[Peter Pallotta]

Some practice more, some less, some very little (but still hope). But every golfer want to get better - some better/good enough just to beat their buddies at the muni, some in order compete in the club championship, and some to make a living at playing golf, on tour. And for all of them, getting getter boils down to one thing: i.e. being able to control their golf ball. Getting the ball to end up where you want it to end up is the surest way to putting the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes -- the primary goal/objective of the game (just as much as knocking down as many pins as possible is the goal in bowling).  And, whether in golf or bowling or archery or mountain climbing, there is nothing more satisfying and fun than achieving the activity's primary objective. So: if you have millions of golfers trying to get better, and if getting better means better controlling the golf ball, and if presumably the whole golfing industry (including architects) has an interest in satisfying its clientele, why would any golf course and its design and its maintenance practices try to do anything but reward the ability to control the golf ball in the most consistent and predictable way/degree possible?

Peter

[Jason Topp]

Interesting thought that reflects the views of many who are good at controlling the ball.  

However, a course without mystery takes away the possibility that things might turn out ok despite our shortcomings.  It eliminates chance as an aspect of the game that must be managed in order to succeed.  It eliminates temptation because, if one is honest about his abilities he knows whether or not he should pull off a particular shot.  It eliminates charm because the game becomes a pure test of skill which will not turn out well for most of us.  It eliminates a sense of competing in a natural arena and the charm that cannot be replicated by a tennis court or bowling alley.

[Chris Shaida]

I'm with Jason.  Reminds me a bit of a great Adam Gopnik article about his first year in Paris as a New Yorker and avid basketball fan trying to come to grips with the popularity of football (soccer) since that sport (as contrasted with basketball) was one in which nothing much happened for long swaths of time and then often something quite like luck seemed to determine the outcome.  Over time he came to see that the charm was that that was very much like...life -- in which nothing much seems to happen for long swaths of time and then often something quite like luck seems to determine the outcome. And that other sports (basketball, bowling) get are attractive for the OPPOSITE reason -- that they are NOT like life, that they offer a respite or escape from it.

[Dan Kelly]

Getting the ball to end up where you want it to end up is the surest way to putting the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes -- the primary goal/objective of the game (just as much as knocking down as many pins as possible is the goal in bowling).  And, whether in golf or bowling or archery or mountain climbing, there is nothing more satisfying and fun than achieving the activity's primary objective.

Peter --

I have said this often enough, to my playing partners, that I'm sure I must have repeated myself to some of them:

To me, the primary purpose of the *game* of golf (aside from its fringe benefits: being outdoors, getting some exercise, in often-beautiful spots, with other civilized men [and, of course, women], doing something we all "enjoy" even when we're miserable) is not to put the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes.

No, for me the primary purpose of the game is to do what I intended to do with each shot. If I do what I intended to do with each shot, I am content -- even if the intention doesn't produce the results I'd hoped for, for whatever reason (wrong club, misjudged wind, big bounce, failure to bounce, crazy bounce).

Good architecture, I think, tends to make all of those things -- misjudgments and bounces -- more prominent ... and, like life, reminds us to be humble about our abilities.

Dan

PS: I'm with Jason and Chris -- though I tend to avoid the amazing Adam Gopnik's pieces, because they almost always make me feel even more humble about my abilities than I want to feel!

[Thomas Dai]

I'm not sure I totally agree with the phrase "getting getter boils down to one thing: i.e. being able to control their golf ball."

Course management is a really key component to improving and the 'mind game' is too. I believe there's a section in a Tommy Armour book where he takes an amateur player out and gets him to shoot way under his hcp by using TA's course management strategy. Also, I seen it written that when after he passed away they opened Ben Hogan's locker at his club and found books about sports psychology in the locker.

As an aside, I reckon people practice for many different reasons such as because the course is busy and they can't get on it, because it allows them to get away from their spouse/kids, because it can be relaxing after a stressful day at work, even because there are cute members of the opposite sex on the range!

All the best.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

No, for me the primary purpose of the game is to do what I intended to do with each shot. If I do what I intended to do with each shot, I am content -- even if the intention doesn't produce the results I'd hoped for, for whatever reason (wrong club, misjudged wind, big bounce, failure to bounce, crazy bounce).


This is my version of the game also.
I am beyond the joy of winning, although that is still a nice caveat, but to me it is me against my swing, my mind or making them work in unisome to produce the reslut I want.
 If good scores come along with that, even better.

