[Mark Studer]

Maybe one of MacKenzie's 13 principles of architecture applies here: "There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls." Hey , If you hit into the ocean on 16 at Cypress, you just reload. No irritating searching necessary.

[Jason Topp]

One of the aspects I miss about my former golden age era course is that I would rarely lose a golf ball.  I could buy 4 dozen at the start of the year and easily play 75 rounds without the supply running dry.  My current course is lined with blue-stem and has some punishing water hazards.  It is a rare day that I finish with the ball I started with.  The same 4 dozen golf balls usually run dry by August 1. 


I do not think there are any hard and fast rules on the point but I also think that the likelihood of losing golf balls is a factor one should consider in evaluating a course.  Mackenzie had it as one of his principles of sound design (more precisely the absence of the annoyance of searching for lost balls - which might mean that water is ok because you do not need to search).  It also ties into some of his other points - particularly providing an avenue of play for the high handicap player.


However, one cannot take this factor too far.  if the risk of a lost ball creates a great hole then the positives outweigh the negatives significantly.  If the natural terrain suggests a course with a risk of lost balls then I would take a natural hole over one artificially configured to eliminate the risk.  If environmental restrictions create the risk and one is allowed to enjoy a wonderful setting because of the risk of losing a ball, I will take that trade as well.   

[Kalen Braley]

Safe to say, this thread is busted.


A 18 capper can lose two balls on almost any course, much less Pebble, ANGC, Pine Valley, TOC etc where they will likely lose more than that.


Now if we want to restrict this to single digit cappers or better, it might be a tenable premise.

[Matthew Petersen]

I don't necessarily think it's reflective of bad architecture, but it can sure get in your head. I played Quintero recently with 3 balls in my bag. I dunked one in the pond on #3 and the next few swings were real tight after that.

[Thomas Dai]

Not the 1st tee but the 72nd.


There's a story, is it correct (?), that when he won the US Open at Pebble Beach Tiger and Steve had given so many balls away during the round that they only had one remaining ball and that was the one Tiger was using. The ball was apparently a Tiger-only prototype and no others were available. Tee shot over water coming up. Mind you, he did have a few shots in hand!



Atb

[Rich Goodale]

I don't lose balls any more as I don't hit the ball far enough to lose them.  I can't even cut them due to the demise of the balata.  I find 3-10 balls every round looking for the balls of my flat-bellied partners, or just wandering aimlessly about the courses I play.  My garage has more pro vi's and pro vix's than it has junk.

[Bob Montle]

If the standard is a typical 18-handicap, it would be foolhardy to bring only two balls to Augusta. And Pine Valley. And Merion. And Pebble. And Cypress. And every top links course.

I disagree.
The number of lost balls for an 18 handicapper (like myself) depends more on the course than anything else.
More wind may mean more lost balls than calm conditions, but again it is more the course.  My local course is maybe a Doak 2, but I lose 2-3 balls every round because of the heavy rough.
I haven't played that many links courses, but here is my history there:

TOC   1 ball lost.    Mild breeze, maybe 10mph
The New   3 balls lost.   Calm day
The Machrie   2 balls lost.  Calm day!!!
Machrihanish   6 balls lost.  Mild breeze.  Balls in the native - forget it!
N Berwick   1 ball lost.  15-20 mph wind.
Brora   1 ball lost.  30-45 mph gale. Balls in the native could be spotted easily.  Into the gusts I hit some hooks where the ball went 75 yds left of the fairway, but I could still find the ball.
Fraserburgh  lose about 3-5 every round regardless of wind

I absolutely LOVED these great courses.  For me there is zero correlation between how I would rank them (or how much FUN I had playing) and the number of balls lost.

On the other hand, there is a course near me that I DETEST because it is so penal.  It has so many sideslopes and blind shots that I lose a couple sleeves each round.  This is a highly rated course in fantastic condition.   But even if you hit the fairway, if you hit short and to the wrong side, your ball will bounce down into a ravine, never to be seen again.

To summarize -
1)  If the course is great - I don't mind losing some balls to poorly hit shots.
I do dislike playing a so-so course where I will lose balls even on my normal shots.

2)  My pet peeve is losing balls near the green.  If your approach shot hits on or near the green, you shouldn't lose your ball.  I strongly believe THAT is poor design!

[Kalen Braley]

"2)  My pet peeve is losing balls near the green.  If your approach shot hits on or near the green, you shouldn't lose your ball.  I strongly believe THAT is poor design!"

So these two holes are poor design?

