mackenzie's 13 points needed for an ideal golf course.

Or even better get them to read all of Mackenzie's Golf Architecture book.

Doak's The Anatomy of a Golf Course ain't a bad starting point either.

If books aren't their thing ask them why their favourite courses are so good, what makes them better than the others regardless of conditioning and have a little discussion, its seemed to work with a few of my mates.

[Emile Bonfiglio]

For me, Dream Golf was my intro and that was before I ever played at Bandon. Once at the course I couldn't stop from recalling stories from the book and applying them to the actual land I was standing on. After that, it was onto Doak, MacKenzie and some Colton (amazing stuff there).

I try to talk to my buddies about this stuff but they are more concerned about not Chili-Dipping their wedge then why the bunker placement is so impressive or admiring a green complex. Some people drink wine to drink others drink to enjoy, same with golf.

[Neil White]

All,

I've enjoyed reading all of your responses - thank-you.

I agree that it would be nigh on impossible to 'impose' on a golfer the intricacies of golf course architecture, especially if they had no desire to learn - I guess my question was aimed at aiding those who showed a flicker of interest but found the current manner in which it is learnt oppressive.

Melvyn's theory on how golf is only taught to be played reminds me a great deal of learning to drive - the biggest lesson occurs after you have passed your test - through learning road craft. The same is true of golfers and their playing of golf courses, and I agree that a golfer would learn a great deal more if he was taught how to 'read' a course whilst learning how to hit the golf ball - play to your strengths.

I too would love to know more about why an architect designed a hole in a certain way - but this would also include how the decisions were made - what drafts were considered before the final product was laid out.  If changes were made in the field, what was the reasoning?

Is there a reason why everything is aimed at the scratch golfer? Whilst most would aspire, very few reach the pinnacle - but would more improve further if they too were able to read the course better?

In my previous career I made it a point to empower those who worked around me in an effort for them to learn and subsequently improve - where stumbling blocks became apparent I needed to find a way that I could still teach whilst at the same time not bore them to death - a combination of working alongside them and visual aides became the norm.

I think the same is true of golf course architecture - Rather than see the finished product and then discuss it via someone else's perspective - could an architect take us through the process?

This way we, the end user, would be able to know the how's, why's and wherefores and take a greater step towards a fuller understanding.

Neil.

 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Neil

In answer to your question “Is there a reason why everything is aimed at the scratch golfer”. The simple answer is MONEY, it now has not just the great game of Golf but the whole golfing scene by the ‘Balls’. It has been the problem since the ‘Fifties’, progressively getting worse and compounded by the PGA Tours. They, I believe can just about remember that the reason for being on a course is to play golf while making obscene amounts of money. In fact money has been the reasons for many a poor location and golf course (i.e. housing developments to name but one).

In the old days at the Home of Golf, courses were for the most part designed for the average player, there was none of this nonsense about Championship courses, they were just day to day courses, used by the whole golfing community, many on council land as well as private.

Money is the motivation and is now the cause of many of the problems in the game. Many a pro golfer moans today about the many, many courses credited with the Championship word because they believe that some are too penal – that means it affects the potential of making money and their game is not really set for that type of course. That’s money talking.

Owners want to attract the big matches, the Championship and Pro Tournaments so they must have Championship standard courses – I think that this is crap and ALL golfers should play any course. But that is not the modern way.

In the Pro Game Money is the Alter of choice, governed by the money that courses can make by attracting the crowds and not forgetting the TV companies. So the aim is money making courses for the Pro Golfer.

Having said that there are quite a few even on this site that can and do design courses for the golfers, but many of their Clients ask for Championship standard courses to attract a good return on their investment – more for short term rewards rather than for the good of the local community or for that matter the game.

Money, Money, Money as ABBA once sang is now as much about golf as The R&A, what a shame because even the R&A have sold their Soul in this race to make money.

Melvyn

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()