just a thought - is a course review from a 6 handicap more worthwhile than a 26?

[John Kavanaugh]

My only issue is using a number higher than 18.  This is of course assuming that we are using the lowest handicap an individual has ever held.  Listening to a golfer who gets two shots a hole is like listening to 12 year old review a car.  Sure they know what's pretty but they can't tell you how it drives.

[jeffwarne]

. In truth, only a miniscule percentage of the golfing world give a damn about architecture. I would say about 1-2 percent.

Brian,
I would disagree with that.
If a hole is changed, and say 80-90% say they like it better, wouldn't they be "giving a damn about architecture"?
They might not know anything about the subject,or realize why they disliked the old hole,  but if they like a hole's design, they like the architecture

I think we don't give the average golfer enough credit.
I certainly don't think we give good players enough credit.

Outside of GCA, how many 26 handiicappers have traveled to see the classic courses here as well as  the UK/Ireland?
I know a lot of 6's and below who have.
Can't we assume they learned someting? and if they return, can't we assume they are enjoying the architecture?


The reality is many TOUR players and low handicappers care about architecture (the design of the hole)
They just happen to not agree with us

[Ivan Morris]

What's so special about being a 6-handicap? I've always said that if my handicap ever reaches 6 - I'll quit! Now that I'm getting close I'm not so sure. Far more low handicappers are interested in course architecture than high handicappers but if somebody in the latter group has studied the subject there's no reason why his opinion should be devalued. Golfers of all handicaps prefer courses where they have played 'a good game.' It's human nature. 

[jeffwarne]

. In truth, only a miniscule percentage of the golfing world give a damn about architecture. I would say about 1-2 percent.

Brian,
I would disagree with that.
If a hole is changed, and say 80-90% say they like it better, wouldn't they be "giving a damn about architecture"?
They might not know anything about the subject,or realize why they disliked the old hole,  but if they like a hole's design, they like the architecture

I think we don't give the average golfer enough credit.
I certainly don't think we give good players enough credit.

Outside of GCA, how many 26 handiicappers have traveled to see the classic courses here as well as  the UK/Ireland?
I know a lot of 6's and below who have.
Can't we assume they learned someting? and if they return, can't we assume they are enjoying the architecture?


The reality is many TOUR players and low handicappers care about architecture (the design of the hole)
They just happen to not agree with us

Jeff: the voice of reason as always. All fair points and I will cease with the high handicap moral superiority forthwith!

If I'm the "voice of reason" we've got a big problem

edit:
I just showed my 13 year old son  the 3 pictures Mike Sweeney posted of Southampton #12.
We played it today-he's only seen it in its' current form.
He picked out the treed version as his favorite-said it looked a lot more "peaceful and serene"
although he did say the latest version looked more like "Scotland or Ireland" (he's never been)
(of course it could be that he took 3 to get out of that cross bunker on the left )

So while people often have their preferences, they're not always educated on our groupthink.
Doesn't mean they don't care about architecture/design, just that they might not understand it (at least not enough to agree with us )

[Ronald Montesano]

Oh, braying one...

That's a kind assessment of his game. The fellows I knew on the team talked about the lurch in his swing, the stab at the ball, etc. Obviously, I wasn't around when he was in his "prime" as a golfer, but I'd be amazed that he was ever a 7.

[Jud_T]

I certainly don't think we give good players enough credit.

Seriously?  I think good players dominate the course review rags and generally claim the moral high ground in locker room discussions on this topic as well.  Having said that, I have an extra measure of respect for the odd low handicapper who can see beyond the connect-the-dots version of golf that most of them were taught to play to have a broader view of GCA.  I'd love to see a Top 100 list voted on entirely by well-traveled 16 handicappers who didn't feel beholden to the big name tournament tracks.  My guess is that it would look very different.

[Carl Nichols]

I'd love to see a Top 100 list voted on entirely by well-traveled 16 handicappers who didn't feel beholden to the big name tournament tracks.  My guess is that it would look very different.

I agree.  But there is a huge difference between a typical 16 and a typical 26.  

[Andy Troeger]

Just curious, are there any of you that are extolling the higher handicaps (lets say non-single digit) that is currently a single-digit handicap? I'm guessing that most of us are falling along "party lines" in the sense of preferring attitudes from golfers of comparable abilities to ourselves, but I'm guessing there's at least one outlier among us...it would be interesting to know why.

Jud,
I'd be interested to see those results, but also think I'd find them about as credible as you find Golf Digest's results. It would be an interesting exercise in any case. I still think the best way is to not have a certain playing requirement to get a variety of viewpoints and abilities.