[Jerry Kluger]

I had not put in this thread that the golfer is an 18 handicap.  That well may be a factor but is the 18 handicap playing from the correct tees? 

[Jim Nugent]

How many balls do many golfers lose at RCD?  Royal Portrush?  From reading about them on the board here, I get the sense quite a few. 

Any course with water in play can eat up golf balls.  Is this true of Yale, e.g.?  CPC (you could lose two on 16 alone)?  Pebble?  Cabot Cliffs?  ANGC? Cape Wickham?   

Lots of golfers must lose lots of balls on lots of Pete Dye courses.  Maybe some of Jack's best courses as well.   

[Carl Nichols]

If the standard is a typical 18-handicap, it would be foolhardy to bring only two balls to Augusta. And Pine Valley. And Merion. And Pebble. And Cypress. And every top links course.

I disagree.
The number of lost balls for an 18 handicapper (like myself) depends more on the course than anything else.
More wind may mean more lost balls than calm conditions, but again it is more the course.  My local course is maybe a Doak 2, but I lose 2-3 balls every round because of the heavy rough.
I haven't played that many links courses, but here is my history there:

TOC   1 ball lost.    Mild breeze, maybe 10mph
The New   3 balls lost.   Calm day
The Machrie   2 balls lost.  Calm day!!!
Machrihanish   6 balls lost.  Mild breeze.  Balls in the native - forget it!
N Berwick   1 ball lost.  15-20 mph wind.
Brora   1 ball lost.  30-45 mph gale. Balls in the native could be spotted easily.  Into the gusts I hit some hooks where the ball went 75 yds left of the fairway, but I could still find the ball.
Fraserburgh  lose about 3-5 every round regardless of wind

I absolutely LOVED these great courses.  For me there is zero correlation between how I would rank them (or how much FUN I had playing) and the number of balls lost.

On the other hand, there is a course near me that I DETEST because it is so penal.  It has so many sideslopes and blind shots that I lose a couple sleeves each round.  This is a highly rated course in fantastic condition.   But even if you hit the fairway, if you hit short and to the wrong side, your ball will bounce down into a ravine, never to be seen again.

To summarize -
1)  If the course is great - I don't mind losing some balls to poorly hit shots.
I do dislike playing a so-so course where I will lose balls even on my normal shots.

2)  My pet peeve is losing balls near the green.  If your approach shot hits on or near the green, you shouldn't lose your ball.  I strongly believe THAT is poor design!

I'm not sure what you disagree with in my post.  Would you show up for any of the courses I listed, or the ones you listed, expecting to lose fewer than 2 balls? 


More important, for those where you wouldn't show up with just two balls, does that mean the architecture is poor?

[Mike Hendren]

The number of balls you bring with you to the first tee in no way correlates to the quality of architecture.

This. I have lost plenty of balls lately - virtually all were self-inflicted wounds from which no architect or architecture could have saved me.

[Kalen Braley]

The number of balls you bring with you to the first tee in no way correlates to the quality of architecture.

This. I have lost plenty of balls lately - virtually all were self-inflicted wounds from which no architect or architecture could have saved me.

Touche...


I don't know how you architect against hitting a ball 75 yards+ offline.  Is there really any way to account for that from a design perspective?

[George Pazin]

I'm not sure what you disagree with in my post.  Would you show up for any of the courses I listed, or the ones you listed, expecting to lose fewer than 2 balls? 


More important, for those where you wouldn't show up with just two balls, does that mean the architecture is poor?

I think you're taking his thoughts far too literally.


In a literal sense, tour pros have lost more than 2 balls on a hole. There's a famous story about Tiger in 2000, his Annus Mirabilis, as it were, almost running out of golf balls on the 18th at Pebble during the US Open. So in a literal sense, no sane person would ever show up at any golf course in the world with two golf balls.


But I believe his larger point is true (and Michael H is full of shite ). True, lost golf balls are ultimately the responsibility of the player, but my own opinion is that it is often elements of the design that do little to elevate the design while doing much to increase the likelihood of lost balls that are the culprit.


And how deep is Rae's Creek, Kalen? If you can't find your ball in there and fish it out, you aren't trying!

[Kalen Braley]

I'm not sure what you disagree with in my post.  Would you show up for any of the courses I listed, or the ones you listed, expecting to lose fewer than 2 balls? 


More important, for those where you wouldn't show up with just two balls, does that mean the architecture is poor?

I think you're taking his thoughts far too literally.