Anexample was last week in the US MId Am Qualifier..I shot 74, clearly missed qulaifying but hit 7 shots that I really was very pleased with.
That is a high number for me in one round.
Sure I wasted about 6 shots by poor thinking, shot choices and rather inferior putting on the day, but the course  and its architectyre provided me with the opportunity to plan each shot and the try to execute....from then it was up to me.

[Jason Thurman]

Interesting thought that reflects the views of many who are good at controlling the ball.  

However, a course without mystery takes away the possibility that things might turn out ok despite our shortcomings.  It eliminates chance as an aspect of the game that must be managed in order to succeed.  It eliminates temptation because, if one is honest about his abilities he knows whether or not he should pull off a particular shot.  It eliminates charm because the game becomes a pure test of skill which will not turn out well for most of us.  It eliminates a sense of competing in a natural arena and the charm that cannot be replicated by a tennis court or bowling alley.

Does a course that rewards the player who controls his ball in a consistent and predictable manner also mean a course without mystery though? I don't think it does.

To me, The Open Championship is the world's best test of control over the ball. There is no other form of golf that brings so many variables into play in the form of wind, firmness, terrain that affects the result, and variety of shots available. There are many strategies that can succeed, but the player who executes the best control almost always wins.

There's also plenty of mystery. Not every poor shot is equally punished, and not every well-struck shot ends up where intended. Control, in the case of The Open, means much more than striking the ball solidly and carrying it the correct yardage. You must also understand the influence of the elements and use them to your advantage.

There's more to control than a simple test of skill. There's a huge mental component as well. I'm skilled at controlling a car, but part of that is because I'm smart enough to know exactly how fast I should go on an icy road to stay within the laws of physics, which are unflinchingly rigid. The skilled player deserves an advantage over the unskilled commensurate with their skill, but playing foolishly also gives away their control.

When courses start penalizing the well-thought, well-executed shot with totally random results, that's when we start calling them gimmicky and stop playing them.

[Rick Shefchik]

The easier it is to be rewarded for controlling one's ball, the less satisfaction one will receive. We practice precisely because the course operators and architects throw challenges at us. As Tom Hanks said in "A League of Their Own," "It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great."

[Jason Topp]

Jason Thurman:

I was reacting to this conclusion from the opening post:  "why would any golf course and its design and its maintenance practices try to do anything but reward the ability to control the golf ball in the most consistent and predictable way/degree possible?"

I read that sentence as rewarding a good shot in a predictable and consistent manner.   Open courses are renowned for being unpredictable.

[JLahrman]

If it were only about controlling one's ball, we could hold tournaments on the driving range.

Step 1 is understanding what the ball needs to do, and how it will interact with the wind and the ground, and figuring out the shot that will make that happen. Step 2 is controlling the ball when making that shot.

[Jason Thurman]

Joel, I don't agree with that. Hitting balls on a driving range is a poor test of control, the same way that driving on a straight road is a poor test of control in an automobile. The things you list in Step 1 are all integral to exhibiting complete control over a ball, just like being able to adjust to road conditions, understand the limitations of your suspension, and maneuver through obstacles is integral to exhibiting complete control over a car. The reason great courses are great is that they ask players to exhibit control in unique ways that add sport, drama, and challenge to the game.

[Joe Hancock]

Jason,

That's why I dislike yardages, pin sheets and the like. They straighten the road too much, and takes away the advantage of the driver who adjusts to the road conditions.

Peter,

For the sake of getting more of your eloquent thoughts for the rest of us to benefit from, how does this idea pertain to someone who might be in more of a match play mentality? Any difference?(I have an opinion....)

Joe

[JLahrman]

Joel, I don't agree with that. Hitting balls on a driving range is a poor test of control, the same way that driving on a straight road is a poor test of control in an automobile. The things you list in Step 1 are all integral to exhibiting complete control over a ball, just like being able to adjust to road conditions, understand the limitations of your suspension, and maneuver through obstacles is integral to exhibiting complete control over a car. The reason great courses are great is that they ask players to exhibit control in unique ways that add sport, drama, and challenge to the game.

I don't mean to say that the test on the driving range would be simply to hit a ball to a specific spot on the range. It wouldn't have to be that simple. Rather than comparing it to driving on a straight road, compare it to driving on a test course or some sort of drivers' exam.

But if your definition of controlling the ball includes understanding the shot that needs to be hit and the spot that it needs to be hit to, then I don't disagree with you. My definition of controlling the ball was only including the execution of the shot I was trying to hit, regardless if it was the shot I should have hit.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I'm not sure where the desire to get better at golf is coming from. I mean, I do understand it for professionals, as it translates into money for them. But for most of us - why bother?

