If "A" purpose of a golf course is to provide a thorough examination of

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, to thoroughly examine a golfer's game, we have to go well beyond ballstriking. But that's a given. A thorough test of ballstriking would do what I suggested - require different shot shapes, trajectories, and a balance of finesse and power.

That being said, I doubt there are five courses in the world that truly can THOROUGHLY test a player's ballstriking in a single round.

Figure that most courses require somewhere between 18 and 22 full swings for the very good player, not counting drivers.

All to often people context golf and the playing of golf courses through the eyes of the PGA Tour Pro or the exceptional amateur even though they represent probably less than 1 % of the golfing population, and as such, we can exclude the PGA Tour Pro from this exercise as courses don't have the length to provide the thorough examination referenced, at the longer end of the spectrum.

The putter and the driver are a given.
That leaves only 12 clubs, and since we can reasonably predict that the golfer won't hit every green, recoveries with L, S and P wedges could be considered as eliminating three more bringing the total down to 9 clubs.


That's a very small sample size. Over time, and varying wind conditions and playing conditions, there are plenty of courses that could provide that kind of test. Pebble Beach comes to mind among those I've played, as does Erin Hills and Wild Horse.

Now you just have to name two more.

I agree with you that it establishes the foundation for a thorough examination, but your original question was "Is the overall quality of architecture determined by the number of clubs a golfer uses during their round?" The answer to that question is no, because if I can just hit a stock draw with every club the course hasn't provided that thorough examination.

But, a stock draw for you might be someone else's fade, or someone else's punch, or someone else's high trajectory shot.
In addition, if every hole required a "stock draw' wouldn't the routing constitute a circle or series of circles ?
Do you know of any course that requires a stock draw on every hole ?

It's a start, but there's more to it than that. I don't think there's a neat, formulaic way to measure whether a course has provided a thorough examination.

Surely there's a correlation between the number of clubs used and the quality of the architecture, yes ?

[Greg Tallman]

Par 4 & 5 tee shots
Driver or 16° Hybrid

Par 4 approaches
6 iron
60°
4 wood
3 iron
3 wood
7 iron
54°
8 iron
7 iron
5 iron

par 3s
5 iron
8 iron
4 iron
6 iron

par 5 seconds
4 wood (lay up for a 9 iron approach)
8 iron (lay up for a PW approach)
6 iron (lay up for a 54° approach)
3 wood (going for)


All but the 2 and 3 iron... I think i need to count my clubs?!?

[JMEvensky]

"Surely there's a correlation between the numbers of clubs used and the quality of the architecture"

I don't agree.

Taken to its logical extreme,the higher the score shot,the better the golf course.I played behind a guy yesterday who I think shot 143 and used all 17 of his clubs.

Does that mean that I played on a great golf course?

Great golf courses are great for a lot of reasons.Just as there's no formula to design a great one,there's no way to design a particular equation whereby number of clubs used equals relative greatness on an architectural scale.

[Jason Topp]

I went through this exercise on three courses - one I played in a tournament over the weekend in opposite winds and my stock clubs on two courses I play most often.  In each case, I missed 2 clubs and they were one of my four wedges and an 8 or 9 iron.  Lengths ranged from a 6000 yard par 71 to a 6600 yard par 70.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Surely there's a correlation between the numbers of clubs used and the quality of the architecture"

I don't agree.

Taken to its logical extreme,the higher the score shot,the better the golf course.


"SCORE" has NOTHING to do with the issue.

I played behind a guy yesterday who I think shot 143 and used all 17 of his clubs.

Does that mean that I played on a great golf course?

No, it means you're confused about the understanding of the issue.

Great golf courses are great for a lot of reasons.Just as there's no formula to design a great one,there's no way to design a particular equation whereby number of clubs used equals relative greatness on an architectural scale.

Then surely you can identify just five (5) courses where one only needs 5 clubs to successfully and efficiently negotiate the course.

[JMEvensky]

Pat,you are trying to design a formula for great works of art--that's what great golf courses are.

You're just as likely to find a formula for great literature or music.

Why would you try to reduce art to a mathematical equation? Is Vermeer great because he used all of his paint brushes? Is Mozart great because he used all the instruments?

If you went back to the same golf course tomorrow that you cited in the original post and only used 9 clubs,would it be less of an examination?What about 8 clubs?Or 7?

What's more likely to be the variable--you or the golf course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,you are trying to design a formula for great works of art--that's what great golf courses are.

No, I'm not.
Please reread AG Crockett's comments

You're just as likely to find a formula for great literature or music.

Not so, I think you've misunderstood the question.
It's not about creating architecture, it's about trying to analyze architecture.

Why would you try to reduce art to a mathematical equation? Is Vermeer great because he used all of his paint brushes? Is Mozart great because he used all the instruments?

