Is one of the best talents an architect can have, relying on the mind of the low

[Patrick_Mucci]

golfing IQ of the golfer.
 
Since some were complaining about trucated titles, I thought I'd expand them to the max for those morons.
 
In watching the British Open I was struck by the visual presented by some of the hole locations.
 
Almost infinite in their wisdom, the best golfers in the world don't always play for the flagstick, choosing instead to aim to an alternate/preferred LZ on the green.
 
But, the visuals presented, especially with a front hole location, leads the golfer with a lower golfing IQ to try to squeeze their approach in between the flagstick and the front of the green, a shot that requires great precision and a controlled amount of spin, as many of those greens had false or sloping fronts.
 
The shot required to "squeeze" the approach between the flagstick and the front of the green requires a skill level not possessed by the great majority of golfers.
And, the risk/reward doesn't justify the attempt.
 
Instead, the play is to go long where the margins or error are so much greater and the risk, minimal.
 
Yet, golfers, almost all golfers, will almost universally try to squeeze that approach between the flagstick and the front of the green.
 
We're all guilty of it.
 
An architect once told me that less than 4-6 % of approach shots go long of the green.
 
Golfers rarely take enough club.
 
Ego, miscalculation and mis-hits result in the great majority of approach shots coming up short.
 
Add in a false or sloping front and the architect has successfully thwarted the golfer's attempt at par or birdie.
 
Donald Ross must have relied heavily on the golfer's short comings (pun intended)
 
Is the golfer's ego and golfer's low golfing IQ one of the architect's greatest design assets ?
 
Do architects comprehend and count on the inherent flaws in the golfer's mind when designing greens ?
 
Other than drainage, what purpose does a false or sloping front serve, other than to penalize the marginal shot ?

[Jon Cavalier]

Pat:

Interesting questions, and while I'm not sure I have the answers you're looking for, a thought did come to mind:

On the vast majority of inferior and/or run of the mill ordinary golf holes, it is generally better to miss short than long.

This could be due to the fact that the greens on many of these ordinary or inferior holes slope back to front to help the golfer hold the green, or simply because the architect paid scant attention to that part of the hole resulting in a recovery that is not accounted for by the design of the green complex.

Certainly, a well designed and balanced course should not encourage the same miss on every hole, and indeed, the courses that we hold in high esteem on these boards do not.

Perhaps the thinking architect recognizes that many golfers have been unwittingly or unknowingly adopted a habit of missing short and exploits this flaw to his advantage and his course's defense.

[cary lichtenstein]

The average golfer has no control, so they just "go for it" without regard to anything except for a water hazard

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,
 
Do you believe that the low golfing IQ golfer deliberately plays short ?
 
Or, is coming up short an unintended consequence ?

[Mike Schott]

The average golfer has no control, so they just "go for it" without regard to anything except for a water hazard

You have to define "average". Lets say a 17 handicap. That's what I was when I was playing a lot. I didn't always have control but I certainly could choose the side of the fairway I wanted off the tee and with a short iron in my hand I could aim to a certain side of the green. A 17 can also know the distances they can hit their clubs to within a reasonable deviation.

[Nigel Islam]

Pat, I think one of the most underutilized feature by architects in the US are greens that actually slope front to back. This can make missing short perilous.

[Jason Thurman]

My driver broke last week, and I'm waiting for a replacement shaft to arrive. I've beat my handicap on each of the four full nine-hole sides I've played without it, tying my best nine of the year on Sunday. I think that says something about my golfing IQ, and it's not good.


On the subject of Ross, 27 of those last 36 holes were on Ross courses, including a round at his course at French Lick. Before going out, the pro told me one key to the course was taking plenty of club on approaches, as most are uphill and the recoveries are often easier from behind the greens than in front. There are some holes where that's decidedly not the case, but if nothing else, it seems clear that Ross put great thought into how recoveries from short of greens should work. There are fewer features behind the greens at French Lick to make recoveries difficult, and the difficulty is generally just a function of your lie and the slope of the green. Shots that come up short, on the other hand, are subject to a far greater variation in types of lies and hazards that could affect the ball.


