[David_Tepper]

"It really is a shame that so many complaints that architects hear come from self-described low handicappers; they probably do pay most of the bills in the high-end golfing world, but are such crybabies when it comes to a course/hole/green showing them up as less the golfers than they'd like to believe. Mid and higher handicappers don't need our egos stroked or soothed, and love the demand for smart plays and two cracking good shots to a tricky green more than many architects realize."

Peter P. -

Sorry, but even as a mid-teen handicap for 35+ years, I simply do not accept your premise that mediocre golfers (like myself ) some how possess a greater understanding/appreciation/knowledge of golf course architecture than better players. I disagree with your characterization of better players as "crybabies" as well.

The reality is the vast majority of mid-teen handicaps are not able to execute their shots often enough to interact with the design of a golf hole consistently and in a meaningful way.

DT       

[Peter Pallotta]

JES - thanks; you continue to have an excellently concise way with words.


David - of course, no apologies necessary; I toss out ideas quite freely, in the thought that on rare occasions they might have some validity/resonance. To your point: you're right, but I think we can make a distinction between engaging with the architecture and *successfully* engaging with it. Most of the time I have to be content with the former, but it is the *possibility* of the latter on a hole like Foxy that provides the exhiliration.

[Thomas Dai]

Mid-hcppers, low-hcp 'crybabies' (ouch) and understanding architecture - what was Alister MacKenzies lowest hcp? Did Seve design any decent courses?
Atb

[George Pazin]

Once you reach a new level of skill, you never look at course challenges and architectural nuance the way you did when you had less skill. Those who remain lifelong mid/high handicap golfers, experience only a portion of the landscape.

This is a negative, not a positive. It's unfortunate you don't understand that.

[Sean_A]

JES - thanks; you continue to have an excellently concise way with words.


David - of course, no apologies necessary; I toss out ideas quite freely, in the thought that on rare occasions they might have some validity/resonance. To your point: you're right, but I think we can make a distinction between engaging with the architecture and *successfully* engaging with it. Most of the time I have to be content with the former, but it is the *possibility* of the latter on a hole like Foxy that provides the exhiliration.

I think Pietro is correct, but I would go further. We all engage with architecture on some level(s).  Even if we fail to engage with one shot, good architecture will provide for the next shot...the heart of golf is not in succeeding, but in trying after failing...and that success is different for us all depending on skill, ambition and execution.  Engaging with architecture is absolutely meaningful even when we are failing. 

Ciao

[Niall C]

"It really is a shame that so many complaints that architects hear come from self-described low handicappers; they probably do pay most of the bills in the high-end golfing world, but are such crybabies when it comes to a course/hole/green showing them up as less the golfers than they'd like to believe. Mid and higher handicappers don't need our egos stroked or soothed, and love the demand for smart plays and two cracking good shots to a tricky green more than many architects realize."

Peter P. -

Sorry, but even as a mid-teen handicap for 35+ years, I simply do not accept your premise that mediocre golfers (like myself ) some how possess a greater understanding/appreciation/knowledge of golf course architecture than better players. I disagree with your characterization of better players as "crybabies" as well.

The reality is the vast majority of mid-teen handicaps are not able to execute their shots often enough to interact with the design of a golf hole consistently and in a meaningful way.

DT     

David

I'd disagree with you to a small degree in that there is a difference between conceiving the golf shot and executing it as planned, and that is where most mid to high handicappers fall down. In that respect the mid to high guys do interact with the design of the hole as much as the low guys.

Niall

[Niall C]

I don't know if anybody has mentioned this, but all the convoluted, broken ground all the way down the length of the hole in the right rough is a big part of what makes this great hole.  The hole is long enough that it's hard to play an aerial shot to the green after most average tee shots.  This causes play to the left and brings the slopes into play.

I think Bill highlights by far the most interesting part of the hole. I might say the only interesting part for me. To me "Foxy" is yet another Dornoch hole with a plateau green. Apart from the fact it is non-standard and not fair (played as a par of 4), which are both plus points to an extent, I'm not sure it's that great. A bit of a hit and hope really. As Sean says, it would be better if they shortened the grass up the right.

Niall

[Ronald Montesano]

Why do you think they blame themselves? Are they aware of their shortcomings? Do they have more of those shortcomings than the low handicap golfers? If so, that makes sense and I agree with you. The low handicap golfer is justified in her/his anticipation of a proper result, on a more frequent basis. The low handicap golfer has practiced more, assesses conditions and elements better, and anticipates results more accurately. She/He is entitled to expectations, but as we know, those expectations and reality differ quite often.