In a literal sense, tour pros have lost more than 2 balls on a hole. There's a famous story about Tiger in 2000, his Annus Mirabilis, as it were, almost running out of golf balls on the 18th at Pebble during the US Open. So in a literal sense, no sane person would ever show up at any golf course in the world with two golf balls.


But I believe his larger point is true (and Michael H is full of shite ). True, lost golf balls are ultimately the responsibility of the player, but my own opinion is that it is often elements of the design that do little to elevate the design while doing much to increase the likelihood of lost balls that are the culprit.


And how deep is Rae's Creek, Kalen? If you can't find your ball in there and fish it out, you aren't trying!

Never been in person, but it probably depends on the year and if there was recent rain to make it murky..


P.S.  I could have posted dozens of well crafted holes George, those were just the 1st two that came to mind. 

[Carl Nichols]

I'm not sure what you disagree with in my post.  Would you show up for any of the courses I listed, or the ones you listed, expecting to lose fewer than 2 balls? 


More important, for those where you wouldn't show up with just two balls, does that mean the architecture is poor?

I think you're taking his thoughts far too literally.


In a literal sense, tour pros have lost more than 2 balls on a hole. There's a famous story about Tiger in 2000, his Annus Mirabilis, as it were, almost running out of golf balls on the 18th at Pebble during the US Open. So in a literal sense, no sane person would ever show up at any golf course in the world with two golf balls.


But I believe his larger point is true (and Michael H is full of shite ). True, lost golf balls are ultimately the responsibility of the player, but my own opinion is that it is often elements of the design that do little to elevate the design while doing much to increase the likelihood of lost balls that are the culprit.


And how deep is Rae's Creek, Kalen? If you can't find your ball in there and fish it out, you aren't trying!

But I never said anything to the contrary.  The only thing I said (actually, implied) is that there are many, many great courses on which one can easily lose multiple balls, and thus the idea that lost balls = problematic architecture is wrong, an overstatement, or an oversimplification (or all three).   

[Ian Mackenzie]

Absolutely ZERO correlation between architecture and the number of balls in my golf bag.
Some real factors, however:


Am I carrying my bag or taking a trolley?
Am I playing 9,18 or 36?
Am I playing tomorrow?
Are the balls that I have new, gently used, or scuffed up?


As a loose rule, I usually have six balls in my bag.
I may lose one, I may not. I usually do not. It depends on my mistakes, not on GCA.
I may hit a tree, a path or an object. I may want a new ball.


Never, not once ever, have I given one second of thought to the ball quantity/GCA issue brought up here.

My only thought after reading the title of the thread was this must be written by someone who speaks english as a second or third language as the grammar was so terrible...;-)

[Ian Mackenzie]

`

[Peter Pallotta]

Well, if I'm going to lose a golf ball (in cases when it's not *totally* my fault), I'd much rather lose one for a reason and in a just cause than for no reason at all save for architectural laziness or incompetence. Let me lose one into the water because I took the risk but missed the reward, not because an architect realized that an ugly and/mediocre golf hole needed some tall grasses plopped down to disguise the fact.

[Garland Bayley]

How does it reflect on the maintenance?  Please enlighten.

You go play links in BI. If there is livestock mowing the rough, you seldom loose balls. If there are humans that believe in penal golf, you are going to loose balls.

[Garland Bayley]

Safe to say, this thread is busted.


A 18 capper can lose two balls on almost any course, much less Pebble, ANGC, Pine Valley, TOC etc where they will likely lose more than that.


Now if we want to restrict this to single digit cappers or better, it might be a tenable premise.

Speak for yourself dude!
I play a round on one ball a lot.
Where I play the rough is cut low enough that searching is not an issue.

[Garland Bayley]

I had not put in this thread that the golfer is an 18 handicap.  That well may be a factor but is the 18 handicap playing from the correct tees?

Of course he is playing from the correct tees if they are the ones he wants to play from and doesn't hold anyone up.
 

[Peter Pallotta]

wrong thread...

[Jerry Kluger]

Come on Peter you must have something to add.   

[Peter Pallotta]

 
I added just a bit, above, Jerry.


I agree with your premise, but only in part.


I think there are two tiers of golf courses: on average-run of the mill courses, yes, the more golf balls I expect to lose the worse the course. On very good-to-great courses, however, that rule of thumb doesn't apply. On those courses, a lost ball usually "means" something, i.e. there's a good reason for it, or certainly it's a price most are willing to pay (for the challenge and/or history and/or setting).


Peter 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()