[Mark Fedeli]

By which I mean: would the average golf course be more interesting if the average player were able to better execute a version of the shot he envisions?


I'm not asking about the game being "easy" — I'm wondering how differently regular players would view the course in front of them if they could more frequently play a shot that bears an even passing resemblance to the one they imagine.


As it is, the majority of players just hope the ball goes respectably forward. But if they could more comfortably fade or draw, or hit it high or low, they might pay more attention to, and be more willing to engage with, the unique architectural features in front of them — and they might demand courses with more of them.


Does the average player even notice the slope on the right side of a Redan, let alone think about trying to play a draw off of it? Same with the swale in a Biarritz. Wouldn't they love those features more if they knew the draw, or the low runner, was something they could realistically attempt? Wouldn't they have more fun? In turn, wouldn't courses be more fun?


It's difficult to expect the average player to have more appreciation for architecture when they are just hoping to not be embarrassed.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark: one golfer's experience, mine - someone who took up the game in his mid thirties and who, though getting older is actually (and still) getting better at the game:

Boring, bad, unimaginative, average courses now play for me as even *more* boring, bad and unimaginative than ever before.

With the golf ball now going, more often than not, in the general direction in which I intend it to go (usually with a little fade off the tee and a little draw on approaches), the meaninglessness of most fairway hazards, the width that doesn't foster choice but merely excuses mistakes, the lack of any nuanced/challenging relationship between green contours and potential lines of play, the monotony of recovery options, and the lack of an engaging routing that provides an appealing variety of tests and an elegant flow/pace are all increasingly (and glaringly) evident.

I think that after a number of years on this board, I must needs finally to become an access whore and belt-notcher and start pestering those here who are members of the great courses (both classic and modern) for invites!

Darn - I now wish I'd been more judicious and calculating in posting my many critiques and half-baked theories, and had starting sucking up a decade ago...but I didn't know it would come to this!  


P     

[Joe Zucker]

This is a really interesting question.  I would say, no.  We can look at courses that were designed for tour players and ask if those courses are better?  Muirfield Village and Sawgrass are two highly rated tour courses that were built for good players, but the rest of the top courses were not built with top modern players in mind. 


I think you might be able to argue the opposite: that courses would be better if the top 10% of the game were completely ignored.  The challenges put in front of the bottom 90% of golfers could be more varied than the deep bunker and pond that sit in front of many greens on tour.


Hazards for people who think the game is easy are one dimensional.  I don't think it has to be this way, but courses have evolved this way for whatever reason.  Playing the slopes of redans seems like something good players would excel at, but you don't see a lot of these features on tough championship courses.  They are more likely to exist on old short courses when play was worse.  It would be more fun to play slopes as a better player, but this feature isn't more prominent on courses for better players, so I doubt it would grow in popularity if the average golfer improved.  I don't see a reason it couldn't though.

[jeffwarne]

Couldn't it be argued that the game was harder in the 1920s and that wider, more strategic courses with more interesting contoured greens were being built by the hundreds?




so no

[Rob Marshall]

Couldn't it be argued that the game was harder in the 1920s and that wider, more strategic courses with more interesting contoured greens were being built by the hundreds?




so no

Who doesn’t think the game has gotten easier?

[Mark Fedeli]

Couldn't it be argued that the game was harder in the 1920s and that wider, more strategic courses with more interesting contoured greens were being built by the hundreds?

so no

Perhaps. I was referring to modern times and what happened after the game expanded in the U.S. and the average golfer got sold on difficult and lush equaling good. So many fewer courses and players in 1920s. So many fewer motives.


But using your example, I wonder if players back then, even with comparatively inferior equipment, enjoyed themselves more because a higher percentage of courses allowed for a larger variety of shot types and skill levels. Doesn't our championing of Golden Age design characteristics necessitate an assumption that they did?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()