Does wanting to play well make you appreciate golf course design more?

[Tim Gallant]

Reading Ian's thread I started thinking how keeping score for me usually means I appreciate the design just a little bit more than if I'm not. I don't think the score itself particularly matters but if one steps to the tee wanting to get the best possible score, he/she will then make a strategic decision and try to execute. Fair enough, as the player not really worried about a score will step to the tee and make a strategic decision as well (I'm going to try to clear that bunker on the right by swinging as hard as I can).


Where the two differ, in my opinion, is if the player keeping a score gets to the spot where he intended to hit his shot and realises it was in fact, not the best position to be in, he/she will not only take a mental note of where the best place to be is (and thus appreciate the deception of the hole) and then try to correct with another strategic decision. Whereas the player without the scorecard, will view his shot with ambivalence because he/she isn't keeping score and therefore will take the do or die shot on and continue in this way.


Therefore, I hypothesise that keeping score in some form (mentally or written) and trying to play well against one's handicap will make one appreciate golf course design more.


Agree/disagree?

[James Brown]

Reading Ian's thread I started thinking how keeping score for me usually means I appreciate the design just a little bit more than if I'm not. I don't think the score itself particularly matters but if one steps to the tee wanting to get the best possible score, he/she will then make a strategic decision and try to execute. Fair enough, as the player not really worried about a score will step to the tee and make a strategic decision as well (I'm going to try to clear that bunker on the right by swinging as hard as I can).


Where the two differ, in my opinion, is if the player keeping a score gets to the spot where he intended to hit his shot and realises it was in fact, not the best position to be in, he/she will not only take a mental note of where the best place to be is (and thus appreciate the deception of the hole) and then try to correct with another strategic decision. Whereas the player without the scorecard, will view his shot with ambivalence because he/she isn't keeping score and therefore will take the do or die shot on and continue in this way.


Therefore, I hypothesise that keeping score in some form (mentally or written) and trying to play well against one's handicap will make one appreciate golf course design more.


Agree/disagree?

Agree. 


But I do not really understand the concept of "not keeping score."  Even if you do that, you still know how you are playing.


That aside, it's clear the more you want to play well and learn how to do that the more you pay attention to where you are playing from.


As Shiva Irons says, every shot is an exercise in relativity. 

[Paul Jones]

Tim,


I always find that options off the tee make an exciting hole, especially in match play.  If I am not playing for anything, then I do find myself going through the motions at times and just visiting with friends.  However, when we play for money or who buy drinks, then my game steps up as I do pay attention to the hole and my game.

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


I always find that options off the tee make an exciting hole, especially in match play.  If I am not playing for anything, then I do find myself going through the motions at times and just visiting with friends.  However, when we play for money or who buy drinks, then my game steps up as I do pay attention to the hole and my game.

Paul,

That was spurred me on to write the OP. I was thinking about a few games where I wasn't too worried about my score, but rather was just enjoying the setting / companionship, which was great, but I didn't feel like I learned anything new about the course, or even consider what the challenge/strategy was on a given hole. Not saying everyone needs to consider course design every time he/she plays, but that if one did want to appreciate the design, that it is better served with a scorecard in hand, or as you put it, with something at stake.


Looking at all the Top 100 posts that are circulating at the moment as well as questions about rating/raters, does this hypothesis not run true? Should raters be keeping score / have a match to ensure they appreciate the course design more than they would if they are just there for a hit and a look around? By this point, could you extend the original supposition even further to say that playing for a score will give one a better appreciation for the course design and challenge more so than if one is just walking the property?

[Michael Moore]

This is backwards - especially off the tee, a great course makes you want to play great.

[Thomas Dai]

An alternative "this is backwards" - appreciating golf course design helps you play/score better.
atb

[Scott Warren]

Agree with you Tim.


The strategic decisions need to have consequences or else the balance  doesn't work.


Temptation relies on the possibility of failure and all it involves.


If there is no consequence to failing to execute a low-percentage play, why not take on every shot?

[David Wuthrich]

It matters not to me what I shoot.


I hit numerous shots from different areas to see how the course plays for everyone.


There is a time and place to count your shots and play your best, but I just don't choose to do that when I am out looking at golf courses from an architectural standpoint. 


Everyone is different, that is what is great about this sport!

[Steve Lang]

   Tim,


I started to look into gc design and architecture a long time ago to score better by better understanding what I was seeing on the ground and maneuvering around, through or over it...  individual rounds of play and scores only reinforced successful approaches after the fact, be they for fun or competition.  Appreciation is for relaxation time post-round, not while grinding.

