How important is the competitive aspect of golf to you?

[George Pazin]

...particularly in regard to evaluating architecture.


This popped up in JKav's Sand Hills v TOC thread (well worth a read). One of the sadder aspects of being an occasional golfer such as yours truly is that I can't play well enough at this point to ever really engage in a competition. I used to, with friends, but I only play a few times a year, if that, so I'm so wildly inconsistent that I'm impossible to handicap and competition is pretty much a no go, unless I'm playing match play against someone like me (God help us if others actually exist).


I think the competitive aspect of the game is actually pretty important. If you aren't competing, then you're just knocking it around and don't really feel compelled to minimize your score, and you take chances you wouldn't if something were on the line.


So how important is "having a game" to you? And how do you work that into evaluating a course?


When people take all these fantastic trips, do they usually have a game somewhere? Teeing it up in Scotland, England, Australia, wherever, can you find a game? Or do you travel with someone you can compete with?


Just wondering, thanks for sharing, should you choose........

[Kalen Braley]

Hmmm, lets see.  Well it depends on how long the drive is to get there... 


I fully agree here George, even as a high capper, some of my most memorable golf was doing match play against an equally crappy opponent where one bad hole doesn't spoil the competition.  Keeps the juices flowing instead of giving up by the 12th or 13th hole during a poor round.


I did have a brief period a number of years ago when I was regularly shooting mid to low 80s with a few sub 80s sprinkled in. I wish I would have played in more local club competitions then...


P.S.  The exception I find to this is when i'm playing a new course that is high on the DS....just checking everything out along the way keeps me engaged well enough.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Most surveys rank competitiveness way behind comraderies as prime reasons to play golf.  I think its true.  Frankly, I would bet most would compete only against themselves internally - as in shooting a personal best, or better than anticipated score on a tough course, etc.

[Rick Lane]

As Bobby Jones said, there is golf and competitive golf.    I think there are three actually:

1) Golf.....no competition, appreciate the day and the company, and try to hit some good shots, but as said above, sometimes you try things that are low percentage for the FUN of it, not the score of it. 

2) Side bets with buddies.   This is most of my golf.   Match play for a small Nassau or a round of cocktails.   You still try some dumb stuff, but its for FUN, not for $1000.  Full trash talking joke telling, etc.

3) Competitive golf.   Your Club Championship, your state amateur, etc.   Whatever level you are at, there is serious pressure, especially in Medal play.   Also quite "fun" but also a grind, high blood pressure, the works.   Some people thrive on this, others like me do it to see if I can hold up (I generally cant). 

As to importance, I almost never do #1, almost always do #2, and frequently try #3. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

When I was younger (25-40)I competed in the MD amateur, MD Open, and the Middle Atlantic Open. I enjoyed it for a while. I never did very well. In the amateur I just wanted to make match play and in the opens just make the cut. Then I got tired of it and only played club events. Then I grew weary of that and now I played in our senior league and member/guests. I'm not sure I ever really loved competition. I hated to lose and was never really good enough to compete for any statewide titles. Like my running days I was a middle of the pack player.


When I competed I never really thought about the architecture. I was too intent on scoring. I never even thought if I like the course. It didn't matter.



Now competitive golf is not important at all. I enjoy playing different courses and will play about 40 different courses a year.

[Kalen Braley]

Tommy,


With the exception of a very rare few, none of us escape the clutches of the Peter Principle.  That being said i'd guess at least 9 out of 10 golfers would have been thrilled to have your level of game back in the day... 

[Adrian_Stiff]

It was when I was less than 32 years of age. At 58 I don't really care because I am terrible. I can still score to my  9.2 handicap, but the quality is shocking. I am amazed how crap you can be and score below 80 and yet when I played well I still took 80 sometimes.


A lot of older players just smell the flowers. A lot still are competitive though. very 50-50 I would think.

[Thomas Dai]

The Bobby Jones quote about 2 different kinds of golf mentioned in an earlier post sums things up.
As to me, not very these days but even when involved in a competition or match there are times when you can gaze at the architecture or the scenery or the nature or whatever....Walter Hagans comment about smelling the roses I guess.
As for trip golf, a rolling match with scores kept on each course played can be a good way of keeping the level of interest going.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

I still like to compete, if only a match for a beer or a golf shirt or something.  It keeps me a bit more focused on playing well, generally.  If we are just all keeping our own score, I don't care about my score much at all.


Whether I play a course competitively or not, or just walk it, I am usually learning about the golf course as I go around.  I probably learn more from watching other people's shots and what happens to them, than from my own ... I have a pretty good idea how my own shots will fare.  And around the greens, it's easier to see exactly where someone else's recovery shot lands, so you can judge the result accordingly.


If the question was meant the other way - to what extent is being able to host competitive golf an important aspect of design quality - I would say a lot.  I've never bought into the idea that tournament courses are special or the goal of design - indeed, if you're aiming to test tournament players now, you are designing at a scale that doesn't work well for the 99% who pay to play.  But a good golf hole MUST be evaluated in terms of two players competing head to head, and how different strategies for different players will be sorted out.  The holes aren't just there to look at!


