[Tim Gallant]

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

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

Agreed!


On your other points, I don't think I necessarily agree. Before I get to the course (and it doesn't matter if it's a Doak 2 or a Doak 10) I always want to play well relative to my ability. I don't step onto a tee box and want to play better. I may just be more inspired by the design and therefore appreciate the course more.

[Tim Gallant]

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.

Good point. So is it better to appreciate design through observation when there are more options available - thus seeing how the different handicaps tackle the course? On a course where there are fewer options, do you need to observe others to know that they are going to get penalised if they miss their one route to the hole?

[Tim Gallant]

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.

Jason,


Thanks for posting! Your story at Bandon reminded me of when someone on GCA said they sat at the Dell hole at Lahinch and watched groups play. That certainly would seem like a good way to see how the hole plays for a variety of players.


A couple more points on playing for a 'score' vs. observation:


- One may go to the Crump Cup and can see first hand how difficult PV would be, but in my mind, nothing will substitute standing on the 5th tee and seeing exactly what the task is.


- I do think that often players can get into a tunnel vision mentality when they play and that does obscure their ability to see bunkers/hazards/lines that impact players of different abilities. However, I think this is potentially offset by the focus that you would put on your own shot. By focusing on the task at hand and computing the percentage shot vs. the risk/reward route, you are mentally mapping out the main challenge of the hole. If we take the 10th at Riv - By trying to play that hole well, I know what the main challenges are (bunkering, green angle/slope) regardless of the handicap. Sure, I may not truly appreciate the value of the trees far left that make the scratch player think twice, but I could make a guess.


All that said, I do believe that wanting to play well in some capacity (ambiguous at the moment) can lead to better appreciation. Wanting to play well, but also picking your head up to watch others, seems like the ultimate

[Gary_Nelson]

Tim,


I recently played with a low handicap player who wanted to play well, and he DISLIKED the golf course design elements that many of the GCA folks appreciate.  He was a big hitter with the ability to play to the correct side of the fairway to set up the approach.   However, he didn't want to hear that it was his fault for approaching from the wrong side...and the added difficulty of the approach shot.   He didn't like the disproportionate penalty for missing the green by a little... versus missing by a lot (and the easier recovery).   


He wanted a "fair" golf course.   One where you could hold the fairways and hold the greens.  No "rub of the green" bounces into the fairway rough or into a green-side bunker.



When asked if he liked playing links courses in Scotland, his answer was "no".


I know this is a small sample size, and I know that most of the other members in the club are enthusiastic with the added complexity of our newly renovated course.   But it seems that this person who wanted to play well did NOT appreciate golf course design more.   It was quite the opposite.

[JESII]

There is certainly a stereotype, a stigma, of good players that they just want things fair so their skill is recognized and rewarded.


I'm not going to dispute that stereotype other than to say that person needs to have IT explained to them.


Once they get it, it is my belief that their interest and focus on using the courses features to shoot a better score will help them appreciate the architecture more.

[Gary_Nelson]

Jim,


There has been no shortage of explanations to this person...from fellow members and the golf architect.   He just doesn't like it and doesn't want to "get it".

Fortunately, there are plenty of other happy members that love it and appreciate it.   

My concern, however, is that a small and vocal faction within the club will want to "fix" things. 

[BCowan]

Jim,


There has been no shortage of explanations to this person...from fellow members and the golf architect.   He just doesn't like it and doesn't want to "get it".

Fortunately, there are plenty of other happy members that love it and appreciate it.   

My concern, however, is that a small and vocal faction within the club will want to "fix" things. 

Gary,

   There is no shortage of Woodlands/Arboretums in our Area.  You need to explain to them they have options 

[Charles Lund]

This is a bit of an aside but it relates to the good player who doesn't appreciate golf course architecture, is invested in his score as a measure of worth, and probably doesn't derive the same range of benefits from the game as others.


Gio Valiante in Golf Flow talks about players who embrace the struggle of the game and the inherent difficulty and enjoy the process versus players who define their worth in terms of scoring and achievement.  I consider myself fortunate to be in the former rather than the latter group.


Many people can aspire to play well, work on fundamentals, and start doing things better that can help them personally experience aspects of playing courses more along the lines of how they were designed and built.  A 14 handicapper with an interest in golf architecture can work on things in practice like alignment, pre-shot routine, and things like that which might allow them to be out of position less and spend less time looking for balls etc.  The experience of playing a hole from a a good position can help someone appreciate aspects of design that are important.  On the other hand, the same player will be out of position enough to experience the inherent challenges of managing on the course from less desirable lines of play.