[David Davis]

Therefore, I hypothesise that keeping score in some form (mentally or written) and trying to play well against one's handicap will make one appreciate golf course design more.


Agree/disagree?

I'm thinking I disagree based on the following premise. A lot of good and great players go out to play well and keep their score every time they play, they know that course management is what will get them there. This differentiates from having a clue or giving a darn about GCA as they will hit the club off the tee that keeps the danger in front or behind them, lay up to their most comfortable length, hit their approach to the safe side of the pin etc etc. Good course management allows them to do this, not matter the course or the architecture so while your statement could be true for 1500 guys on this site into architecture it's not true for everyone.


Personally, I think I would agree with that myself. It's rare I will play around without some kind of focus, whether it's on architecture or scoring, i.e. just out for a chat and a hit. I need to be out for a chat, a match or serious study or a combination of all of the above or I kind of feel like I'm wasting my time a bit.

[Sean_A]

I prefer to play for something when golfing, but I don't think I appreciate architecture more for it...I enjoy the game more. Its the same for playing well...I don't better appreciate the architecture, I enjoy the game more.  A large percentage of what I notice about architecture is from watching others and hitting shots from poor positions.

Ciao

[BCrosby]

The strategic decisions need to have consequences or else the balance  doesn't work.

Temptation relies on the possibility of failure and all it involves.

If there is no consequence to failing to execute a low-percentage play, why not take on every shot?

Yep.


Bob

[Tim Gallant]

This is backwards - especially off the tee, a great course makes you want to play great.

I suppose it's situational, but I have played a few great courses and never was my intention to play great. I've never stepped onto a tee box and thought 'this is a great hole, I need to play it well!' If that is the thinking, what happens when a course has a few great holes, and a few ehhh holes? Do I not play great golf because the hole isn't great? I believe that if you go in trying to play to your handicap, you'll appreciate the design moreso than if you are just out for a stroll - irrespective of the quality of the hole/course.

[Tim Gallant]

It matters not to me what I shoot.


I hit numerous shots from different areas to see how the course plays for everyone.


There is a time and place to count your shots and play your best, but I just don't choose to do that when I am out looking at golf courses from an architectural standpoint. 


Everyone is different, that is what is great about this sport!

David,


I REALLY want to believe you do this...but in 20 years of playing golf, I have never seen anyone throw down multiple shots on each hole. It's not practical. Sure, you might roll a few extra putts towards other areas of the green, but that's it. Do you really walk to the other side of the fairway or other side of the green and hit other shots? If so, what courses are you doing this on? Public courses? Private courses? In the am or pm? I just can't fathom a case where I would do this outside my own course. And even then, I'm not likely to do it often as I have played it so many times that I know the strategy.


If you do actually do this, then good on you. I tip my cap. 

[Tim Gallant]

  Tim,


I started to look into gc design and architecture a long time ago to score better by better understanding what I was seeing on the ground and maneuvering around, through or over it...  individual rounds of play and scores only reinforced successful approaches after the fact, be they for fun or competition.  Appreciation is for relaxation time post-round, not while grinding.

Agreed. I suppose I was coming at it more from the perspective of: you're playing a course one time (either as a guest or visitor) and are trying to appreciate the design of the course.

[Tim Gallant]

Therefore, I hypothesise that keeping score in some form (mentally or written) and trying to play well against one's handicap will make one appreciate golf course design more.


Agree/disagree?

I'm thinking I disagree based on the following premise. A lot of good and great players go out to play well and keep their score every time they play, they know that course management is what will get them there. This differentiates from having a clue or giving a darn about GCA as they will hit the club off the tee that keeps the danger in front or behind them, lay up to their most comfortable length, hit their approach to the safe side of the pin etc etc. Good course management allows them to do this, not matter the course or the architecture so while your statement could be true for 1500 guys on this site into architecture it's not true for everyone.


Personally, I think I would agree with that myself. It's rare I will play around without some kind of focus, whether it's on architecture or scoring, i.e. just out for a chat and a hit. I need to be out for a chat, a match or serious study or a combination of all of the above or I kind of feel like I'm wasting my time a bit.

David,


Interesting take. I would argue the opposite for the good player described in your first paragraph! Take Dustin Johnson for example. He will be worrying about course management for sure, but the decisions he is making are all strategic and in some way point towards the design of the course. He may not think about the course design at the end, but it doesn't mean the process of good course management that he is using to shoot lower scores isn't the best way to appreciate course design.

[Joe Zucker]

David and Tim,


I have been think about both sides of the coin you are debating for the last day or two.  Playing for a score often results in conservative play for top players, so the player might not see the complexity of a course if played in this fashion.  However on the other side, if a good player is making decisions to play the course this way, they have to be appreciating the course design by definition.