There is a reason our annual get-together at one of our new courses is a match play tournament.  Half of the attendees do not take the competition part that seriously, because there are always a handful of really good players on hand ... but my whole crew makes a point of going out and watching the semi-final and final matches, to see how the best players tackle the course, and how it tackles them.

[John Kavanaugh]

For me the key to enjoying competition is the ability to enjoy a victory more than you fret a loss. I probably have a hundred or so small competitions a day starting with getting that last cup of coffee out of the Keurig without having to refill the water and ending with not taking the pillows off the bed. If I can win even 30% I'll wake up happy the next day.


This explains why I'm not a very good gambler.

[Jim Hoak]

I can't imagine playing a round without a small wager.  It would lessen the focus.
However, my games are almost always match play, partners' betterball, so I have someone else to blame for any loss.  And I emphasize the "small" in "small wager."  I don't want to win or lose more than $50-100.
Only once did I play a round to "just smell the flowers and enjoy the day."  That was with the author, James Dodson, and I have to admit it was a great day.  But it was the stories that kept me going then.  And I do play regularly with my wife, where a wager would do no good.  Generally then, I just focus on some game improvement--or give her advice which is always rejected with scorn.
My days of real competition are gone--college golf was a long time ago and real tournaments are as well.  I still enjoy Member-Member tournaments where I know the other players.  But I have begun to avoid Member-Guest tournaments, where someone always brings in a ringer.  And I have drifted toward partner play even in the Member-Member events.
So, my competitive juices are definitely diminished.  But I still enjoy the focus that a small wager brings to regular play.

[John Kavanaugh]

It worries me that with age comes less of a desire to compete.

[Sean_A]

I have never been very competitive, even in competitive golf situations.  I always figured that I suck in the big scheme of golf so there is little value in pretending to be a good player when tv shows me the reality.  I do, however,  like a small bet, enough to buy a round or something, but nothing major.  This summer I stopped asking to play games and I have found that most of my playing partners haven't pushed it. I am not sure what this means.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Really good post, George.


When I was young I was an OK (C. 8HCP) golfer, but I didn't play much then and enjoyed the camaraderie more than anything else.  Somewhere it the mid 80's I met a den of thieves and golfed with them on Sundays and afterwards played Gin rummy, all for (then) pretty big money.  I was inherently good at gin and broke even, but at golf I they would give me no shots and I ground my way into parity (C. 4HCP) after a year or two, spending a few G's for the "lessons".  Learning how to hit a hard  breaking 3 foot putt on the 18th for a few Benjies transformed my game, and kept me competitive for the next 30 years.


Now, competition is just the chance to prove to mostly much better players that I can play, and I do this mostly when playing 18 with a card in my hand.  Non competitive golf still only cares to me if the craic is good and the playing partners amiable and humourous.  In both circumstances, I will occasionally hit a really goofy shot (e.g. Driver off the deck on a side-slope to a blind green).  That's fun, which is what golf should be, but if I'm playing well, even autonomicaly, I grind from time to time and enjoy the results and the non-results.


I'll never shoot 70 at TPC Sawgrass again, but I'd love to play it again and try, particularly with life long pals, including my wife.....


Rich

[Peter Pallotta]

In a world, and with a game, where it is very easy to take oneself too seriously, I think it's also easy to fall into the other trap, i.e. of not taking oneself (and the game) seriously enough.  I had that 'problem' for many years -- there was no one who could turn a bogey into a triple as often and as well as I could. (I didn't think my poor bogey+ game deserved/merited the attention.) But as I've been getting better at golf, and playing more often for who buys the lunch, I'm not only paying more attention to and enjoying the game more, but also the architecture has come alive for me more than ever. It now 'means' for me the only thing it is really meant to mean, i.e. it is the 'question' to be 'answered' in trying to shoot my best/lowest possible score.

[Michael Dugger]

I'll try responding this way.  I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Old Man Par yet.  IMO, the concept of par is critical to the essence of the game.  It is what allows us to remain engaged when playing a round by oneself.  I would even go as far as saying that often times the internal pressure to conquer Old Man Par is greater than that of defeating a human opponent.

[Kyle Harris]

Extremely.


The exigency to design and execute a shot is the core of golf. Everything else is just mental tomfoolery.

[Jeff Schley]

If there is nothing on the line it is a practice round. I love competition and gambling (maybe not a great mix), thus I always try and play a game with whoever I'm playing with.  It allows for banter, pressure (if any nominally), and some sort of winner to regale the losers with their tales of heroics.
In regards to architecture, I would need to know the course and I can think how far ahead or behind I am projecting my and my opponents scoring over the remaining holes.  For example I play 1 and 2 very well as my course, however 3 and 4 not so much.  If I'm even after 2 holes I feel I'm down in the match.  If I didn't know the course I would have no idea, which would take away from my strategy.

