A Concept - What do you think of it?

[Peter Pallotta]

For some reason, I find the terms we usually use to describe desirable traits in a golf course -- i.e. options, choice, strategies -- have grown a little stale for me.  Maybe the blame is all mine, and the terms/concepts are just fine.  But at any rate, I thought on another thread of a term/concept that, whether useful or not, at least isn't stale.  Here it is:

A good golf course allows golfers to "self-identify" shot by shot; allows for a changing/fluid self-identifcation over the course of a golf hole and over the course of a full round; and provides clear feedback (i.e. a reality check) on this self-identification in a manner that doesn't condemn but instead asks the golfer to broaden and at the same time contextualize this self-understanding moment by moment, and situation by situation.

In short, a good and fun and interesting golf course holds a mirror up to a golfer's own sense of himself, and helps him to judge whether or not he is seeing himself accurately (or at least to best and most useful effect). A good golf course is like a good psychoanalyst; a round of golf like a session on the couch.   

What do you think? Does this concept have legs?  Will Golf Digest add it to the ranking criteria

Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Or you might ask (what I think is) the same question from the opposite direction. In what sense does a golf course exist for the golfer? (For the philosophers in the room, what is the ontological status of the golf course?) Does it exist as something like a human opponent as in, say, tennis? That is, like a human opponent who I have a right to expect will play by the rules? Or does the golf course exist as something completely foreign, an 'other' to be explored, to deal with as I can and which owes me nothing?

My guess is that most golfers lean towards the former and that you and I lean toward the latter. In either case a golf course - uniquely among sporting venues - exists as an object on which a player projects various aspects of himself. More often than not, the player does so unconsciously. But at bottom it is those projection drives what he wants in and gets from a golf course.

Like good psychoanalysis, when thinking about the merits of a course the hardest work is trying understand your own projections.

Does that make any sense at all?

Bob  

[Jason Topp]

Peter-

It has legs.  My only addition would be that an overly penal golf course always forces the player to self identify in a conservative direction whereas a great golf course provides enough incentive to tempt the golfer to be aggressive.

[Ben Sims]

Peter,

This might be your greatest achievement in a series of recent over-complications.   

Here's how I want to distill your original post.

A great golf course asks you a simple question, "do you have this shot?"  If the answer is yes, it is a challenge.  If the answer is no, then it leaves you the ability to do something of lesser difficulty.  It never forces you towards one direction.  However, it does gently push you towards the challenging route and then you have to be of the mind not to take it.  There's your psychoanalysis.

[RJ_Daley]

Ah ha, ah hum, I see.  How do you feel about that? 

So Pietro, you are suggesting the Rogerian method of golf course architecture? ,

Person Centered Therapy from Wikipedia:

"The goal of PCT is to provide patients with an opportunity to develop a sense of self wherein they can realize how their attitudes, feelings and behavior are being negatively affected and make an effort to find their true positive potential.[1] In this technique, therapists create a comfortable, non-judgmental environment by demonstrating congruence (genuineness), empathy, and unconditional positive regard toward their patients while using a non-directive approach. This aids patients in finding their own solutions to their problems.[2]"

Peter, your post reminded me of Psych 101 back in the day.  But, I really think you are on to something to be considered by archies, in particular, and raters or commentators of GCA in general.  I think the last sentence - "aid patients in finding their own solutions to their problems" may have a good substitute in our golf life translated to a course that aids one to 'find their game'. 

I hope this thread takes off.  It seems to have a deep well of potential by definition; asking the question of course design that offers us GCAers the chance of self-identifying on any golf course, and how that course makes us feel or how we are feeling about the experience as we play upon it.

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks Peter

This concept does indeed have legs, and I agree with with just about all the comments made above.  To me, every golf shot is a unique experience, even tee shots for the same person, from the same distance, to the same hole location and in roughly the same meteorological conditions, on the same date of the year.  This applies to every golf course--whether public or private, links or parkland, pedigreed or common, "strategic" or "penal," MacKenzie, Fazio or AN Other, etc. etc.  This among others things (perhaps even most importantly than any other things) is why golf is so unique and why we wing-nuts love the game so much.

Rich

[Tom_Doak]

A great golf course gives you the OPPORTUNITY to hit shots you've never hit before.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents - you made it a good thread.

Ben - yeah, I'm pretty hit and miss...and rarely with the power to put one out of the park!

Peter

[George Pazin]

"For some reason, I find the terms we usually use to describe desirable traits in a golf course -- i.e. options, choice, strategies -- have grown a little stale for me."

