[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


She was a good player too who made a solid bogey. I hit my tee shot to the wrong place, but I knew it was the wrong place because I have an interest in architecture despite my average handicap. The fact that I did not play to the correct places did not mean I did not appreciate the reasons for right versus wrong.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I would assume you would understand the hole.  I am not arguing that.  And maybe the women knew more about the hole than her partner.  Again my question was simply what it was - is there a certain level of competency that helps identify the best courses?  It is not a trick question nor is the one about can a world’s best golf course have a very low (113-120) slope rating from the back tees?   

[Ira Fishman]

I know it is not a trick question, and I have stated several times that there is not. Not surprisingly, good players seem to think that there is such a level, and us average players disagree. It actually is more than a bit insulting that some folks believe that our understanding of and appreciation for gca is negated because we are not low handicap players.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
It is not at all meant to be insulting.  As you point out, there are many excellent golfers that don't understand GCA.  I was just asking if a certain level of playing ability helps?  I was also asking (and pointing out at the same time) that to be a great golf course, in my opinion it has to display a certain level of challenge.  Just was wondering what this group thinks is the minimum? 

[Kalen Braley]

John,

I would agree the better player can manage their misses better, because most of the time their misses are manageable, like aiming for a pin on the right side of the green, but their miss is to the middle left.  This in contrast to a high capper aiming for the middle of the green, but instead misses in a bunker short and right of the green that leaves them dead, or hitting it fat and now have a 50 yard approach for their next shot. How is a high capper expected to “manage” that? I’m guessing this is why the Tours play lift, clean, and place in soggy conditions because even they can’t tolerate the level of unpredictability from a mud ball… that us high cappers live with on nearly every shot.

However, If we want to decompose this topic into its finer bits, I think it includes at least 4 parts:

1) Learning and Analyzing the Hole – This will take a few playings to observe the bunkering, slopes, yardages, green tilt, places where recovery is difficult, etc.  Additional rounds certainly supplements the understanding and the smaller nuances being to reveal themselves, but the basic gist is gained in the first few times around for most holes.

2) Developing strategies to play the hole- Identifying and creating a few good strategies come next, especially after trial and error and learning a few “must avoid at all costs” area. Factoring in distance, difficulty of the hole, risky components that could be taken on, taking more than single bogey out of play, etc. Most holes I usually comes up with two strategies, sometimes 3 depending on length/complexity, and certainly as you learn the nuance, you tweak them.

3) Picking the correct strategy based on your skill set – After Execution, this step is where High cappers from better players differ. The vast majority of high cappers generally aren’t interested in the safe play, want to hit the driver as much as possible, and always go for it wherever they end up. They often reject the smart play and far too often want to hit the pro shot or worse yet pro recovery. The scenarios here are near endless where high cappers compound mistake after mistake with the hero shot. So whether its ego, delusion, or denial… its pedal to the metal most of the round and they don’t seem to be interested in playing shows in line with realistic expectations of their abilities. And I’ve had conversations where its like “did you not see the bunker, or that hazards, or the tightness of a long hole”, and the response is some form of I was going for the par/birdie. IMO this is the primary area where both good and poor players have actual control, yet most high cappers poorly adapt their strategy relative to good players.

4) Executing the shots – This speaks for itself and while good players are trying to hit specific shots with a corresponding shot shape and where it will go, high cappers just hope to not top it and hit it anywhere in the fairway with some reasonable distance.  But once again, its not from lacking the aptitude to do steps 1 and 2, it’s the lack of putting a good strategy in play and the ability to consistently execute. (Step 3 is where I like to think I differ from most HCs)

10 years ago, I played the best golf of my life over a 1.5 year period. I was 16-18 for many years prior and dropped to 12-13 playing the same courses I already knew well. My approach/strategy was the same, my putting was already good, I didn’t implement any new practice techniques, but the difference was just simply playing more rounds and going to the range more. This led to gaining some distance, but the real improvement was just fewer misses with my driver and long irons, which ironically enough, I still hit roughly the same amount of shots, I eliminated most of the penalty strokes from lost balls, OB, water hazards.

I’m just one data point, but in my case, practicing and playing more led to better scores and it doesn’t correlate or follow that because I was a better player, I then had increased capability/ability to assess a course.

[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.

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

Ira, I can't imagine this is true. Sure, there are the retired guys who play every days and are average or worse and then the occasional scratch guys who play once a week.  But it doesn't really make sense that there would be no relationship between amount of play and handicap.  If we take a 45 year old guy who is a 20 and another that is a 5, I  would bet a good deal the 5 has played significantly more lifetime rounds.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Of course this is true. But anyone with a golfing brain can see those shots. They don't need to be able to hit them.