In either case, if the self-blame or the other-blame goes beyond a momentary "Truck-Me" reaction, the golfer is a detriment to self and to others. I've seen HH and LH golfers alike react briefly (and I've not cared) and eternally (and I've given the side-eye and worse), so I don't believe that one can make a generalized pin of "type" on either golfer.


I hope that a comma was missing from your post, Jim, or else I have a new nickname.


Happy Holidays...RM

Funny Ron - a crybaby vents when things don't go their way...


20 handicap players tend to blame themselves while scratch handicaps tend to blame the course. Neither are correct but the published study you seek is 30 years experience.

[Ronald Montesano]

George, if you don't mind, I'm going to need some elaboration of your hypothesis. I'm a better student of architecture than I was when I was a 90s shooter. I cannot speak for others (although I tried above) so I'm always grateful for a well-reasoned contradiction of my erroneous fluff.


Unless, of course, you are agreeing with my premise that those whose access to a portion of the nuances of a golf course, is truncated. In that case, we good.


Which is it? Portion of nuances good, or portion of nuances bad?


Merry Christmas...RM

Once you reach a new level of skill, you never look at course challenges and architectural nuance the way you did when you had less skill. Those who remain lifelong mid/high handicap golfers, experience only a portion of the landscape.

This is a negative, not a positive. It's unfortunate you don't understand that.

[Ronald Montesano]

Let's take the approach shot to this hole that I haven't had the privilege to play, this Foxy.


It seems that a quite-small percentage of golfers can fly the ball to the green and hold it. If this is the case, then the play seems to be the run-up or the bounce-in. Am I correct so far? (God, I wish this were a Google Doc, so we could all comment simultaneously.)


Moving on, who is more likely to know this shot, among visiting golfers? I say, among visiting golfers, because members are disqualified. HH, MH, and LH golfers who are members will know how to play the proper shot it. This isn't a boulder and they are not Sisyphus (Sisyphi?)


Who is more likely to have practiced the proper shot, to the degree that she/he can properly execute it? Who is more likely to have developed the touch, the feel, to execute the proper shot repeatedly?


I'm sorry that this has jumped the thread into a technique focus, but as we know, architecture highlights technique and skill. If all golf holes were an upright washtub, there would be no architectural nuance and no skill/technique would be required.


I'd love to know more about the approach shot. My caveat would be, if you are wedge distance away, you had better be able to hold the green.


Happy New Year...RM

[Charlie_Bell]

Oddly enough, this very morning while lamenting the wet snowfall here in Northwestern Connecticut, I was contemplating beginning a thread on the greenside feature of #18 at Royal Dornoch.  Along the front of the green is a deep (2-3 foot) bathtub-style grassed-in gully which somehow must be navigated.  Hours before discovering this thread, I was wondering whether this feature would generally be regarded as clever, stupid, artificial, fun, annoying -- and whether one's opinion varied depending on one's ability.


Then I remembered that I can't post a picture because, well, I've always been technologically challenged by photo-posting on this site.


And then I discovered this thread, which leads me to the conclusion that a course which has such fascinating, discussion-worthy features surely deserves its special place in the world of golf course architecture.  Considering myself blessed to have played RDGC and to spend time on this site, I wish everyone a Happy New Year.

[JESII]

proper result

I think this is where you go off the rails...


I'm not trying to present as the masochist purist GCA'ers frequently are labeled, but you simply cannot look at a single shot and feel you deserve anything.


You are correct that low handicap players feel entitled to a just result...the problem is that they are still not good enough.


You said in this last post..."architecture highlights technique and skill"...I think I disagree completely but maybe I misunderstand. I've always thought architecture was there to challenge, or counter, skill and to reward proper strategy over time.


Probably no need to continue this line of conversation on this thread. Happy to rejoin it somewhere else...

[Jon Wiggett]

The high handicapper blames themselves, the low handicapper blames the course, the true GCA enthusiast watches their ball sail off into the deep rough and thinks how much better the hole could have been....

[George Pazin]

Funny Ron (using the new nickname ) -


Short answer, Sully nails it.


Long answer I gotta think about. Preview: I think most low handicappers forget what it was like to be a mid or high handicapper. They overly reward their own accomplishments while ignoring the successes of the lesser golfer. And they think the lesser golfer can't understand the struggles that they themselves face. Not all low handicappers, of course, but most. Not all mid or high's blame themselves either...


Happy New Year to you as well.

