[Sean_A]

The minute we gave male 20-handicaps a seat at the table we got things like combination tees where every two-shot hole is between 330-380 yards and all the one-shot holes are 140-170 yards.

Exactly what kind of bs are you peddling?

The kind where I ask what a golfer has done to improve their game or overcome some individual playing deficiency in lieu of altering the golf course to suit their strengths or mitigate their weaknesses.

Often time their rhetorical positions are propped up by the mythical, non-existent, "average" golfer. "Average" in this case meaning "bad at the things I'm bad at."

Altering courses? A great many courses have been altered to the detriment of golfers and the orginal design concepts.  Maybe some courses should be altered to better reflect the orginal concepts.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

The minute we gave male 20-handicaps a seat at the table we got things like combination tees where every two-shot hole is between 330-380 yards and all the one-shot holes are 140-170 yards.

Exactly what kind of bs are you peddling?

The kind where I ask what a golfer has done to improve their game or overcome some individual playing deficiency in lieu of altering the golf course to suit their strengths or mitigate their weaknesses.


Often time their rhetorical positions are propped up by the mythical, non-existent, "average" golfer. "Average" in this case meaning "bad at the things I'm bad at."

Well, it goes the other way too. My regular group has 3 20 handicappers, and a single digit. It is the single digit that wants to play the hole lengths you list to protect his scoring average.

Furthermore, it seems to me that many 2nd and 3rd tier courses are built with the hole lengths you list, and you need to make combo tees to get a variety of lengths.

You're certainly not wrong there.

Whenever I hear, "I'm an X-handicap and I couldn't..." my mind goes to: "Yep, and likely another X minus 1 things as well!"

[Jason Thurman]

<snip>
Really, the guy with the biggest leg up on the rest of us when it comes to understanding architecture is probably the older guy who was once a very strong player, but has lost swing speed and gained some strokes on their handicap over the years. He knows how to score, he knows how to navigate risk/reward scenarios, and he also understands what it is to play with some limitations on his ability.

That would be me. Former +2 to +4 with a 108 to 110 driver clubhead speed. Never was a long hitter to begin with and always had to rely on understanding how to play shots. Now as a 0 to +2 with a driver clubhead speed of 95 - 97 mph and a carry of only 220 to 230, I play a completely different game and have come to appreciate architecture more than I ever did before, without doubt.


So you're saying I should become an architect. Nice. ;-)

You're getting there. When you're 85 and your handicap balloons to 7 or 8, you'll probably understand even more. You're an interesting case because I still think your beginner-to-scratchish journey is the shortest one I've heard of - didn't that only take you a couple years? Your frame of reference for the struggles of the average golfer is uniquely limited. Which I'm very jealous of, to be clear.


Look, we all know that I have a very strong and refined eye for golf course architecture. And I'm a slightly better-than-average player, as evidenced by my T8 finish in the second flight of this year's club championship and the 1.5 points I earned for Team East in this year's Midwest Mashie. But if I'm being honest about recognizing limitations on my perspective, I must admit that it's only in the last 16 months or so, as I really have dug in on becoming a competent wedge player, that I've started to TRULY realize just how much harder some up-and-downs from five yards off the green are as opposed to others. And I know I'm not alone, because I see way more guys at my club obliviously miss on the wrong side of 15 green than the correct side.


The guys who consistently miss in the right spots? They're the better players. And their ability to identify those ideal spots is part and parcel of being better players.


And really, it's probably not just any better player. There are certain skills that help a lot more than others when it comes to evaluating architecture. You don't NEED a decent short game to identify poor misses around the greens, but it really helps. You don't NEED to be a good putter to evaluate green contours, but it really helps. And you don't NEED to drive it straight to understand tee-to-green strategy... but when I blow my tee shot into the right rough on 18 at Old Mac and never make it back to manicured grass until I finally hack one up near the green, I'm not going to understand that hole nearly as well as a guy like David, who I'd wager missed fewer than 2 fairways on his first trip around that course. Of course, a true bomber might never notice what's happening in "flyover country" from 0-310 yards off the tee, because he just doesn't need to.


We all have blind spots, but some more than others. It's not impossible for a weaker player to have a better architectural eye than a strong player. It's relatively common, even. But the lesser player does have to work a little harder, I think.


And yet, his limitations can be a real asset when it comes to understanding architecture too. The guy who hits it shorter but straighter is constantly interacting with designed tee-to-green elements, while I might be 40 yards offline and missing everything. The guy who doesn't flop and spin the hell out of all his wedge shots around the greens has to interact with their slopes and hazards instead. Anybody can develop an understanding and appreciation for architecture, but playing competency definitely informs perspective.