[jeffwarne]

I certainly don't think we give good players enough credit.

Seriously?  I think good players dominate the course review rags and as well as generally claim the moral high ground in locker room discussions on this topic as well.  Having said that, I have an extra measure of respect for the odd low handicapper who can see beyond the connect-the-dots version of golf that most of them were taught to play to have a broader view of GCA.  I'd love to see a Top 100 list voted on entirely by well-traveled 16 handicappers who didn't feel beholden to the big name tournament tracks.  My guess is that it would look very different.

I meant here on GCA.
I'll agree in the rankings and ratings,and locker room  game good players get too much credit.

All things being equal, it's difficult for me to see how someone who DOESN'T do something very well, would NESSESSARILY be better at putting together a test for someone who can.

There are plenty of 16's who nothing about GCA.(I would argue more because there are more 16's)
There are also plenty of 4's in the same boat.

Regarding that list, Sean Arble's WAY better than 16 but he could put together a hell of a list, and I'm pretty sure I could as well.)but by the very nature of it we would miss a lot of areas)
In fact, Sean has many that he considers good/great courses that he does not consider favorites.
Mine don't make a good/great list unless the course is a favorite.
Very subjective as are all lists but it's amazing how often Sean's lists and my plays intersected both  (Thanks to all the great resources here on GCA and the internet)
The point is, one doesn't NEED to be a 16 to put together a list of interesting,challenging, architecturally sound courses.

It just seems that there are plenty of both on GCA,so if you're a 16,you probably play more often with a knowledgeable 16 (who's handpicked)than a knowledgeable (random) 4.


It's like teaching golf.
One doesn't have to be a good player, but it helps if they were at least once a good player.
I've seen great teachers who couldn't play at all(and once one is a highly successful teacher, it is difficult to find time to play at all)
, but they are fighting a credibility issue, and it helps to have experienced the changes that occur when one competes, if teaching high level players.

Good points Andy

[Garland Bayley]

When Stephan Hawking takes up golf I will respect the opinion of a 26.

I suspect there is a very well liked and knowledgeable golfer on this website who's opinion John respects, who if he bothered to play enough and post scores, would come out with a handicap around 26.

I say this, because when I quit playing started the handicap process, I started at a 33. It took me a year playing 72 holes a week to get it down to a 26.

And, it's certainly not my opinion that I am saying John respects.

[Jud_T]

Jeff,

Point taken.  And I'm aware that I'm probably a bit more well versed than you're average 16.  But even in these vaunted pages, if I dare criticize a championship course I usually get lambasted as a hack who can't play the course as it was intended and therefore summarily dismissed.  So I usually default to the "Play it as a solid test for the big hitting low handicapper, otherwise seek other fields of play" defense.  Tom Doak can get away with criticizing tournament tracks, guys like me can't.  Aren't the 4 handicaps often equally unable to speak to the virtues of quirky fun shorter courses?  Is my well-traveled buddy who's a 1 and dismisses Shoreacres since it takes the driver out of his hands too often a reliable source for such tracks simply because he played in the North-South Amateur in 1981?

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

Point taken.  And I'm well aware that I'm probably a bit more well versed than you're average 16.  But even in these vaunted pages, if I dare criticize a championship course I usually get lambasted as a hack who can't play the course as it was intended and therefore summarily dismissed.  So I usually default to the "Play it as a solid test for the big hitting low handicapper, otherwise seek other fields of play" defense.  Tom Doak can get away with criticizing tournament tracks, guys like me can't.  Aren't the 4 handicaps often equally unable to speak to the virtues of quirky fun shorter courses?  Is my well-traveled buddy who's a 1 and dismisses Shoreacres since it takes the driver out of his hands too often a reliable source for such tracks simply because he played in the North-South Amateur in 1981?

Well first of all, it helps if the driver is taken out of my hands
Most tournament tracks I avoid anyway.
I just enjoy low key places, of which there are more and more every day

The great thing about being a pro is I occassionally have days where I play like a hack -hit 3 shanks yeaterday    :Dwho knew it could make me a better evaluator )

[Sean_A]

Jeff,

Point taken.  And I'm well aware that I'm probably a bit more well versed than you're average 16.  But even in these vaunted pages, if I dare criticize a championship course I usually get lambasted as a hack who can't play the course as it was intended and therefore summarily dismissed.  So I usually default to the "Play it as a solid test for the big hitting low handicapper, otherwise seek other fields of play" defense.  Tom Doak can get away with criticizing tournament tracks, guys like me can't.  Aren't the 4 handicaps often equally unable to speak to the virtues of quirky fun shorter courses?  Is my well-traveled buddy who's a 1 and dismisses Shoreacres since it takes the driver out of his hands too often a reliable source for such tracks simply because he played in the North-South Amateur in 1981?