Couldn't agree more. Tom uses the word "opportunity", which I like. I have been leaning lately away from "options" and toward "accommodation"; I wish I could think of a cooler word, feel free to suggest one.

[Chris Shaida]

How about 'self aware' in place of 'self identify'.  'Identify' seems a bit static.  'Awareness' seems to allow for change or ...seizing the 'opportunity'.

[Bill_McBride]

A great golf course gives you the OPPORTUNITY to hit shots you've never hit before.

Or the temptation?   The risk-reward equation underlies what I love most about the golf courses I enjoy the most.

[Peter Pallotta]

I was leaving this thread alone. partly because others can add to it better than I can and partly because I'd posted all I could think about the subject already.  But I found a quote (in Sean's excellent profile of Blackwell) from Tom Simpson that I thought fit very nicely: “The vital thing about a hole is that it should either be more difficult than it looks or look more difficult than it is.  It must never be what it looks.”  I think that "never being what it looks" puts even greater onus on the golfer to self-identify -- to make a value judgment about his own ability to see and execute correctly.  To play off of Tom's post, it's not enough for a course to offer the golfer opportunities to hit shots he's never tried/hit before; it needs also to engage the golfer in a continual question as to whether he can or can't see those opportunities, and what he is able to do or not with them.  It isn't so much a question of hard or easy/ penal or strategic/options and choices -- it's a question of drawing the golfer into a self-examination, a self-analysis first and foremost...and a question of rewarding a healthy (but accurate) sense of self.   

Peter

[JESII]

I agree with you/Sean/Tom Simpson.

I think a golfer has to look at every hole, or even each shot, and decide if they are going to try to pick up a stroke or save a stroke depending on their (to steal a line of yours) value judgement. This judgement changes of course throughout the playing of the hole.

This is the heart of my defense of the "card and pencil" mentality. To the aggressors; I understand "card and pencil" implies some other derrogatory characteristics that are worse than trying to score well like slow play, not great company because their working too hard, not observant of what's going on...

[Tom_Doak]

"For some reason, I find the terms we usually use to describe desirable traits in a golf course -- i.e. options, choice, strategies -- have grown a little stale for me."

Couldn't agree more. Tom uses the word "opportunity", which I like. I have been leaning lately away from "options" and toward "accommodation"; I wish I could think of a cooler word, feel free to suggest one.

George:

All the talk about "options" leaves me a bit cold, too.  Some people seem to think every hole needs a double fairway and six staggered fairway bunkers to give you five distinct ways to play them.  But, often the result of that is overkill of bunkers and a golf hole that will beat up the average golfer.  Tom Simpson's various sketches are a great example that you don't need to have lots of hazards to create a hole full of strategy and interest.

[Tom_Doak]

I was leaving this thread alone. partly because others can add to it better than I can and partly because I'd posted all I could think about the subject already.  But I found a quote (in Sean's excellent profile of Blackwell) from Tom Simpson that I thought fit very nicely: “The vital thing about a hole is that it should either be more difficult than it looks or look more difficult than it is.  It must never be what it looks.”  I think that "never being what it looks" puts even greater onus on the golfer to self-identify -- to make a value judgment about his own ability to see and execute correctly.  To play off of Tom's post, it's not enough for a course to offer the golfer opportunities to hit shots he's never tried/hit before; it needs also to engage the golfer in a continual question as to whether he can or can't see those opportunities, and what he is able to do or not with them.  It isn't so much a question of hard or easy/ penal or strategic/options and choices -- it's a question of drawing the golfer into a self-examination, a self-analysis first and foremost...and a question of rewarding a healthy (but accurate) sense of self.   

Peter

Peter:

C.B. Macdonald had a great line about this in his book, but I'm traveling for a few days and won't be able to look it up.  Will try to remember to look for it when I get back home.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I was leaving this thread alone. partly because others can add to it better than I can and partly because I'd posted all I could think about the subject already.  But I found a quote (in Sean's excellent profile of Blackwell) from Tom Simpson that I thought fit very nicely: “The vital thing about a hole is that it should either be more difficult than it looks or look more difficult than it is.  It must never be what it looks.”  I think that "never being what it looks" puts even greater onus on the golfer to self-identify -- to make a value judgment about his own ability to see and execute correctly.  To play off of Tom's post, it's not enough for a course to offer the golfer opportunities to hit shots he's never tried/hit before; it needs also to engage the golfer in a continual question as to whether he can or can't see those opportunities, and what he is able to do or not with them.  It isn't so much a question of hard or easy/ penal or strategic/options and choices -- it's a question of drawing the golfer into a self-examination, a self-analysis first and foremost...and a question of rewarding a healthy (but accurate) sense of self.   