[Kalen Braley]

If the "average" player is defined as a 16 handicap, seems a 20 is a helluva lot closer to average than a 2.

Perhaps they should have had a seat at the table long before the good to great players...

[Kyle Harris]

If the "average" player is defined as a 16 handicap, seems a 20 is a helluva lot closer to average than a 2.

Perhaps they should have had a seat at the table long before the good to great players...

You earn your seat at the table by forgetting you're an X-handicap.

[Steve Lang]

  .. level of playing competence necessary to recognize the best golf courses from the merely good ones?

I'd say simply being able to aim and hit an intended target or line... how else can one test their appreciation of the subject course laid out in front of them?  Oh, and the smarts to look backwards and figure out what went right or wrong...

[Kalen Braley]

If the "average" player is defined as a 16 handicap, seems a 20 is a helluva lot closer to average than a 2.

Perhaps they should have had a seat at the table long before the good to great players...

You earn your seat at the table by forgetting you're an X-handicap.

Kyle,

That's an interesting premise, but as has been mentioned, I think its difficult for people to actually do in practice, especially when being constantly bombarded by requests from people who lack the ability to forget.

Going back to one of your previous statements that basically said lesser players should practice more so they will be better at the more difficult holes, but i'm not so sure that's what most golfers are interested in.  To them golf is an escape, a game of enjoyment to get away from the stresses of life.  Sure there is a small % who enjoy being range rats and grinding out pars, and that's great, but golf ultimately is a game of leisure, relaxation, getting together with your buddies, etc.

[John Kavanaugh]

I played Ballyhack poorly last week. Gave me a good indication of what must go through a bad golfers mind. I’d like to take this time to thank you guys for your continued support of a game you clearly do not understand.

[John Kavanaugh]

I would like to know why people who like to be outside with their buddies without regard to where their struck ball goes should have a say over mine. It would be like me lobbying for a change in bird migration. I like birds but I don’t give a shit where they go even though I do have a guttural understanding of the importance to our ecosystem.

[Garland Bayley]

I would like to know why people who like to be outside with their buddies without regard to where their struck ball goes should have a say over mine. It would be like me lobbying for a change in bird migration. I like birds but I don’t give a shit where they go even though I do have a guttural understanding of the importance to our ecosystem.

Because Alistair Mackenzie was a lot smarter than you!

[Jeff_Brauer]

I would like to know why people who like to be outside with their buddies without regard to where their struck ball goes should have a say over mine. It would be like me lobbying for a change in bird migration. I like birds but I don’t give a shit where they go even though I do have a guttural understanding of the importance to our ecosystem.

JK, I guess the struggle to be heard is central to the art of life, no?  And, there would also be a distinction on whether you are referring to gca's or just outside critics whose views on course difficulty were different than yours?


Do having mid and forward tees so others can enjoy the game as they want to really offend you? 


Most here would applaud wide fw and gentle rough as strategic, but would those features offend you if you heard a hack say he liked them for the lower chance of lost balls?


I could go on all night.  Whoever shares the space probably gets some say, unless you own the course and make the rules.

[Mark_Fine]

My original question really had little to do with architects.  It was actually pretty genuine in that I was wondering if the group here felt that a certain level of playing competency was necessary to identify the best golf course?  And yes we all know that the term best is very subjective.  But for example if we picked a random foursome of 15-25 handicappers and another random foursome of single digit golfers and yet another random foursome of scratch or better players and asked them to play and critique a new Tom Doak course, what do you think we would find?  Would they all draw the same conclusions?  Would one group be "more accurate" in their assessments?  Maybe an even better question to ask would be which group would Tom Doak like to have do the assessment assuming that foursome's review was going to end up on the Golf Channel or in some widely published magazine?   


At the end of the day, some here might say who cares and that is just fine.  But I still go back to the golfer trying to study and evaluate a golf course and they are hitting it all over the map.  You have to wonder sometimes whether they can really see and appreciate the nuances and details that the architect likely worked so hard to incorporate into his or her design. 

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

We kind of already have that in Golf Digest vs Golfweek course rating lists.  Golfweek has a far wider array of golf skills among its raters, and its seems in general their "Best of " lists are better thought of here.