Jud

Using the "player must be good enough" theory to criticise (read evaluate from a critical PoV) a tournament/championship course would include very few people and for me that wouldn't be any handicap players.  Quite frankly, a 2 capper is not anything close to a touring pro.  Well, one can see the folly this sort of thinking would logically lead to.

Top100 does a some sort of ranking generated by their readers.  I believe its a book.  Thats probably as close as you will get to a published 16 capper PoV.  

Ciao  

[Mark Pearce]

Just curious, are there any of you that are extolling the higher handicaps (lets say non-single digit) that is currently a single-digit handicap? I'm guessing that most of us are falling along "party lines" in the sense of preferring attitudes from golfers of comparable abilities to ourselves, but I'm guessing there's at least one outlier among us...it would be interesting to know why.

Jud,
I'd be interested to see those results, but also think I'd find them about as credible as you find Golf Digest's results. It would be an interesting exercise in any case. I still think the best way is to not have a certain playing requirement to get a variety of viewpoints and abilities.

Yes.  Having been a low-mid teen handicapper for a good decade I am now a single digit player (just) and have, in this thread come down in favour of the teen handicapper.  It's a good point, thoigh, that there's a big difference between a 16 (and particularly a CONGU 16) and a 26.  I recall, I think, that Sean Arble is something like a 10 or 11, which in USGA currency is probably more like a 7 or 8, I guess. 

[Michael Dugger]

Not all higher handicaps are necessarily created equal, insofar as their playing ability goes.

I can pop a 300 yd drive right down the gut and on the very next tee snap hook one OB.

Just because I don't always hit it where I want to doesn't mean I don't UNDERSTAND.

Some lower handicaps have great tee to green game but can't putt a lick.  They probably say every putting green is over contoured!

I suspect most low handicaps, especially now days, play a long, high air game.  

But what about the ground game?  What about what Mackenzie said about the ideal course being challenging to the expertr but playable to the lesser player.

No course is truly great if it cannot be played, and enjoyed, by all classes of player.

I trust intelligent reviewers, who take all aspects into consideration.  

[John Kavanaugh]

My Mother used to play 3 days a week and never broke 50 for nine holes in her life.  She never was below a 36 handicap.  Does this mean that I would not respect her opinion about a given golf course?  Absolutely.

[Sean_A]

Just curious, are there any of you that are extolling the higher handicaps (lets say non-single digit) that is currently a single-digit handicap? I'm guessing that most of us are falling along "party lines" in the sense of preferring attitudes from golfers of comparable abilities to ourselves, but I'm guessing there's at least one outlier among us...it would be interesting to know why.

Jud,
I'd be interested to see those results, but also think I'd find them about as credible as you find Golf Digest's results. It would be an interesting exercise in any case. I still think the best way is to not have a certain playing requirement to get a variety of viewpoints and abilities.

Yes.  Having been a low-mid teen handicapper for a good decade I am now a single digit player (just) and have, in this thread come down in favour of the teen handicapper.  It's a good point, thoigh, that there's a big difference between a 16 (and particularly a CONGU 16) and a 26.  I recall, I think, that Sean Arble is something like a 10 or 11, which in USGA currency is probably more like a 7 or 8, I guess. 

Canary

I could have used 11 shots at Burnham yesterday.

Mike

You don't think a a course can be great even if it excludes say a 20 capper from being able to play it reasonably?

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

My Mother used to play 3 days a week and never broke 50 for nine holes in her life.  She never was below a 36 handicap.  Does this mean that I would not respect her opinion about a given golf course?  Absolutely.

Why do you post such nonsense? There are about a gazillion low handicappers that when asked about a golf course will tell you it has great conditioning. Does this mean that I would not respect their opinion about a given golf course? Absolutely.

See. Neither one of us has contributed to this discussion. Aren't we proud?

[John Kavanaugh]

My Mother used to play 3 days a week and never broke 50 for nine holes in her life.  She never was below a 36 handicap.  Does this mean that I would not respect her opinion about a given golf course?  Absolutely.

Why do you post such nonsense? There are about a gazillion low handicappers that when asked about a golf course will tell you it has great conditioning. Does this mean that I would not respect their opinion about a given golf course? Absolutely.

