Has studying architecture improved your play?

[Rick Emerson]

Has studying architecture improved your play? If so how? I'd love to hear your thoughts?


I feel it has. First, in China I get to play a lot less. To satisfy my golf appetite I read golf books. It used to be I would read books on the golf swing. That would lead to swing thoughts while playing. If I start playing golf swing instead of Golf my golf game goes in the toilet. Now, I read about golf architecture. Now when I play Imam analyzing feature's to figure out the best place to hit my ball. This makes me target focused. This has allowed me to continue to play fairly close to my handicap despite less play.
Second, I feel studying architecture has helped my course management considerably. I'm excited to hear the thoughts of my fellow GCAers.

[Jason Topp]

I do not think it has helped at all.  I do have a better understanding of what an architect is trying to do on many holes but that understanding does not actually help you hit the shots.

[John Kavanaugh]

I recently played a simplistic course for the first time with my regular golf buds playing our regular game.  Many of the greensites were blind from the tee.  I had an advantage because it was obvious where the trouble was up at the green from the fairway bunker placement.  I have grown to hate the fairway bunker left, greenside bunker right design model but am not afraid to use it to my advantage.


Also if a course has gone under a recent renovation I know I can't reach the fairway bunkers from the back tees.  Amazing how wide a course becomes for a short hitter.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Helped my game in terms of standard...no
But...It has certainly made me appreciate what a wonderful game it is, irrespective of how I am playing.
My trip to Australia was a mixture of good, fair and downright crappy play but there wasnt a course that I didnt enjoy along the way, same said for my Bandon trip over July 4th which was more crap than anything.
I have learnt to seperate the results from the architectural delight and at this time in my golfing life enjoy the architecture trips more than the competitive trips.
The passion evoked by this years amazing number of top class courses played has certainly made me want to play better more so than in a long time, somewhat tired of being at great venues with less than stellar play.

[John Kavanaugh]

In the most simplistic terms don't you believe that if two golfers of equal ability play a redan for the first time the more educated golfer has an advantage?  If all this architecture crap is real the study of why and where has to benefit the golfer.


I was recently having a discussion with a retired Catholic Priest and he told me that those stories in the Bible really happened.  I always thought it was all a metaphor.  Kinda like a double digit handicap aiming for the left side of a fairway.  There is make believe and then there is make believe.  If knowing architecture isn't helping your game then it too must be make believe.

[Peter Pallotta]

About 700 years ago, Meister Eckhart wrote something like (poor paraphrase) "The blessings of God are made manifest in this: not in what we do, but in our awareness and openess to the leadings of God's Spirit." For years I've tended to believe that, while architectural understanding might improve my play, it actually won't because I'm not a good enough golfer to consistently hit the shots that my understanding suggests. But recently (and John's post reminded me of this), I've started to think that the real benefits of such understanding would come, and do in fact come, from a new attitude that such study engenders -- an attitude of openness to an fuller engagement/ interaction with the architect's intent. And that openness alone, that awareness, will pay dividends, perhaps not in ways that we can immediately recognize or even "keep score/track of" but that are true nonetheless, and increasingly so. But of course, believing this takes a little faith, the evidence of things unseen.
Peter

[Rick Emerson]

About 700 years ago, Meister Eckhart wrote something like (poor paraphrase) "The blessings of God are made manifest in this: not in what we do, but in our awareness and openess to the leadings of God's Spirit." For years I've tended to believe that, while architectural understanding might improve my play, it actually won't because I'm not a good enough golfer to consistently hit the shots that my understanding suggests. But recently (and John's post reminded me of this), I've started to think that the real benefits of such understanding would come, and do in fact come, from a new attitude that such study engenders -- an attitude of openness to an fuller engagement/ interaction with the architect's intent. And that openness alone, that awareness, will pay dividends, perhaps not in ways that we can immediately recognize or even "keep score/track of" but that are true nonetheless, and increasingly so. But of course, believing this takes a little faith, the evidence of things unseen.
Peter

PPallotta the theologian of golf architecture!
I agree. When I am focused on the architecture, surroundings, and company, instead of score, I have more fun. Having fun is definately why I play golf. This post just got decidedly more philosophical than I origionally intended.

[Joe Zucker]

I will say yes, tentatively.  Great architecture forces the player to think strategically and understand his limitations, in my opinion.  The placement of hazards, approach angles, and green contours force a golfer to make choices in how he will make his way around a course.  Pretty much any course forces a player to make these choices, some do it better than others obviously, but even on the most mundane course a player has to pick aiming points and choose a club to tee off from. 

Understanding the give and take, risk and reward, has helped my play because I am able to see what the architect is tempting me to do and what options I have available to me.  Hopefully, I have a better chance of making the smart decision if understand all available choices.  However, playing courses with great architecture has not been necessary for me to learn this.  While it may be nice to appreciate the genius of a great architect on a great course, the questions they ask of a player are similar to those of a lesser course, the questions are just asked in a better, more entertaining way.

[Tom_Doak]

PPallotta the theologian of golf architecture!
I agree. When I am focused on the architecture, surroundings, and company, instead of score, I have more fun. Having fun is definately why I play golf. This post just got decidedly more philosophical than I origionally intended.

I played a nine-hole course last week that I had never visited before, but just a look from the first tee had me really excited to play there.  The first three holes were exceptional, and for those three, I was so focused on the quality of the architecture that I hit every shot exactly as I intended ... looking at a bump in the fairway 240 yards away and driving it on top of the bump!  [What many would call in the zone.]