I'm not, you're just confused

If you went back to the same golf course tomorrow that you cited in the original post and only used 9 clubs,would it be less of an examination?What about 8 clubs?Or 7?

You're looking at the micro aspect, try looking at the macro aspect.

The question isn't framed in the context of topped or popped-up drives and it's not confined to physical play, rather it's a mental exercise which happens to lend itself, for fun, to individual reflection and play. 

What's more likely to be the variable--you or the golf course?

That's why I indicated that your focus was off.
You're focusing too much on the individual's execution or lack thereof on their drive.

My drives are fairly consistent when it comes to length, therefore, it's unusual, with similar conditions, for me to use clubs that vary by more than one length.  Hence, my club selection on a given hole rarely varies with similar conditions.

And as such, I can interpolate which clubs I'll be hitting on a normal day.

At two clubs that I'm familiar with, one calls for vast differences in the clubs used on their four par 3's, while the other club's par 3's basically call for the same club on three out of four par 3's.

Thus, when evaluating par 3's, I find one club's par 3's vastly superior to the other's, even though the other has a world class par three that's far superior to the club with the four diverse par 3's.

[Jason Thurman]

Pat, you asked a question which we're now coming to realize is really a thesis. I dispelled it. There's more to a thorough examination than simply hitting every club in your bag. Trajectory, ability to work the ball in different directions, touch, etc must be involved for it to be THOROUGH. I have no interest in refining your thesis for you.

Can you please explain why you believe that a player simply using every club in his bag makes a golf course a "thorough examination of his game"? A few things to keep in mind as you answer:

• On a par 3 tee, Ben Hogan was once asked what club he had hit. He subsequently hit a shot with every club in his bag, all on the green. Does this make that par 3 the greatest hole ever?
• The 7th at Pebble Beach can be anywhere from a LW to a 6 iron or more depending on the day's wind. In my round at Pebble, I didn't hit a single 6 iron. Was the course appreciably worse on my visit because the 7th played in a crosswind and deprived me of the option to hit a 6 iron?
• I recently played a hole where, depending on how close I ventured to the waste area off the tee, my approach could be anything between an 8 iron and a 3 iron. Mishit my drive and it might be a 3w. I hit a 7 iron approach on the hole and didn't hit a 6 iron all day. Would it have been a better course if I'd just pulled my drive 7 yards further left?

I think if you were to play this course another 10 times, you'd find that you wouldn't always use all the clubs in your bag. The club one hits is fickle and depends on a variety of factors. It's never a good idea to use a variable as a measurement, and that's why your thesis simply doesn't work. It might be a good indicator, and you might find a correlation, but it's more a symptom of a course that provides a good overall test than the direct source of that test.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, you asked a question which we're now coming to realize is really a thesis.

NO, it's not.
Please reread AG's post as you don't understand the question.

I dispelled it.

Only in your mind

There's more to a thorough examination than simply hitting every club in your bag.

I stated that in my opening post.
Please reread it as you obviously don't understand it.

Trajectory, ability to work the ball in different directions, touch, etc must be involved for it to be THOROUGH.

Working the ball in different directions, which is almost extinct due to equipment, is irrelevant, as is touch.

I have no interest in refining your thesis for you.

Since you didn't understand the question I can understand that.

Can you please explain why you believe that a player simply using every club in his bag makes a golf course a "thorough examination of his game"?
A few things to keep in mind as you answer:

• On a par 3 tee, Ben Hogan was once asked what club he had hit.
  He subsequently hit a shot with every club in his bag, all on the green.
  Does this make that par 3 the greatest hole ever?

The above question is further proof that you don't understand the issue.

• The 7th at Pebble Beach can be anywhere from a LW to a 6 iron or more depending on the day's wind. In my round at Pebble, I didn't hit a single 6 iron. Was the course appreciably worse on my visit because the 7th played in a crosswind and deprived me of the option to hit a 6 iron?

You're showing more lack of understanding.

• I recently played a hole where, depending on how close I ventured to the waste area off the tee, my approach could be anything between an 8 iron and a 3 iron. Mishit my drive and it might be a 3w. I hit a 7 iron approach on the hole and didn't hit a 6 iron all day. Would it have been a better course if I'd just pulled my drive 7 yards further left?

Please have someone explain the issue to you as you clearly don't understand it.
[/list]

I think if you were to play this course another 10 times, you'd find that you wouldn't always use all the clubs in your bag.

No one claimed that that was a mandate

The club one hits is fickle and depends on a variety of factors.

I explained the variable and dilema in getting too caught up in physical execution.
But, apparently you don't understand that either

It's never a good idea to use a variable as a measurement, and that's why your thesis simply doesn't work.

It's not a thesis, but a reasoned question relating to the tactical balance of the challenge as presented by the architect.
Have someone explain that to you

It might be a good indicator, and you might find a correlation, but it's more a symptom of a course that provides a good overall test than the direct source of that test.