[Joe Zucker]

I'm not sure the varied handicaps of rankings panels would qualify as a random group from various handicap ranges like Mark is thinking.  If you're on a magazine panel, you've established you're very interested in courses.  I think the reason better players are thought to be more knowledgeable is because they are on average. Better skills could be helpful, but more importantly, better players have spent a lot more time playing golf than worse players.


As this board and many architects show, good skills are not necessary to assess courses, but a huge investment of time is.  Scratch players are far more likely to have spent significant time on a course than 20 handicaps.  It's definitely not a rule, but I bet the correlation is high.  I used to very much believe 20 handicaps could never understand a scratch or pro game.  I'm glad to have learned this is wrong in some cases, but I still think it takes a pretty special 20 handicap to assess courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


I remember the old days, here, specifically one Tom Paul.  While you and I feel like we can judge a course on a walking tour and greens perhaps with a digital level and our own eyeballs, he was adamant that you needed to take a putter along and hit the shots to judge greens especially.  Others were similar, but it occurs to me that it says more about their understanding method and training, than it does about their final evaluations.  As you time goes down and handicap goes up, I guess your method to understand architecture gets more points based, not unlike the actual magazine ratings that are out there already.


That said, if we move away from any points system to "I know it when I see it" type ratings, then the handicap of the golfer comes more into play.  Funny, but I'm not sure a points based rating and subjective rating would come into play any differently, despite starting at various points along the spectrum, in part because I think people manage to juggle the point system to their mindset more than mindset to point system.

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
Nice post - I think you get the point I am driving at. Maybe Tom Doak will chime in and prove me wrong.  He sometimes likes to try to do that and I enjoy the debate     But I think even Tom knows what I am driving at.  His courses often need to be studied to be understood and when you are just trying to play the same ball on a hole it is hard to do much careful studying.  There is a certain level of playing ability that allows you to really appreciate many of the subtle aspects of his designs. 

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
We both know Tom well.  He was an excellent player and obviously well traveled and well studied.  But his ability to see as well as execute golf shots helped him assess golf courses.  As he got older he spent more time walking and putting then actually playing but he still needed and wanted to hit some golf shots to help him assess the design. 

[Kalen Braley]

Joe,

I would disagree on that point because the ability to reliably and consistently hit a golf ball with various clubs over 18 holes.... is mutually exclusive from possessing the background, knowledge, experience, and wisdom to assess a golf course.

I've spent most of my golfing life in the high teens and low 20s handicap-wise.  But it doesn't mean I haven't hit amazing shots over the years.  Holed out bunker shots, stuffed 7 irons to two feet, 80 foot putts, 280 yard drives right down the middle....I just don't do it very often, fairly rarely actually.

But having the ability to assess a hole, identify hazard placement, find spots to miss, develop a safe vs aggressive strategy, and weigh options before finally deciding on a plan of action....is completely independent of the ability to successfully execute that plan on anywhere near a consistent basis.  Are there high cappers who wail away without thought?  Of course, but having the ability to adeptly analyze a golf hole is not unusual among that group.

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
You have a passion for golf architecture.  While some do, most higher handicappers probably don't.  I would venture to say that even you can do a better job of assessing a golf hole when you play it well or at least somewhat similar to how the architect had intended it to be played. 

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,
You have a passion for golf architecture.  While some do, most higher handicappers probably don't.  I would venture to say that even you can do a better job of assessing a golf hole when you play it well or at least somewhat similar to how the architect had intended it to be played.

Mark,

I do have a passion for golf archicture, but I think the point still stands that consistent execution vs developing a game plan are often entirely two different things, even if prior playing experience is very useful.  And it applies to everything, not just golf or other sports.

In my career path, Software & Hardware Development, the typical attributes of those who perform exceptionally well in designing and building great software and hardware solutions often don't translate into the eventual promotions that will come their way.  Some are wise enough to turn them down, but most take the roles and money and usually end up as mediocre and miserable managers and directors, wishing to return to the trenches... but with the stigma attached of doing such, will rarely go back.  Its a shame because many were far more valuable to the company in their prior roles.

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
Let me ask you the same question I posed to Tom Doak about the three different random foursomes of golfers.  If it were your new design, which group would you rather have assess your new golf course for a promo on The Golf Channel     Remember, we are talking random golfers, not GCA junkies who hang out on websites like this one   

And by the way, the politically correct answer is a mix of all abilities but I am not giving you that option right now

[Joe Zucker]

Joe,

I would disagree on that point because the ability to reliably and consistently hit a golf ball with various clubs over 18 holes.... is mutually exclusive from possessing the background, knowledge, experience, and wisdom to assess a golf course.

