Walking v Playing

[Jim_Coleman]

   Ask Tom Doak.  I suspect he hasn't played a large percentage of the courses in his book.  Maybe half?

[Tom_Doak]

   Ask Tom Doak.  I suspect he hasn't played a large percentage of the courses in his book.  Maybe half?

Jim:

Yes, maybe half.  And my percentage is going down ... I walked 12 courses last week but only played one of them.  I'd rather see more than play a few of them, which is what it really comes down to.

I do think I can get a very good idea of how a course will play by looking at the holes.  [And if I have any doubts, I can always just stand there and watch two or three groups play through to see what happens.]  Architects have to be able to do that; otherwise how would we know if the holes we were building were any good?  We can't see how they play until they are done.

I will agree with Josh's original post only to the extent that maybe HE can't get as good an idea of how the course plays unless he plays it.  Most golfers are only looking at their own situation, not at how it would have been different if they'd driven to the other side of the fairway.  Even when I do play, I spend more time observing how the rest of my foursome gets around the course, than worrying about my own ball.

[Peter Pallotta]

That reminds me of what film director Frank Capra once said - i.e. that his films started getting better when he realized that it wasn't important that the actors cried, but that the audience did. I guess the analogy would be: our understanding of golf architecture will improve only when we accept that it isn't what the course makes us feel that's important, it's how a group of golfers play it.

Peter

[David Davis]

I'm personally not interested to walk "outside" the ropes as a means of seeing a course. Not Augusta or any other course for that matter. Probably least of all Augusta.

I notice a few responses comparing actually walking a course to playing when actually Josh is talking about walking it outside the ropes.

I'd go with Tim and give the ticket to someone who really wants to go in that way.

I'd certainly walk a course, like Tom mentions doing and have done it a few times but I've always returned to play. To each their own but I'll see Augusta when I play it.

[George Pazin]

I'm personally not interested to walk "outside" the ropes as a means of seeing a course. Not Augusta or any other course for that matter. Probably least of all Augusta.

I notice a few responses comparing actually walking a course to playing when actually Josh is talking about walking it outside the ropes.

I'd go with Tim and give the ticket to someone who really wants to go in that way.

I'd certainly walk a course, like Tom mentions doing and have done it a few times but I've always returned to play. To each their own but I'll see Augusta when I play it.

Interesting take.

I'm almost the exact opposite. I can't imagine turning down an opportunity to walk a special course, assuming I could afford the time and effort to get there. Walking it would be almost as good as playing it for me, but then the playing the game doesn't seem to hold as much interest to me as almost everyone else on here. The cynics will claim it's because of my relatively poor playing ability, but really, even if I were a single digit player, the difference between playing and walking wouldn't matter to me.

I've been to Monterey twice in my life (actually three times, but the first is prior to my memories...). I walked Pebble both times and, while I certainly would have loved to have played it, never once regretted walking it.

The game is mostly about the walk for me - ironic, given my feelings about Golf In The Kingdom. If I could walk it with a good friend, wow, that's almost the same as playing it, for me.

[David Davis]

Interesting take.

I'm almost the exact opposite. I can't imagine turning down an opportunity to walk a special course, assuming I could afford the time and effort to get there. Walking it would be almost as good as playing it for me, but then the playing the game doesn't seem to hold as much interest to me as almost everyone else on here. The cynics will claim it's because of my relatively poor playing ability, but really, even if I were a single digit player, the difference between playing and walking wouldn't matter to me.

I've been to Monterey twice in my life (actually three times, but the first is prior to my memories...). I walked Pebble both times and, while I certainly would have loved to have played it, never once regretted walking it.

The game is mostly about the walk for me - ironic, given my feelings about Golf In The Kingdom. If I could walk it with a good friend, wow, that's almost the same as playing it, for me.

George,

My point was not that I wouldn't walk a course. It's that I wouldn't want to walk "outside" the ropes. To me that's just not walking the course. I've walked several courses as mentioned and I enjoy it though certainly not as much as playing I'll admit.

I had a really unique experience a couple years ago and had the opportunity to walk inside the ropes at the Dutch Open. I walked with some great players, right there with them in the course during the event and listened to their discussions. If I had the chance to do that again I'd jump on it, especially at Augusta. ;-)

[Josh Stevens]

I'm told that at the recent Asian Amateur at RM, there were no ropes, and the so the galleries were permitted to wander about the fairways and stand directly behind the players.  That is a very different way to play golf and I would certainly like to see Augusta in that way as I am sure it would present itself very differently to the eye than from off to the side

[Craig Sweet]

I will be happy to take that ticket. You can get in touch with me via GCA and I will get you mailing instructions. Thanks in advance.

[James Brown]

   Ask Tom Doak.  I suspect he hasn't played a large percentage of the courses in his book.  Maybe half?

Jim:

Yes, maybe half.  And my percentage is going down ... I walked 12 courses last week but only played one of them.  I'd rather see more than play a few of them, which is what it really comes down to.

I do think I can get a very good idea of how a course will play by looking at the holes.  [And if I have any doubts, I can always just stand there and watch two or three groups play through to see what happens.]  Architects have to be able to do that; otherwise how would we know if the holes we were building were any good?  We can't see how they play until they are done.

I will agree with Josh's original post only to the extent that maybe HE can't get as good an idea of how the course plays unless he plays it.  Most golfers are only looking at their own situation, not at how it would have been different if they'd driven to the other side of the fairway.  Even when I do play, I spend more time observing how the rest of my foursome gets around the course, than worrying about my own ball.

For me, I have minimal interest I walking a course vs, playing it.  In 2000, I walked Pebblle with Vijay Singh and his caddie I a practice round for the Crosby and it was still nothing compared to finally playing the course 10 years later.  But I would consider myself a pure "player" rather than a super serious student of architecture.  If I had the chance of seeing some of the great super private course like PV and ANGC, then I would definitely take the chance. 

There is no substitute to playing the course.