What would I personally gain by shooting, say, 80 instead of 85? Or even by improving a full ten shots to 75? I'd have a better handicap, I might do better in the club championship, but ultimately what do all those achievements really mean for me as a person?

No one (including me) will say that he would refuse to shave 5 strokes off his score - we all would take it. But why?

As long as we haven't understood that desire, it is kind of moot to speculate on course make-up to cater to it.

Ulrich

[jeffwarne]

Some practice more, some less, some very little (but still hope). But every golfer want to get better - some better/good enough just to beat their buddies at the muni, some in order compete in the club championship, and some to make a living at playing golf, on tour. And for all of them, getting getter boils down to one thing: i.e. being able to control their golf ball. Getting the ball to end up where you want it to end up is the surest way to putting the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes -- the primary goal/objective of the game (just as much as knocking down as many pins as possible is the goal in bowling).  And, whether in golf or bowling or archery or mountain climbing, there is nothing more satisfying and fun than achieving the activity's primary objective. So: if you have millions of golfers trying to get better, and if getting better means better controlling the golf ball, and if presumably the whole golfing industry (including architects) has an interest in satisfying its clientele, why would any golf course and its design and its maintenance practices try to do anything but reward the ability to control the golf ball in the most consistent and predictable way/degree possible?

Peter

Because a course that merely rewards the ability to control the ball in the most consistent way/degree possible will fail miserably in at least 3 major respects

1. It will not identify or test the skills and patiemce of the player who has an ability to shrug off an unpredictable or "bad" bounce or reward the player who can visualize and execute properly on a blind, awkward, or unpredictable shot.
2. It would suck because it wasn't fun
3. Players that suck would hate it because they would be tested "fairly" and they would fail because they suck

[David Harshbarger]

To Jason's point, a course should engage the mind, and the mind then the shot.  Rewarding the shot isn't sufficient if the mind is not first engaged.  Mystery, challenge, doubt, fear, greed, mastery: these are the feelings that engage the mind, and make architecture relevant.

[Sean_A]

why would any golf course and its design and its maintenance practices try to do anything but reward the ability to control the golf ball in the most consistent and predictable way/degree possible?

I focused on the maintenance aspect of this line.  Any design can eventually be maintained in a manner which enhances ball control.  In fact, we have seen many a links and heathland turned more into generic golf than the golf envisioned by their creators.  Indeed, it can be argued the history of design, maintenance and playing equipment is a gradual march toward providing consistent results which are easier to achieve.  To offset these "advances" the theory of "more" has been applied.  More yardage, more rough, more water, more bunkers, more speed on the greens and more money to maintain the more artificial conditions.   To that end, I can completely understand why owners/developers/archies/supers etc strive for such consistency and it absolutely must seem counter-intuitive for most folks to think in any other way.  Most golfers are simpatico with most equipment companies/archies/supers/owners/developers etc.  Its a win-win all round.  This thinking is so prevalent that golfers take special trips (sometimes paying small fortunes for the honour) to experience "less controlled" golf.  Its remarkable.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Golfers practice because......

1.  Practice improves performance, at least up to a point....
2.  Once you have reached that point, the concept of practice is so ingrained that you cannot stop, even though you never again improve
3.  It is a good excuse to get you away from the spouse and the sprogs
4.  They have nothing better to do with their life

[Jason Topp]

I started practicing a lot with young kids.  It is easier to sneak away for an hour rather than for four hours.  

I learned to really enjoy practice.  

Improving one's golf swing is extremely difficult beyond a certain point.  I find that challenge as interesting as trying to shoot a better score.

[Jud_T]

I'm taking the opposite tack.  I'm practicing less and I haven't gotten any worse.  I'd rather control my opponents mind than my own ball.  

[Steve Kline]

I prefer brain control. I release you.

[Jason Thurman]

I'm not sure where the desire to get better at golf is coming from. I mean, I do understand it for professionals, as it translates into money for them. But for most of us - why bother?

What would I personally gain by shooting, say, 80 instead of 85? Or even by improving a full ten shots to 75? I'd have a better handicap, I might do better in the club championship, but ultimately what do all those achievements really mean for me as a person?

No one (including me) will say that he would refuse to shave 5 strokes off his score - we all would take it. But why?

As long as we haven't understood that desire, it is kind of moot to speculate on course make-up to cater to it.