Just as it is not possible to understand a course in one play, it's probably not ideal to learn a course by playing it the exact same way every time (this is not a conscious choice for the average hacker).  If Dustin Johnson plays the course to score his best one day (conservatively) then goes out the next day trying to shoot 63 (aggressively) he is definitely going to see different features because he will probably be in a lot more trouble spots on day 2.


Playing conservatively for a score might push the player to see the angles and the macro strategy of a course, but I think he will be less likely to see the interest and challenge of good greens if he plays to the fat side all the time.  For example, a day of good strategy and perfect ball striking where you hit it 30 feet from every pin might leave you underwhelmed at a place like Pinehurst #2.  If you come back the next day and miss 18 greens, the difficult runoffs will stand out quite a bit more.

[Frank M]

I don't take score, and topically, my answer to the OP's question is disagree...I don't appreciate the architecture of a golf course any less.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:


Low handicap player, are you?


I don't agree with your point.  People are different and it troubles me when they think everyone should think like they do.


If you need to focus on your score so your mind doesn't wander from the design, that's fine.  Like Sean, I get more out of watching others' approach shots and how their different angles and trajectories play out.  And if you have three other golfers to play with, that's a lot better data set than just concentrating on your own score.

[Peter Pallotta]

This is backwards - especially off the tee, a great course makes you want to play great.

I think this is right.
Thinking of the few fine course I've played, they all encouraged me to pay attention.
And that reaction/response was instinctual and immediate.   
From the first tee, all the elements of design & maintenance indicated that full attention/engagement would be rewarded.
I didn't necessarily score better, but I did play better.
I think that may be the best thing about top-flight architecture, i.e. that it provides the forum to genuinely participate (and lose yourself) in a positive and enriching experience.
Peter 

[Thomas Dai]

Looking at holes/greens that you have to play later on in the round is a pretty simple way of gaining information to help you play/score well.
Almost by accident it also shows you aspects of architecture/construction that you might otherwise not notice or appreciate and after a while this approach to gathering information and the information itself gets into the subconscious.
Atb

[Jerry Kluger]

Some courses and architects give you a chance to play or score better if you understand their designs, i.e. Doak, C & C, Hanse, etc.  While others don't give you very much in the way of options, i.e., Rees Jones, Arthur Hills, Nicklaus - although he does have some exceptions, etc.  I can remember playing at Yeamans Hall with some very good players and they absolutely hated the course because they didn't understand that you cannot always just aim at the flag and expect to score well.  Pete Dye is sort of a hybrid where there can be some really quirky holes/shots which aren't necessarily something that you can understand and use them when deciding on the type of shot you
want to hit.

[Tim Gallant]

I don't take score, and topically, my answer to the OP's question is disagree...I don't appreciate the architecture of a golf course any less.

When it comes to the game itself I think I see it a little different from most. Each swing is my score so to speak. I've always been much more concerned with hitting each of my shots absolutely perfect than any notion of what I score overall or par itself. My definition of perfect is not only hitting the ball flush, getting the shot shape I have in my mind, etc., but also includes the ball finishing where I want it to finish. 

That's how I see the game.

When it comes to golf course architecture, I actually think taking score and being concerned with your game is a hindrance and that the two are somewhat mutually exclusive.

My view is that anyone overly concerned with his/her game automatically restricts their analysis of a golf course to how they play golf and the options and strategies available to them and only them. It's very one dimensional and a limited view of the playing ground that is before you.

I believe that to truly appreciate golf course architecture the opposite of what the OP describes would be required and someone too concerned with their score will actually be less inclined to appreciate the architecture. Rather, I'd say, one needs to take the position of self and the other/s and keeping score/wanting to play well is incongruent with that.

Frank,

  I believe your statement of 'Each swing is my score so to speak.' is in line with my OP. It isn't that I am saying that you have to play well to appreciate design, but that you should be playing for something - ie. against your handicap, a friendly nassau, that desire to hit one more perfect shot than you hit before. The scoring part is irrelevant - it's the mindframe of having a goal that I believe helps to see the best of the course design.


'My view is that anyone overly concerned with his/her game automatically restricts their analysis of a golf course to how they play golf and the options and strategies available to them and only them.'


On the above statement, I'm not advocating that how you play has any bearing on how you assess a course. Quite the opposite, it is the WHY that matters. Being interested in why one didn't 'score' well relative to his/her definition of 'scoring' is what will gain greater appreciation for design. Without a benchmark, personally, I then lose focus on the why. 