It strikes me that when Ross built French Lick, with all its uphill approaches and I&B and conditions that resulted in lower shots that ran more, perhaps he put all the thought he did into the areas short of greens because those areas affected the final 20 or 30 yards of everyone's shots, whether high IQ golfers or low. Approaches of the day had to navigate the pitfalls that Ross placed in front of the target, while today most of us just fly our good shots over them without a second thought. Still, the effort that Ross put into those final 30 yards of a hole keeps recoveries interesting even today given that so many shots come up short. It's just a shame in some ways to know that features that once would have gotten players' full attention even on well-struck approaches are rendered essentially irrelevant today until a player misjudges his distance or mishits his shot. Features that once provided excitement on both the approach and the recovery are now, for many players, really only exciting on the latter.

[J Sadowsky]

The average golfer has no control, so they just "go for it" without regard to anything except for a water hazard

Well, yes and no.  I'm also terrified of bunkers, any unkempt area where I'm unlikely to even find my ball, and giant fall-offs. 


More importantly (since there's almost always something terrifying me on every hole), I'm usually aiming for the middle of the green on any shot, although I'll generally try and get the distance "to the pin" unless I realize a reason not to.

[Jon Cavalier]

Jon,
 
Do you believe that the low golfing IQ golfer deliberately plays short ?
 
Or, is coming up short an unintended consequence ?

Pat:

I believe that when the low IQ golfer comes up short, it is unintended.

But to your point, I also believe that many "lesser" architects have allowed these golfers to get away with doing so, and thus encourage that golfer to continue not to think, by both failing to adequately penalize the short miss and failing to adequately incentivize the long (or other) miss. So these low IQ golfers get away with missing short, and have no reason to change that behavior.

As an example, on a local course I've played recently designed by an architect that this board does not hold in high esteem, there are two holes on the entire course on which any miss but short is preferred.

I think it is the rare and special architect that recognizes this issue and exploits it effectively to the benefit of strategic and interesting design.

[Nigel Islam]

My driver broke last week, and I'm waiting for a replacement shaft to arrive. I've beat my handicap on each of the four full nine-hole sides I've played without it, tying my best nine of the year on Sunday. I think that says something about my golfing IQ, and it's not good.


On the subject of Ross, 27 of those last 36 holes were on Ross courses, including a round at his course at French Lick. Before going out, the pro told me one key to the course was taking plenty of club on approaches, as most are uphill and the recoveries are often easier from behind the greens than in front. There are some holes where that's decidedly not the case, but if nothing else, it seems clear that Ross put great thought into how recoveries from short of greens should work. There are fewer features behind the greens at French Lick to make recoveries difficult, and the difficulty is generally just a function of your lie and the slope of the green. Shots that come up short, on the other hand, are subject to a far greater variation in types of lies and hazards that could affect the ball.


It strikes me that when Ross built French Lick, with all its uphill approaches and I&B and conditions that resulted in lower shots that ran more, perhaps he put all the thought he did into the areas short of greens because those areas affected the final 20 or 30 yards of everyone's shots, whether high IQ golfers or low. Approaches of the day had to navigate the pitfalls that Ross placed in front of the target, while today most of us just fly our good shots over them without a second thought. Still, the effort that Ross put into those final 30 yards of a hole keeps recoveries interesting even today given that so many shots come up short. It's just a shame in some ways to know that features that once would have gotten players' full attention even on well-struck approaches are rendered essentially irrelevant today until a player misjudges his distance or mishits his shot. Features that once provided excitement on both the approach and the recovery are now, for many players, really only exciting on the latter.