After the third hole I had to wait a minute for the group in front, and thought about the last time I'd been one under par through three.  I promptly lost focus and ruined my score.  Then I got back to it and made three good pars at the end.  I only took my camera out for the second loop, for fear of ruining a sublime experience.


I should mention, too, that I was playing by myself that morning, and not answering questions from other golfers about what I was seeing.  I don't have that opportunity all that often anymore.

[Michael Essig]

+1 to everyone's answers.
My answer would be the architectural knowledge increases the likelihood that you will be successful. 
For me, the knowledge enhances my ability to play the game, but that knowledge is dwarfed in importance by the skill to properly execute the shot (or read the putt).   

[Dan Herrmann]

I don't know if it helped my scoring, but it most definitely helped my appreciation and enjoyment of the game.

[Steve Lang]

   Definitely,


I never met a sucker pin I didn't like and there's so much more to appreciate synoptically after some gca study... and challenge or stay away from, your choice.

[herrstein]

What an excellent question!
I don't know.
It has definitely influenced how I think about a shot.
But maybe I would have been better off just aiming for the pin, or the center, or not thinking at all and just hitting whatever shot I felt like at the time.
It's too late for me now.

[Peter Pallotta]

I was having coffee with a friend today, a non golfer, and was telling him about finding some fine old persimmon woods and old blades and about selling my modern set of clubs, and just as I was going to make myself stop talking (since I assumed he had no clue or interest in golf, let alone retro golf) he nodded appreciatively and said: "Ah, it's like you're fly fishing with a bamboo rod instead of trolling with 30 pound test behind a motorboat".  It was lovely that he got it, but also in the context of this thread: that bump in the fairway that Tom focused on is like the little splash and ripple in the stream that suggests a trout is there, and Tom's subsequent drive is like using your hands and arms, working in harmony with the bamboo rod, to drop a little hand-tied fly right on that very spot. After that bit of blessed glory, who cares about the score -- and yet it's just then that the score takes care of itself.

Peter 

[Rick Emerson]

For me, the knowledge enhances my ability to play the game, but that knowledge is dwarfed in importance by the skill to properly execute the shot (or read the putt).

I think my knowledge of Architecture has helped my putting. Noticing where the green drains has helped me figure out fall lines on a green that to me looks and feels very flat.


Another question. Does anyone else feel like I do that thinking about architecture while on the course keeps them from disastrous swing thoughts. I really feel like good architecture forces me to be completely target focused which results in better shots. If I feel like all I have to do is hit the fairway I spray it all over the place.

[Brett Wiesley]

Great question and thread.  The answer is exactly why I love GCA.  It has improved my enjoyment immensely, and at times likely helped my score.  I think when I've played better, it is due to focusing on the architecture, where to hit etc., and not focusing on my score.  However, I have also played very poorly or distracted when out seeing a neat course - usually talking too much and not focusing on golf.  I keep evolving, and hope with this my score will matter less and less, and I will just enjoy the great walk, beauty and nature.  Overall, I really enjoy seeing the architecture and deception.  It makes you appreciate the shot you just hit a lot more than..."hit it there" kind of advice from other players or caddy.  Understanding why you "hit it there" brings me much more enjoyment.

[Eric Smith]

I'm not so sure. I don't have the scorecards here in front of me, but, I am somewhere around 37 over through three rounds at NGLA. Otherwise, level par, before I began studying the course.

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, the drop off in your play over the years might be caused by the study of NGLA architecture, but the problem might also be the gallons and gallons of hard liquor you've consumed over that time. You think?
Peter

[BHoover]

I don't think it has helped my game at all. If anything, I think it has hurt my game. Before I became interested in architecture, I just played the course. Now I tend to focus on things like the routing, placement of hazards, use of the land, green surrounds, turf grass conditions, etc. It doesn't help one's game to focus on those things instead of simply hitting the shots.

[Jerry Kluger]

It does make me realize how rare it is that a course plays the way I believe the architect thought it should play. 

[Dan Herrmann]

I should mention, too, that I was playing by myself that morning, and not answering questions from other golfers about what I was seeing.  I don't have that opportunity all that often anymore.

If you ever need a partner, I promise NOT to talk about GCA.   

This reminds me of a round I once played with Kelly Blake Moran.  Felt bad for KBM - another player spent a lot of time asking him about which trees he'd remove and if he'd relocate certain teeing grounds.  It was all meant well, but felt like asking a doctor for medical advice while you're out watching a hockey game

[cary lichtenstein]

No, you still must execute the shots.

[Paul Gray]

I don't think it has helped my game at all. If anything, I think it has hurt my game. Before I became interested in architecture, I just played the course. Now I tend to focus on things like the routing, placement of hazards, use of the land, green surrounds, turf grass conditions, etc. It doesn't help one's game to focus on those things instead of simply hitting the shots.

There's something in this. I believe it was MacKenzie who said the worst thing a golfer could possess was a vivid imagination.

[Rich Goodale]

I agree with Brian.  My game and my enjoyment of golf is enhanced by ignorance.  When I'm standing in the middle of the fairway and one of my playing companions tells me that the green is an homage to the Biarritz at Yale I want to puke and am very unlikely to hit the green..

[Matthew Sander]

Has studying architecture improved your play?

Hell no! If anything, hanging around with this motley crew has sent my game in the opposite direction, although there may be other factors at play. That said, I enjoy the entirety of the game so much more now, because I find this stuff so damn interesting. Most of my appreciation is theoretical, because my execution is too inconsistent to thoroughly interact with the architecture.


Call me crazy, but these days I get just as much satisfaction from seeing a unique green site as I do from sticking a 4-iron approach to 8 feet. That last statement may or may not be an outright lie...