I've spent most of my golfing life in the high teens and low 20s handicap-wise.  But it doesn't mean I haven't hit amazing shots over the years.  Holed out bunker shots, stuffed 7 irons to two feet, 80 foot putts, 280 yard drives right down the middle....I just don't do it very often, fairly rarely actually.

But having the ability to assess a hole, identify hazard placement, find spots to miss, develop a safe vs aggressive strategy, and weigh options before finally deciding on a plan of action....is completely independent of the ability to successfully execute that plan on anywhere near a consistent basis.  Are there high cappers who wail away without thought?  Of course, but having the ability to adeptly analyze a golf hole is not unusual among that group.

Kalen,


In the strictest sense, executing a golf swing and understanding how to play a hole can be separate, but in reality all good players shoot low scores through a combination of better technique and the ability to manage misses.  Most good players know to miss on the outside of a dog leg or short is better than long on many greens and I believe the good players see this better than 20 handicaps on average.  After all, the best way to learn these things is by playing a lot, which low handicappers do.


I disagree that the ability to shoot a low score is mutually exclusive with understanding how to assess a hole in the real world.  In theory, someone could develop a swing without understanding how to play and someone could understand the strategy of a golf hole without ever swinging a club, but this doesn't ever happen (outside Japanese driving ranges maybe?). 


Both can exist, but in general they don't because it takes a lot of time to figure these things out.  The more likely person to figure them out is the guy who plays 5 times a week since he was a kid.  Obviously not always, but it is not surprising that low handicappers are thought to know more.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,
Let me ask you the same question I posed to Tom Doak about the three different random foursomes of golfers.  If it were your new design, which group would you rather have assess your new golf course for a promo on The Golf Channel     Remember, we are talking random golfers, not GCA junkies who hang out on websites like this one 

Of course I can only speculate here, as I've gained enough wisdom to know I wouldn't succeed in the golf course design business! 

But the single digits and high capper groups would be the most interesting to me.  Although Golf channel would probably insist on me picking the scratch and better guys, which would not surprise me. 

[Ira Fishman]

Joe,

I would disagree on that point because the ability to reliably and consistently hit a golf ball with various clubs over 18 holes.... is mutually exclusive from possessing the background, knowledge, experience, and wisdom to assess a golf course.

I've spent most of my golfing life in the high teens and low 20s handicap-wise.  But it doesn't mean I haven't hit amazing shots over the years.  Holed out bunker shots, stuffed 7 irons to two feet, 80 foot putts, 280 yard drives right down the middle....I just don't do it very often, fairly rarely actually.

But having the ability to assess a hole, identify hazard placement, find spots to miss, develop a safe vs aggressive strategy, and weigh options before finally deciding on a plan of action....is completely independent of the ability to successfully execute that plan on anywhere near a consistent basis.  Are there high cappers who wail away without thought?  Of course, but having the ability to adeptly analyze a golf hole is not unusual among that group.

Kalen,


In the strictest sense, executing a golf swing and understanding how to play a hole can be separate, but in reality all good players shoot low scores through a combination of better technique and the ability to manage misses.  Most good players know to miss on the outside of a dog leg or short is better than long on many greens and I believe the good players see this better than 20 handicaps on average.  After all, the best way to learn these things is by playing a lot, which low handicappers do.


I disagree that the ability to shoot a low score is mutually exclusive with understanding how to assess a hole in the real world.  In theory, someone could develop a swing without understanding how to play and someone could understand the strategy of a golf hole without ever swinging a club, but this doesn't ever happen (outside Japanese driving ranges maybe?). 


Both can exist, but in general they don't because it takes a lot of time to figure these things out.  The more likely person to figure them out is the guy who plays 5 times a week since he was a kid.  Obviously not always, but it is not surprising that low handicappers are thought to know more.

Joe,


You are making the assumption that low handicap players play more golf than average handicap players. I know that not to be true. And I have found little correlation between level of ability and appreciation for architecture. Only one anecdote because it stood out in my mind so much. When played Royal Dornoch, we caught up to a couple on the 14th tee. He was an excellent player as we quickly learned. He drilled his tee shot down the correct side and hit a short iron to 15 feet. He drained the putt. I commented to him that he just birdied one of the most storied holes in Gca. His response, Oh really, why is that?


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
That’s a pretty “Foxy” birdie 😊.  You should have also asked the guys partner what he or she thought after they picked up for an X because they couldn’t finish the hole 😉

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()