     Hmm, I am not sure I am buying the long is better than short argument at FL Ross. I know for sure I NEVER want to be long on 1, 2, 3, 8, or 18. I will agree that certain holes you have to cover the front of the green with #4 being one hole that if my playing abilities are up to it I want to cover that false front (The ball rolls 60 yards back under any conditions)
     I do think Jason makes a very valid point that because Ross actually spent some time on site there was a lot of thought that went into the course. This topic is actually very interesting hopefully it doesn't get ignored in favor of non architecture topics......

[Jason Topp]

This is one area where I believe the use of laser rangefinders hurt, rather than help, most of us.  It is difficult to resist trying to hit the ball the correct yardage when I should be hitting it to the middle of the green with more than a wedge in my hand.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:


P.T. Barnum was not a golf course architect, but perhaps, by your theory, he would have made a good one.


I disagree with your premise.  Yes, it's true that many courses have more trouble short than long.  [As Willie Sutton said, "that's where the money is."]  But what makes you think we are out to embarrass the golfers?  We are only presenting them puzzles to solve, and I for one am happy to reward them for correct answers.

[Chris DeToro]

I think this is a difficult generalization to make as low golfing IQ is likely highly correlated to playing ability thus entering greater influence of mis-hit shots, etc.  I think a false front can serve as an additional form of mental hazard for the player

[David Ober]

Pat, I think one of the most underutilized feature by architects in the US are greens that actually slope front to back. This can make missing short perilous.

Completely agree here. Some of my favorite holes are front to back slopers. Boy how they confound good players and mediocre players alike.

[Guy Nicholson]

"An architect once told me that less than 4-6 % of approach shots go long of the green. ... Golfers rarely take enough club."

Golfers usually miss short because they are attempting to hit a good shot and fail. That's not low IQ, it's aspiring to play good golf. What fun is the game if you routinely overclub and all your good strikes go over the back of the green?
Also, many mis-hits, especially off-line approaches and low-flying shots with the longer clubs, *would* finish long if they didn't get caught in a front-side bunker first.[/size]

It'd be great to see more front-to-back greens and incentives to play long, but I strongly suspect most mis-hits would still come up short. It's the physics of the game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think this is a difficult generalization to make as low golfing IQ is likely highly correlated to playing ability thus entering greater influence of mis-hit shots, etc.  I think a false front can serve as an additional form of mental hazard for the player

Chris,


A golfing IQ has little to do with your playing ability.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:


P.T. Barnum was not a golf course architect, but perhaps, by your theory, he would have made a good one.


I disagree with your premise. 


Tom,


No surprise there😜








Yes, it's true that many courses have more trouble short than long.  [As Willie Sutton said, "that's where the money is."] 


But what makes you think we are out to embarrass the golfers? 


Where did I state that you're "out to embarrass the golfer" ?


We are only presenting them puzzles to solve, and I for one am happy to reward them for correct answers.


That's part of my point, that the Low IQ golfer misses the clues and tactical signals that comprise your puzzle.

[Bill Brightly]

On my first play of TOC last August, I not only missed visual clues, I failed to heed the verbal instructions of my caddy. I wanted to hit a 7 iron to the pin on hole 3, he said "it won't hold, use a 9 iron and bounce it on." I said "OK" the grabbed my 8 iron because I "knew" my 9 would not run that far... My perfectly struck 8 iron landed on the steep upslope and rolled back off the green! I only did that one more time before I started to listen...

Talk about a low IQ golfer!

[Carl Rogers]

Chris,
A golfing IQ has little to do with your playing ability.

May I request a simple definition of the Low IQ Golfer?

[Chris DeToro]

I think this is a difficult generalization to make as low golfing IQ is likely highly correlated to playing ability thus entering greater influence of mis-hit shots, etc.  I think a false front can serve as an additional form of mental hazard for the player

Chris,


A golfing IQ has little to do with your playing ability.