[Thomas Dai]

One aspect to consider is that at many UK private (and probably other) clubs/courses, Saturday is usually mens member competition day and if you don't play in the mens members competition you will be unlikely to be able to play that day at all unless it's after the last competition tee-time (ie so probably in the late afternoon/evening).
And in the winter there isn't enough daylight to play 18-holes in the late afternoon/evening.
This doesn't half annoy some of the lady members who have full-time weekday jobs as most clubs/courses don't run simultaneous both-gender events.
The above can also sometimes be the case on Sundays (and sometimes even Bank Holidays) as well.
And of course heaven help men who wish to play on Ladies Morning/Day!!
atb

[RichMacafee]

I've always believed that a shot is much more interesting, challenging and exciting if there are consequences for not pulling it off, and because of that I always prefer to be playing for something.

[archie_struthers]

 




Way too important!😬

[George Pazin]

Way too important!😬

 


Thanks for the thoughts everyone. Doesn't really help me with what kind of prompted the thread, but your thoughts are much appreciated.

[Garland Bayley]

Having a game is important to me. I like playing with guys that enjoy match play. It seems to me that people who prefer medal play tend to complain more about difficult holes and features. Therefore hard holes are great IMO for match play, as they result in more wins or loses. However, medal players tend to be overly critical in my experience of hard holes. Likewise quirky holes. Match play no problem. Medal players will piss and moan.

One of the regulars in my group of golfing buddies is a pencil and scorecard type. So we let him always keep score. After all he was an accountant. At the end of a match, he is amazed that i know the match play result while having no idea what kind of score I may have shot. He is a member of the BMW club. Every feature he can't handle is "unfair".

[Jeff Johnston]

Having a game is important to me. I like playing with guys that enjoy match play. It seems to me that people who prefer medal play tend to complain more about difficult holes and features. Therefore hard holes are great IMO for match play, as they result in more wins or loses. However, medal players tend to be overly critical in my experience of hard holes. Likewise quirky holes. Match play no problem. Medal players will piss and moan.

One of the regulars in my group of golfing buddies is a pencil and scorecard type. So we let him always keep score. After all he was an accountant. At the end of a match, he is amazed that i know the match play result while having no idea what kind of score I may have shot. He is a member of the BMW club. Every feature he can't handle is "unfair".

'Medal players will piss and moan' - well put sir

You have prompted me to mention something that has long struck me as curious (that I might otherwise have left alone). Without wishing to assume your location Garland, there does seem to be more of a focus on card and pencil golf amongst (some) north American golfers than would be the case amongst their European (or at least GB&I) brethren. On a few occasions in clubhouses around the Irish coast (Ballybunion being one and Portstewart at the weekend just gone another), I've seen US visitors diligently going over their medal scores after what I've assumed to be 'friendly' rounds; my impression being that the medal score itself is viewed as an important part of visiting / playing these locations (obviously not dog tracks). Obviously not criticizing this in any way - each to their own etc - just struck me as a small cultural difference.

To answer the original question - personally, it depends. The better the architecture, the less bothered I am about playing competitively - on a good course there is usually more than enough going on in (badly) engaging with the course itself to keep me interested, especially on early plays of a particular track. Obviously that changes the more familiar I become with a course, ditto on slightly lesser courses.

[V. Kmetz]

Thanks for the thoughts everyone. Doesn't really help me with what kind of prompted the thread, but your thoughts are much appreciated.

GP, I think I understand what you meant in saying this...that you hoped to elicit the competitive importance to evaluating GCA.


And in that manner, I think TommyW's early response portion sums it up for me, "When I competed, I never really thought about the architecture. I was always intent on scoring, I never thought about whether I liked the course; it didn't matter."


Moreover I feel like many responders in that "some" level of competition is necessary to enjoy any game (of golf, of Monopoly, of cards, or chess) ... but the precise fascination (or discrimination, or evaluation) of the course's architectural merits is something personal and tangent to the competitive aspects...the two are nearly divorced from one another when it comes to the actual playing and what I think about it.


If I come to a horrid or beautiful hole's tee, when I am playing with/against someone in either casual or even more honored competition, I'm only thinking how can I do this better than he/she/field is going to do it.

When I'm by myself and I'm only examining my own acumen (trying to improve or meet a score and ingrain a sound method of play) is when the architecture and its big statements and sublime nuances matter and I am actively evaluating them against other holes and courses.

Again I don't know if this yet gets at your inquiry, but my last contribution on it for this post is to say that Tom D's mention of watching play is an authentic third dimension of the perspective you seek...I know 90% of what I know about architecture because I watched some 5000 rounds of golf in my life as a caddie/fellow competitor for everything from US Open sectionals and regional Opens to Mr and Mrs Twatenheim's mixed Pinehurst 3rd place net finish. I've seen Buddy Marucci at age 50 who hits it no more than 265 playing young players who can hit the ball 350 yards at the Anderson and caddied for handicapped players who pick up at 7, still a hundred yards from the green and stop the moment the ball goes in a deep bunker....and everything in between. Seeing how players react in all sorts of lo-grade and hi-test competitions and how they are delighted, soured or otherwise stimulated is the proof in the pudding of whether a shot or a hole or a course is well-designed for me...why rankings are so meaningless as a paradigm/evaluative criteria.


cheers   vk