[Ronald Montesano]

I moved my kerfuffle over here: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,63986.0.html


Will any shots that run up the slope, stick on the slope on Foxy? If not, then how far past the bottom of the slope do they run? Can you put up the slope, or must it be a hybrid bump? How deep is the green? Are the majority of pin locations in the center, or do they also exist on the wings?


Going back to the tee shot, how much fairway does the angle off the tee remove? Does the fairway cant dramatically from one side to the other?

[David_Tepper]

Ronald -

Some answers to your questions:

1) Run-up shots will not stick on the slope. They will either reach the green surface or roll back down the slope to the fairway (except on the very right side of the green, where the grass is kept at rough height).
2) If they roll back down the slope, they might wind up back in the fairway 10' to 15' from the base of the slope.
3) You can putt up the slope, use a hybrid or some other club to chip with. From 20 to 50 yards away, I usually chip with a 7-iron.
4) The left half of the green is quite shallow. The right half of the green is much deeper.
5) The entire green is used for pin positions. When the pin is out on the left side of the green, I consider that to be a "sucker pin." Chipping or pitching directly at a left side pin runs the risk of having the ball roll off the green and down the slope behind it. 
6) I don't quite understand your "angle off the tee" question.
7) While the fairway is not canted, there are a number of little humps and pimples in the landing area that can misdirect a well hit tee shot.

It should be noted that the ridges/fingers of "broken ground" that protrude down the right side of the fairway block the view of the green from any tee shot in the fairway that winds up right of center. From the right side of the fairway all you can see is the top of the flagstick.   
   
DT

[Ronald Montesano]

Thanks for all that, David.


The fairway question was meant to extract information about whether the angle reduces the amount of fairway a tee ball can find. There might be portions of the left side of the fairway that are unreachable with a left-to-right or straight tee shot, given the slope/humps; only a right-to-left tee ball might find that portion of the fairway.


Does that make sense? If so, what does experience tell you?

[David_Tepper]

Ronald -

No, I don't think the angle of the fairway, which is really not that pronounced, reduces the landing area. So much depends on how far one carries the ball in the air, how firm the fairway is and which direction the wind is blowing. As I mentioned above, there are several humps & bumps in the fairway that can knock a ball of its intended line one it hits the ground.

DT

[David_Tepper]

Here is a pretty good aerial photo of the green & surrounds:

http://www.signaturespecialgolf.com/golfcourses/royal-dornoch-golf-club/

You can see how the right side of the green is guarded by the ridges protruding into the fairway and how much shallower the left side of the green is than the right side.

You can also see the "double hump" front & center of the green that can make a run-up shot a real challenge.     

[Thomas Dai]

The aerial photo linked by David highlights another fine feature of the green - that the lip at the top of the left hand bank is a wee bit higher than the general level of the green so great care/skill is needed to ensure that a shot played from the left side fairway along the ground and up the bank doesn't whizz past the pin at great speed.
Similarly, a shortish flop shot from the left side or even longer full shot from back down the fairway that lands just over the lip can easily bound forward.


Is this green perhaps, a bit like some at TOC, best 'missed' over the green rather than short or left or right (the days wind, pin position etc prior considered)?


A hole for one of Baldricks 'cunning plans'?


Atb

[David_Tepper]

"Is this green perhaps, a bit like some at TOC, best 'missed' over the green rather than short or left or right (the days wind, pin position etc prior considered)?"

Thomas D. -

Be aware that missing long on the left side of the green will move your ball down a slope requiring an uphill chip to get the ball back on the green. The drop off behind the right side of the green is much less.

Being pin-high in the rough right of the green could leave the easiest up & down, but you better make sure your 2nd shot down the right side carries those ridges and hollows in front of the green.

Pick your poison!

DT   

[David McIntosh]

Is this green perhaps, a bit like some at TOC, best 'missed' over the green rather than short or left or right (the days wind, pin position etc prior considered)?

Thomas,

Missing over the green may be the most difficult position to get up and down from on Foxy due to the lip at the back of the green being slightly higher than the front (as you noted).

It's even trickier if you end up in the hollow behind the green (that can be seen in the photo David linked) which is another foot or so below the level of the ground behind the green and the rough is pretty dense in there - well it certainly was on my most recent trip in September. I must have found at least 5 other balls after searching for a few minutes before I found my own ball, suggesting it's a popular place for approaches to end up.

I actually felt I hit a reasonable approach that was a hair thin which bounced once (possibly even twice) on the green before, I assume, hitting the downslope and shooting off into an horrendous lie in the thick stuff. The resultant hack out left me with little chance of moving the ball let alone getting on the green and I ran up a big number. That experience definitely influenced my approach the following day once I knew long was not the place to miss!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()