Peter

That quote by Simpson is my favourite in all GCA and one I use over and over again.... Ad nauseum I'm sure some people would tell you...

[Dan Kelly]

The vital thing about a hole is that it should either be more difficult than it looks or look more difficult than it is.  It must never be what it looks.”

Is Cypress Point 16 more difficult than it looks, or does it look more difficult than it is?

Is Augusta National 13 more difficult than it looks, or does it look more difficult than it is?

Is Pebble Beach 8 more difficult than it looks, or does it look more difficult than it is?

Etc., etc., etc.

I think that line of Simpson's is charming bunkum.

Of course, I think all of this Self-Awareness by Means of Golf Strokes is mostly bunkum, too -- unless you're playing for either serious money or meaningful championships.

[David Harshbarger]

My take on Peter's question is that he is asking us to walk around the other side of the camera, look through the lens, and observe what's going on there.  It's a question we talk to all the time as the result of architecture, in pieces. For instance, the centerline bunker forces decisions about how to play a hole, which we all agree is better than having architecture that dictates few if any rational choices on approach. 

What makes Peter's question interesting is he's asking us to think about how the process of answering those questions, and having the answers validated by our play, informs our understanding of ourselves.  In this sense, does having a broader array of questions to answer, and a broader set of validation points, result in a richer understanding of ourselves, either in micro, in the moment, or macro, in the larger arc of our lives?

My take would be obviously, yes, good architecture, being more stimulating, and more engaging, will provide richer depth of experience around choice, decisions, and outcomes than poorer architecture. And, for those who choose to reflect on these matters, this is good news.

In tandem he's also pointing to the often overlooked reality that we are not the same person from day to day, and we are often consciously aware of these differences.  Moods change, energy levels rise and fall, we learn about ourselves, we forget what we learned.  We also evolve different goals and objectives.  At one time you may wish to grow your ability to be conservative, at others, to be bold.

Peter's question points to the idea that rich golf architecture provides a better stage on which to play out this inner conversation.  And, that, I think, is a very very good thing.

[Peter Pallotta]

David - thank you. You've done that at least once before, i.e. encapsulated and at the same time articulated better/more deeply than I did the concept at hand: "the idea that rich golf architecture provides a better stage on which to play out this inner conversation".  Very nice!

Tom D - thanks much for the offer, but no need now to look up the CB Macdonald quote.  Me and David don't need nothing from CB Macdonald!!

Peter

[David Harshbarger]

Peter,

On the other hand, This could all just be bunkum :-)

Dave

[Peter Pallotta]

Dan's a smart fellow, David, and so I always pay heed to his comments and suggestions. But all the more reason to try to make him less level-headed!! (He also never uses an emoticon, which practice I try to honour....)

Peter

[BCrosby]

A pedantic response to North Country Dan in defense of Tom Simpson -

- That Simpson's questions have no clear answers for the holes selected is a signal that they might be great holes.

- Which was the point of his questions, I think. They weren't invested with great metaphysical significance. At least not for Simpson. He meant them as useful ways of thinking through why a good hole is more interesting than a not so good hole. Solving the mysteries of being and nothingness was not something he was trying to do. He was happy to leave that chore for J.P. Sartre.   

Okefenokee Bob 

[Rich Goodale]

The "Simpson Fallacy" is well known in the annals of both Philosophy and Anthropogenology.  Poor Tom believed that golf holes had souls, just because he (or one of his humanoid pals) had "made" them, and that the better the pal that made them the more gracious the "soul" of the golf hole probably was.  What he didn't realise is that all golf holes have souls, but they exist only in the mind of each individual golfer and not in the hole itself, and differ from day to day.  This is the great truth that Peter has uncovered and articulated.  Thanks, Peter.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - once again, you've proven (much to my delight) that you can go 'uptown' and 'downtown' with equal facility, and felicity!

Rich - thanks, nicely done.  Depite the fact the I type so much around here, I really don't have either the language or the academic background to delve into these topics very well, so your insights are much appreciated.

Peter

[Colin Macqueen]

Peter, You say, en passant,

"I really don't have either the language or the academic background to delve into these topics very well........."

So you send me into a tailspin for a week trying to understand your esoteric concept and all the while you were wandering around in blissful ignorance! Well I never.  I am going to rest easy with "Holes have Souls".

Yours soulfully,
Colin