Pat, please elaborate here--I'm struggling to see how the two don't go hand in hand.  I might be the smartest golfer in the world, but if I can't execute the shot, you would never know that

[SteveOgulukian]

Pat,

Aside from ego and mishits, I believe that another primary reason why approach shots fall short is because golfers prefer to hit a shorter club once they get to a certain distance.  For example, if I'm between a PW and GW, it makes no difference to me what club is in my hand.  However, if I am between a 7 iron and 6 iron, I am MUCH more comfortable with a 7 iron in my hands.  So even if I know I need to hit a 7 iron flush to get on the front of the green (and the pin is in the front) I will likely go for that club rather than a 6 iron where I am less confident.  In this case, it's not an ego thing.  I'll lie to my partners and tell them that I hit a 9 iron anyway 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,
A golfing IQ has little to do with your playing ability.

May I request a simple definition of the Low IQ Golfer?

Sure.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think this is a difficult generalization to make as low golfing IQ is likely highly correlated to playing ability thus entering greater influence of mis-hit shots, etc.  I think a false front can serve as an additional form of mental hazard for the player

Chris,

A golfing IQ has little to do with your playing ability.

Pat, please elaborate here--I'm struggling to see how the two don't go hand in hand.  I might be the smartest golfer in the world, but if I can't execute the shot, you would never know that

Yes you would.

One shot doesn't reflect one's golfing IQ.

For 50 years I've played with a high handicap golfer and he was one of the shrewdest golf course managers you could ever meet.

He knew how to tack his way around the course, maximizing his limited ability, resulting in the lowest possible scores given his lack of physical talent.
He knew how to play holes by avoiding trouble and by providing him the most favorable angles of attack.

On the other hand I know low handicap golfers who don't recognize the tactical signals sent to their eye by the architect's presentation of individual and collective features.
Low handicap golfers whose physical talents are considerable aren't automatically imbued with a high golfing IQ

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Aside from ego and mishits, I believe that another primary reason why approach shots fall short is because golfers prefer to hit a shorter club once they get to a certain distance.  For example, if I'm between a PW and GW, it makes no difference to me what club is in my hand.  However, if I am between a 7 iron and 6 iron, I am MUCH more comfortable with a 7 iron in my hands.  So even if I know I need to hit a 7 iron flush to get on the front of the green (and the pin is in the front) I will likely go for that club rather than a 6 iron where I am less confident.  In this case, it's not an ego thing.  I'll lie to my partners and tell them that I hit a 9 iron anyway 
[color=green

Steve,

I agree that the "comfort" factor, which I don't think is disconnected from the ego factor, has the golfer using the shorter club.

I think there's another factor, fear of going long.

In many cases the golfer can see what's short of the green, while what lies beyond the green is often hidden, and golfers tend to be afraid of the unknown.

But that plays into exactly what I'm saying about architecture at the green end.

When an architect creates a false front, ridge in the green or upslope short of the green the golfer will be disproportionally penalized for going short.

The majority of golfers, faced with a forward hole location, will try to squeeze their approach between the front of the green and the hole, and because most will be short of the green they'll pay a disproportionate penalty when the above features are present.

[jeffwarne]

The average golfer has no control, so they just "go for it" without regard to anything except for a water hazard

You have to define "average". Lets say a 17 handicap. That's what I was when I was playing a lot. I didn't always have control but I certainly could choose the side of the fairway I wanted off the tee and with a short iron in my hand I could aim to a certain side of the green. A 17 can also know the distances they can hit their clubs to within a reasonable deviation.

Mike,
You can choose which side of the fairway and green you want to hit and you're a 17 as well as control your distance within a reasonable deviation?
You must be the worst putter and chipper on record.
I don't say this to be snarky, but I would have a very difficult time giving a SHOT per HOLE to someone who can control their ball that way.
I say this because an average golfer's abilty has (or should have) a direct relationship to the type of course, strategies, and playability of holes an architect designs.-If you were an architect I fear your courses would be VERY demanding as you would expect even more from above "average" players.