So I think the desire to play better can lead to appreciating course design more if the person can make some progress in small ways that enhance the playing experience.  I also think that understanding more of course design can get a person's expectations more in line with what happens when a player hits a less than stellar shot.  Learning more about course design probably helps all players in orienting themselves to how they try to play a hole.  I was on a recent trip and followed my usual practice of getting yardage guides for each new course I play.  The courses I was playing had particularly good yardage guides and they had some good landmarks and cues to assist with direction of play.  I've traveled and had good caddies at quite a few courses I was going to play only once to twice and early on, the process of engaging with a caddie helped me learn about the importance of trying to play a hole in a manner that assists with scoring.  There is a lot to be said for seeing a hole in a way that minimizes the ambiguity of what is out there and helps with picking a good target.


So I think wanting to play well can help appreciate course design more and appreciating course design can assist with having experiences of actually playing well and not just wanting to play well.


I realize that at the end of the day, competitive golf is about score, but there are other aspects of playing golf that relate to the experience.  I can know if I am playing on a given day in a way that helps with having an overall good experience with a new course and whether my shortcoming on the day are the limiting factor.  It's nice to be able to sort out my contribution to the experience and not spend time blaming the architect.


But I can think of courses that don't or didn't inspire me much to return. Generally, it has little to do with a score on the card.


Charles Lund

[Tim Gallant]

This is a bit of an aside but it relates to the good player who doesn't appreciate golf course architecture, is invested in his score as a measure of worth, and probably doesn't derive the same range of benefits from the game as others.


Gio Valiante in Golf Flow talks about players who embrace the struggle of the game and the inherent difficulty and enjoy the process versus players who define their worth in terms of scoring and achievement.  I consider myself fortunate to be in the former rather than the latter group.


Many people can aspire to play well, work on fundamentals, and start doing things better that can help them personally experience aspects of playing courses more along the lines of how they were designed and built.  A 14 handicapper with an interest in golf architecture can work on things in practice like alignment, pre-shot routine, and things like that which might allow them to be out of position less and spend less time looking for balls etc.  The experience of playing a hole from a a good position can help someone appreciate aspects of design that are important.  On the other hand, the same player will be out of position enough to experience the inherent challenges of managing on the course from less desirable lines of play.


So I think the desire to play better can lead to appreciating course design more if the person can make some progress in small ways that enhance the playing experience.  I also think that understanding more of course design can get a person's expectations more in line with what happens when a player hits a less than stellar shot.  Learning more about course design probably helps all players in orienting themselves to how they try to play a hole.  I was on a recent trip and followed my usual practice of getting yardage guides for each new course I play.  The courses I was playing had particularly good yardage guides and they had some good landmarks and cues to assist with direction of play.  I've traveled and had good caddies at quite a few courses I was going to play only once to twice and early on, the process of engaging with a caddie helped me learn about the importance of trying to play a hole in a manner that assists with scoring.  There is a lot to be said for seeing a hole in a way that minimizes the ambiguity of what is out there and helps with picking a good target.


So I think wanting to play well can help appreciate course design more and appreciating course design can assist with having experiences of actually playing well and not just wanting to play well.


I realize that at the end of the day, competitive golf is about score, but there are other aspects of playing golf that relate to the experience.  I can know if I am playing on a given day in a way that helps with having an overall good experience with a new course and whether my shortcoming on the day are the limiting factor.  It's nice to be able to sort out my contribution to the experience and not spend time blaming the architect.


But I can think of courses that don't or didn't inspire me much to return. Generally, it has little to do with a score on the card.


Charles Lund

Charles,


Well said and thanks for sharing! I think you hit the nail on the head - I wasn't implying that your score should dictate your appreciation for course design - merely that having a desire to do well on some level is only going to help that appreciation on some level.

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


I recently played with a low handicap player who wanted to play well, and he DISLIKED the golf course design elements that many of the GCA folks appreciate. 

But he noticed them! Whether he enjoys the design or not is irrelevant to the point. Although I agree, that this type of player wasn't exactly who I had in mind when I made the OP.

[SL_Solow]

If we are talking about appreciating the strategic elements in course design, the answer should be yes.  The purpose of understanding the strategic choices presented is to allow one to make a better score.  Thus, trying to shoot a low score ought to force one to consider the strategy.  If one misperceives and makes the "wrong " choice, then the appreciation should be the same as if one chooses correctly.  But if one is interested in the routing, shaping, aesthetic beauty etc., these can be appreciated and evaluated without reference to score.  I suggest that the greatest appreciation comes when one considers both.  Focus on score may lead to a neglect of the rest.  Similarly, analysis of the other aspects may cause one to lose focus on the strategy.  Are multiple plays the answer?

[Charles Lund]

I recently opted for a five day ticket at St. Enodoc.  it was a great decision.  Lots of chances for do overs and never took a mulligan.  it was the right course to play multiple times. Got multiple perspectives on a thoroughly enjoyable course.

Was worth the risk of making the commitment and forgoing other opportunities.

The Confidential Guide convinced me to look into multiple plays.

Charles Lund

[cary lichtenstein]

Of course it does, hitting the ball well lets you "play the course" instead of battling your swing and the courses penalty areas

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()