If it's a good indicator, as you claim, and there is a correlation, as you claim, then is it not a viable evaluative ?

What is the "direct source of that test" ?

[A.G._Crockett]

"Surely there's a correlation between the numbers of clubs used and the quality of the architecture"

I don't agree.

Taken to its logical extreme,the higher the score shot,the better the golf course.I played behind a guy yesterday who I think shot 143 and used all 17 of his clubs.

Does that mean that I played on a great golf course?

Great golf courses are great for a lot of reasons.Just as there's no formula to design a great one,there's no way to design a particular equation whereby number of clubs used equals relative greatness on an architectural scale.

JM,
Using the guy who shot 143 is not the "logical extreme".  It is the illogical extreme.

ANGC is great GCA even though the pros hit much shorter clubs into greens than we do, and have to recover from poor shots much less often.  Likewise, the 143 shooting chop isn't a valid basis for analysis of GCA either; he could play anywhere and shoot that number, with GCA not really being much of a factor either way. 

Let's assume a more "average" sort of a golfer, say somewhere between a 5 and a 15 handicap.  For that player, on an average day, isn't being required to hit a wide variety of clubs ONE valid indicator of quality of GCA?  Not the only indicator, but one of them?

[Jason Thurman]

Let's assume a more "average" sort of a golfer, say somewhere between a 5 and a 15 handicap.  For that player, on an average day, isn't being required to hit a wide variety of clubs ONE valid indicator of quality of GCA?  Not the only indicator, but one of them?

Yes.

Pat, I don't understand what you're so confused about. It sounds like we mostly agree. Your original question was just obviously too rigid. You asked "Is the overall quality of the architecture determined by how many of the 14 clubs a golfer uses during their round?" As an absolute statement, the answer is no. But as one of many indicators, the answer is probably yes.

[Ken Fry]

Pat,

I don't agree with your original premise.  A golf course is only as good as making me hit every club in my bag??  I've never liked that analogy.  How can any architect plan on what any player may hit for clubs from any number of different tees?

It can be argued on a course's par 3 holes it helps to have a nice mixture of yardages or holes that require different clubs based on elevation change and predominant wind direction.

As you mentioned, a great golf course provides an overall tactical balance and a great routing.  Does that include working the ball with fades and draws?  Forcing a player to decide on risk/reward options?  Playing running shots when the course plays fast and firm as opposed to exact placement when the course plays soft?

I don't hit every club in my bag when I go to Crystal Downs, but it's still one of the best golf courses in the world.

Ken

Ken,
Patrick started with a question, not a premise. 

To respond to that question, I'd say that while requiring that EVERY club in the bag be used certainly isn't a guarantee of great GCA, it's a start.  Maybe more to the point, it would almost certainly be an example of poor GCA if approaches required or allowed the same clubs over and over while other clubs went unused.

In any case, using all (or almost all) of the clubs in the bag is a lot more fun and a lot more interesting, and those are integral qualities of good GCA, aren't they?

AG,

I say Pat stated a premise because he offered what began as a question but one he immediately answered with his opinion therefore creating the basis for his argument.  He feels, as do you, how many clubs are used in a round must be a factor in determining a course's architectural greatness.  I stand by my opinion that, while a neatly packaged idea, how many of my clubs are used has very little to do with the overall quality of the gca.  There are far too many other factors that play a more important roll.

As I offered in my first post, if I only used 7 of my 14 clubs the last time I played Crystal Downs does that somehow diminish the quality of Mackenzie's work there??

Ken

[Dan King]

As someone who often plays with just 3-6 clubs, I'm yet to find a course anywhere that didn't require me to use every club in the bag.

Cheers,
Dan King

It can now be argued that golf was the first human game played on another planetary body. Those two shots Alan Shepard hit with a six iron at the "Fra Mauro Country Club" have brought a certain stature and gleam of the eye to golfers the world over.
 --Michael Murphy

[Patrick_Mucci]

As I offered in my first post, if I only used 7 of my 14 clubs the last time I played Crystal Downs does that somehow diminish the quality of Mackenzie's work there??

Ken,

That's a hypothetical where you've predetermined the answer vis a vis the phrasing of the question.

Ask yourself this question.

Is it the architect's mission to construct a balanced challenge that favors no particular golfer's game ?

Yes or No ?

More questions to follow after your answer.

Ken

[Sean_A]

I am still waiting to hear why a course can be considered good if and when all clubs are used and what are the assumptions made in making that claim.  I haven't read anything so far which remotely "proves the point".  Mucci, stop arguing with yourself and get on with it.

Ciao

[Dan King]

I've read through this thread and I still don't understand the point. Isn't it the golfer that decided what club they need to use, not the golf course?  If you want to use 14 clubs on any course, what is stopping you?