Ulrich

That's a pretty easy question to answer. Psychologists have determined that the most basic human desire is respect. It's more important to us than even sex, which explains why most of us pass on hookups with the ugly girl at the club when our buddies are around (the loss of respect isn't worth the gain of sex). If you play golf because you enjoy it, and you play it in the company of others or at a club, it's innate for most of us to desire to improve for the sake of gaining respect. How much importance we place on that improvement is just relative to how significantly we prioritize golf in our life.

Jeff, I get what you're saying, and I think a lot of people would say the same thing. But I don't see a course that rewards the ability to control the ball as automatically punishing the lack of ability to control the ball. Applying that to your three points:

1. It will not identify or test the skills and patiemce of the player who has an ability to shrug off an unpredictable or "bad" bounce or reward the player who can visualize and execute properly on a blind, awkward, or unpredictable shot. - Have you ever seen a player who ALWAYS controls the ball perfectly on every shot? Assuming the player eventually misses or misjudges a shot, he's likely to get that bad bounce. Honestly, if a guy plays so well that he literally NEVER misses, why should he get a bad bounce? He's the first person in history to master golf. This is like complaining that a guy who always smashes it down the middle of the fairway never has his recovery game tested.

2. It would suck because it wasn't fun - As I stated previously, I don't think any courses reward the ability to control the ball in the presence of myriad factors affecting the outcome of a shot better than links courses. I rarely hear people stereotype links golf as "sucky and not fun." Again, rewarding the ability to control the ball is NOT the same as always punishing a lack of control. Not every bad shot needs to end up dead. But when someone judges a shot well and executes it well, he should be rewarded for it.

3. Players that suck would hate it because they would be tested "fairly" and they would fail because they suck - Don't sucky players suck on every course? Why do we want to make the game a cakewalk for them? Doug Ralston doesn't play anymore, but when he did, he was probably the highest handicap on this site (I don't think he'd mind me saying that). He also loves many very difficult and intimidating courses. After all, if having shots penalized bothered him, he would've quit the game long before arthritis forced him out of it. As long as a weak player understands their limitations, they can usually tack their way around with enough control to succeed. It's when they start pushing their limitations (speaking as a former 35 handicapper myself) that they start losing control.

I also think part of control is mitigating risk. You can have a course that rewards control while still affording room for a wisely accounted for miss to stay easily playable. Courses like Tobacco Road and Pinehurst No. 2 do a great job of that. If you really want to score, you have to judge shots well and execute. But if you don't have exceptional control, you have plenty of room to avoid hazards as long as you pick your lines correctly and don't challenge hazards too recklessly. Of course, they also feature hazards that are generally escapable for the high handicapper while impacting score for the low handicapper, which also helps.

[Lou_Duran]

I practice because I want to get better than I am today, not some time long past.  It is not a matter of "controlling the ball", but of being able to get it in the hole in the fewest possible strokes; in effect, reducing the severity of my misses.  While the process is not unimportant, I am more results oriented.  Holding everything else equal, I'd rather flush my tee shot into the hole, but a hole-in-one is a hole-in-one.  I do enjoy practicing, and so long as I derive satisfaction from playing golf, I am likely to spend quite a bit of time on the range.

[Steve Kline]

Currently, I'm practicing because I took two years off and I'm trying to regain my form. Most of my practice is on the range because golf is more fun when I can keep the ball in play and work it from side to side. That allows me to make greater use of the course's architecture. Normally, I practice relatively little other than to maintain my rhythm and tempo. Now of this really lowers my scores but it makes golf more fun because I can play consistently. If I want to lower my scores, then I need to spend more time practicing chipping and putting.

[Michael Essig]

I would like to offer a little twist to this conversation.  It revolves around the word "practice."

I don't consider hitting golf balls at the range or spending an hour on a green "practicing."  I try and make it another aspect of the game of golf which I define as "hitting a ball with the clubs in my bag."  I am fortunate to typically be at the range with my son, when the first portion of our time is spent individually, and the second portion is spent playing a game - trying to spin range balls backwards, closest to the pin without hitting the green, closest to the pin with an extra two clubs for the distance, and endless games on the putting greens.  Playing these games has obvious benefits when I get on the course, but I try to not allow the word "practice" to enter my mind - I go and "play golf" for one hour at the range or on a green.

Words have an effect; I chose to use different words to describe what I do at the range to achieve the same end for my game.  "Practice" is work - I don't like work; I like to play.  Sometimes I play at the range, and sometimes I play on the course.  IMO, people should stop practicing and play more.  Golf should be fun, wherever you are hitting a ball with your clubs - even at the range.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()