[Jason Topp]

It can go either way with me. 


In stroke play - my best strategy is usually to be conservative.  At my level, a bogey is usually a fine score - it is the doubles and more that kill me.  I pay very little attention to architecture other than to identify risks that can lead to a big number and avoiding them.


In a normal round or a match - decisions are more interesting.


Some days, I just want to hit aggressive shots and knowingly take on the risks for the fun of it.


However, in my experience, the biggest limitation on people's ability to evaluate golf courses is a tunnel vision based on their own game.  Focusing on score exacerbates that tendency. 


For example, guys that hit it longer than I do complain endlessly about a particular fairway bunker on my course.  They believe it is too severe for the 175 yard approach shot they need to hit on an already difficult hole.  I like it because it forces the longer hitter to be accurate rather than just blast it past a bunker on the right side that threatens my tee shot.  However, I cannot reach that bunker so my tunnel vision interferes with my ability to analyze whether the bunker is good or bad.


On the other side, I think I dislike a bunker 50 yards short and left of our first hole - a 425 yard downhill par 4.  After a poor tee shot, a tee shot in the rough or into a strong wind, I used to be able to use a hill short and left of the green to run the ball into an easy chipping spot.  That option is now significantly more difficult.  Good players hardly notice the bunker exists.  It is not relevant to a short or mid-iron approach. 


One of the most educational experiences I have had is unexpectedly spending 5 days at Bandon Dunes solo (I had a trial end early).  I played with a wide variety of golfers and saw them encounter difficulties I would never have noticed had I played with a regular group.  Perhaps even more interesting was the wide variety of attitude approaches to the game - from people who relished the challenge, to experienced and somewhat scarred golfers to people who seemed determined to make themselves miserable. 


So - overall - I would say focusing on score interferes with the appreciation of design more than it helps.

[Tim Gallant]

Tim:


Low handicap player, are you?


I don't agree with your point.  People are different and it troubles me when they think everyone should think like they do.


If you need to focus on your score so your mind doesn't wander from the design, that's fine.  Like Sean, I get more out of watching others' approach shots and how their different angles and trajectories play out.  And if you have three other golfers to play with, that's a lot better data set than just concentrating on your own score.

      Tom,
 
Thank you for taking the time to post. I am actually a very average player indeed! In fact, I believe I play off a very similar handicap to that of Mr. Mackenzie (maybe the only similarity between us!).
 
I’ve thought overnight and this morning about your’s and Sean’s statements about watching others to understand angles and trajectory. In theory this works, and you are right. To give an example, I played recently at my home course with a +3 handicap. He relied on me a lot for lines, and I sometimes put him in the wrong spots because I underestimated his ability. For example, he almost drove it into a bunker 40 yards short of a green (on a par4) that most are trying to clear for their second! It was a joy to watch, and made me appreciate bunker placement more because some bunkers had double impact – well positioned for the average player to challenge on a second or third shot, but also well placed to challenge a tee ball / second shot for the better player. In this respect, I do believe this could be a superior way to appreciating design.
 
However, two issues I have with the theory above. 1. It supposes that you are playing with others. For your confidential guide, I am guessing there are times when you play by yourself, or with others who are a similar handicap? In this case, how do you try to maximise the appreciation for the design of the course?
 
2. And this point may be controversial J But if I am trying to appreciate the design of a course, certainly I can speculate as to how it will play for others by watching them play, but I will never know their thoughts to playing the course as well as my own. For example, if I am watching my +3 buddy play a course, I still don’t know if he is having a good day/ a bad day; if he is taking on a 1-100 shot or a routine standard shot, etc, etc. If he lands in a bunker, I can speculate at weather the bunker is well placed, but it may be that he hit an abnormally bad shot, and therefore, it actually wouldn’t challenge most players of his ability. My point being that I would rather contribute my thoughts on a course design from the perspective of someone who was my ability, and would rather the +3 and 20 handicaps give their thoughts on course design from their perspective. That is why I discredit the Golf Digest rankings. A good golfer who plays with me can watch and make observations about how the course plays for a 10 handicap, and may be right. But he/she won’t be more right than I will…because I am the 10 handicap! I would speculate that this is close to the reason why architects like Pete Dye work(s)ed with pros like Jack Nicklaus.
 
All that said, I do believe that there are those who have an eye for this sort of thing, and imagine that a lot of those who learn the most from observational data will be right here on GCA. I just don’t think that 99% of us have that ability…yet! Maybe it is learned. I will certainly try to pay more attention to my partner’s games as a result – especially when I am playing a new course.