Wouldn't a course that you felt you needed 15 clubs instead of 14 be a better examination? How about the need for 24 clubs?  At some number does it become a case of diminished return? I know I haven't needed to use a rut iron in ages, does that mean modern courses aren't as good?  (I think it is more likely to mean they are over maintained.)

Cheers,
Dan King

The golfer has more enemies than any other athlete. He has 14 clubs in his bag, all of them different; 18 holes to play, all of them different every week; and all around him are sand, trees, grass, water, wind, and 143 other players. In addition, the game is 50 percent mental, so his biggest enemy is himself.
 --Dan Jenkins

[Patrick_Mucci]

Seminole, Pine Valley, GCGC, Shinnecock and others come to mind in establishing a balanced tactical challenge that requires the extensive use of one's clubs.

I can't think of a great course where the golfer only has to use 5 or 7 clubs.

The use of more clubs is indicative of a better tactical balance, which is a hallmark of a golf course with good to great architecture.

[Sean_A]

Seminole, Pine Valley, GCGC, Shinnecock and others come to mind in establishing a balanced tactical challenge that requires the extensive use of one's clubs.

I can't think of a great course where the golfer only has to use 5 or 7 clubs.

The use of more clubs is indicative of a better tactical balance, which is a hallmark of a golf course with good to great architecture.

Pat

You are using circular logic in that you say something is true so you claim it as fact.   

Why is the use of more clubs indicative of a better tactical balance, which is a hallmark of a golf course with good to great architecture.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am still waiting to hear why a course can be considered good if and when all clubs are used and what are the assumptions made in making that claim.  I haven't read anything so far which remotely "proves the point".  Mucci, stop arguing with yourself and get on with it.

Sean, what part of tactical balance don't you understand ?

[JESII]

Pat,

It may or may not surprise you but I don't know what you mean by "Tactical Balance". Can you explain it to me?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Seminole, Pine Valley, GCGC, Shinnecock and others come to mind in establishing a balanced tactical challenge that requires the extensive use of one's clubs.

I can't think of a great course where the golfer only has to use 5 or 7 clubs.

The use of more clubs is indicative of a better tactical balance, which is a hallmark of a golf course with good to great architecture.

Pat

You are using circular logic in that you say something is true so you claim it as fact.   

Not at all

Why is the use of more clubs indicative of a better tactical balance, which is a hallmark of a golf course with good to great architecture.
You're kidding.... Right ?

Let's see, if you use driver PW on every par 4, driver - 3-wood - SW on every par 5 and 9-iron on every par 3, how would you assess the tactical balance presented by that golf course ?

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Patrick,

I would imagine that the hypothetical course you just described would be likely to be lacking but, until I hade played or seen it, I would reserve judgment.

How would you assess the tactical balance of a course where you used Driver, 16* Hybrid, 4I, 6I, 8I, PW, SW and putter?  Would that course be lacking tactically?

[JESII]

Here's why I ask Pat,

It's very feasible to play the last three holes at Pine Valley or Seminole with the same approach club but from a difference of 50 yards to the target.

#16 at Pine Valley could ask for an 8 iron from 175 yards with a full high blast down the hill and downwind while #17 could also be an 8 iron from 125 or 130 up the hill into the wind. The shot into 16 could just as easily be a comfortable 7 iron and the shot into 17 could be a hard 9 iron but because I choose the way I do, you have argued this is a knock against the golf course...

Now, if "tactical balance" means the play yardage of the approach shot then I'd agree to the extent that it's AN ingredient in the overall analysis but maybe not the only one as Jason Thurman suggested many posts ago.

[Dan King]

Patrick_Mucci writes:
I can't think of a great course where the golfer only has to use 5 or 7 clubs.

I think that might be a problem with imagination, not with the golf courses. I really doubt there is a course anywhere in the world that can not be played with 5 or 7 clubs. I can't even imagine a course that couldn't be played with a single club.

The golfer chooses the clubs, not the golf course. Just because you think you need a certain club for a certain shot distance doesn't mean you do.

If none other than Himself can hit a 235-yard hole at Bundoran with just about every club in the bag, does that make the hole at Bundoran the greatest hole in golf, or does it mean Christy had more imagination than most other golfers?

Cheers,
Dan King

Are you sure you played all the holes Christy?
 --Henry Cotton (when Christy O'Conner shot 64 in 1985 to break Cotton's course record set 51 years earlier)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I would imagine that the hypothetical course you just described would be likely to be lacking but, until I hade played or seen it, I would reserve judgment.

How would you assess the tactical balance of a course where you used Driver, 16* Hybrid, 4I, 6I, 8I, PW, SW and putter?  Would that course be lacking tactically?

Based upon the broad range and spacing of the clubs I would say "no"