See. Neither one of us has contributed to this discussion. Aren't we proud?

Great conditioning is useful and valuable information for the traveling golfer.  Saying it is crap because it has water hazards is not.

[Phil McDade]

new member here but something i have always thought about.  do you guys feel or trust a better player to comment on course design, architects, building et al than you do a hack who can't even hit it 220 off the tee or break 90? Personally, I do and if that makes me a snob or biased or pompous because I fall into the better player category, I apologize. Having said that, for those who trust reviews and opinions of lesser players, can you tell me why?

Here's my course review of Flossmoor, done in 2009: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41166.0.html

done not long after the renovation work extolled by Ran here: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54014.0.html

Care to guess my handicap?

[Garland Bayley]

Mike

You don't think a a course can be great even if it excludes say a 20 capper from being able to play it reasonably?

Ciao

I'm not Mike, but I am going to tell a related story.

Three regular posters on this website got together to play a round at an artificial pond infested course that has been used for a national championship. By happenstance the quality of their play divided up the fairly equally, with one dunking balls regularly for the first six holes, the second dunking balls regularly for the second six holes, and the third taking his turn for the last six holes.

If they had been playing some sort of match play game instead of just social golf, there would have been stretches where the match was relatively meaningless and not engaging for each of the golfers, dare we say boring.

However, if instead of there being ponds on the property, there was simply low ground with interesting contour, maybe some rough or bunkers, in each case there would have been the prospect of thrilling difficult recovery shots that could have kept the game very interesting in part because some of those shots would have come off and kept the match alive.

I would say this course can never be considered great, because it simply panders to the expert golfer that can play medal play in a national championship.

Contrast that with the course evaluation by a low handicap member of this website whose usual response to my criticism of artificial ponds is "man up", or "take some lessons". The thoughtless acceptance of this particular feature of golf courses by the low handicap raters degrades their the quality of their evaluation.

Don't any of you ever wonder why Tom Doak explicitly avoids building artificial ponds into his courses?

Who's courses would you rather play? Tom's or pond kings such as RTJ?

[Sean_A]

GJ B

I never said I consider all tournament/championship courses great.  In fact, I am one who believes it is harder to be a great course by accommodating top level events.  It is often the case that those in power believe more yardage, bunkers and rough are required to challenge the best.  Generally speaking, I believe these added features make (especially classic) courses less likely to be great. 

Ciao

[Andy Troeger]

No course is truly great if it cannot be played, and enjoyed, by all classes of player.

This is why generalizations are so difficult. I appreciate the sentiment behind Michael's quote, but many of the "best" are pretty difficult and might not be playable for all levels of player. Pine Valley is the easy one to pick on because its tough. Its wide enough to allow for reasonable misses, but its not intended to be played or enjoyed by all classes of player. Its the best I've ever played.

You can make the same argument about most great courses. Cypress Point as a whole isn't exceptionally difficult, but #16 isn't that great if you have to putt it around the ocean because you can't even confidently make the lay-up.


Garland,
Its hard to evaluate your story without knowing the placement of the water and the quality of the shots that got rinsed. However, there are most certainly courses that use water too much and not in worthwhile ways. I haven't seen many great courses where you can find water on almost every hole. I've had rounds where I "dunked balls" and put it on myself because the water should not have been in play and my shots were just that bad, and other times where I put it more on the course because the shot did not seem reasonable for most golfers. The presence of water by itself is not always the deciding factor.  

Also, much criticism of your "fake pond" argument is that you come across as universally refusing to consider them as a useful design tool. I think they have their place in golf design especially in environments where water is prevlent. They look pretty silly in the desert, more often than not. At times, they create interesting decisions and force the golfer to think. That can be a good thing.

[Ronald Montesano]

If you discount all other factors beyond handicap when answering this question, you are an imbecile.

That should close the discussion.

[John Kavanaugh]

If I were a 26 I would prefer to lose a ball in the water than feeling the need to look for balls in the junk all day.  The notion that water does not provide for exciting recovery shots is crazy.  Isn't one of the great joys in golf dunking a ball in the water and rallying for a bogey or par?

Can you imagine how pissed you would be to be in Garland's group and be the guy hitting the ball into the junk on the last 6 holes.  We have all been there and as the day wears thin we look less and less for errant shots.  That guy on the last six holes ain't getting no help.

Think about it, these guys would have had a ball search on every hole if not for the water.  Worst scenario in golf.