Of course they can see them, but do they often? I don't think a 20-handicapper often sees all the shots that are possible because that's not how they play. As I said, they can learn and observe and grow to see them, even if they can't execute them… but they often don't, in my experience. Even among Tour players, they often won't "see" a shot they can't hit themselves. Tiger hit shots many other players didn't even "see," for example.

[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

Ira, I can't imagine this is true. Sure, there are the retired guys who play every days and are average or worse and then the occasional scratch guys who play once a week.  But it doesn't really make sense that there would be no relationship between amount of play and handicap.  If we take a 45 year old guy who is a 20 and another that is a 5, I  would bet a good deal the 5 has played significantly more lifetime rounds.

Joe,


Golf is not really different from most other sports. Some people are more gifted than others. When I was younger, I played and practiced a lot. Perhaps I was an 8 or 9 at my best. I see guys at our club who are similarly situated. I know that really good golfers put in a lot of work, but that is a small part of the difference. And that is true at even the highest levels. Our former assistant Pro is a really good player. He has qualified for the PGA Club Pro Championship three times. When I asked him if he could afford to play and practice all of the time would he be good enough to take a shot at the Tour, he answered that he would still not be good enough for the Korn Ferry. Don't underestimate your natural ability versus how often you play. See Bruce Liedzke.


Ira

[Joe Zucker]

Kalen (I assume your response was directed to me), while I appreciate the story, I think you might be near the worst 20 handicap to use as a case study.  There have to be very few 20 handicaps who have put the amount of reading and thought into this topic as you have.  For steps 1-3, I agree that there is no reason why a better play would automatically see or figure these things out in a way that is demonstrably better.  But in the real world with real golfers who range from average to very good, I still believe the better golfer is more likely to see and appreciate more of the hole because they have generally spent more time in the game. 

The point has been debated before, but I think architecture and strategy is probably more important for the lesser skilled player for a variety of reasons.  That being said, the amount of experiences better golfers have makes it more likely they will see things in a hole that the average (non-GCA 20 handicap) golfer won’t. 

Ira, I agree that natural abilities are extremely important and we underrate genetics in society, but naming a couple outliers is not that instructive.  I’m sure your assistant pro played 200-300 rounds a year for at least a decade to get to the level he is.  I don’t doubt there are great players who rarely play and rely on natural ability, but all the good players I know play a lot (50+ rounds per year) and have had periods in their life when they played far more than that.  This could easily be solved with some data and is purely an empirical question, but googling didn’t yield anything.  Until proven otherwise, I’ll maintain that average number of rounds for 0-5 handicaps is greater than 15-20 handicaps.

To be honest, I’m surprised either of these sentiments are controversial.  The idea that lesser skilled players play more frequently and can assess a course more easily than better skilled players on average seems very counterintuitive to me.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The point has been debated before, but I think architecture and strategy is probably more important for the lesser skilled player for a variety of reasons.  That being said, the amount of experiences better golfers have makes it more likely they will see things in a hole that the average (non-GCA 20 handicap) golfer won’t.

I agree with this as well. They interact with more of it.

Until proven otherwise, I’ll maintain that average number of rounds for 0-5 handicaps is greater than 15-20 handicaps.

I believe that to be true as well.

[Sean_A]

The point has been debated before, but I think architecture and strategy is probably more important for the lesser skilled player for a variety of reasons.  That being said, the amount of experiences better golfers have makes it more likely they will see things in a hole that the average (non-GCA 20 handicap) golfer won’t.

I agree with this as well. They interact with more of it.

Until proven otherwise, I’ll maintain that average number of rounds for 0-5 handicaps is greater than 15-20 handicaps.

I believe that to be true as well.

Generally, I agree. The essence of the long ball debate is about making top golfers interact with the intended design.

Ciao

[Jim Sherma]

Erik - this distinction is very important. Higher handicap players are forces to interact with more of the course simply because they have no choice. In many ways they have architecture inflicted upon them. I think that this gets to the point of one of my earlier posts that very few of us are "playing" the game in the sense that we are strategically and proactively interacting with the architecture as opposed to making swings and basically seeing what happens.


In terms of the specific original intent of this thread an example of how different playing ability impacts the ability to critique architecture I am reminded of the now NLE Center Valley Club in Center Valley, PA south of Bethlehem. It was a Geoffrey Cornish/Brian Silva design on a very flat piece of land. The front nine was faux links with a lot of mounding and shaping while the back nine was more parkland moving through stands of mature trees. The course never really made it as a business but generally was kept in good shape. I always felt that the course was overrated by a lot of people because it was hard to score on and looked pretty. Many of the good players I knew did not think highly of the course and I think this was due to excess green shaping, especially on the front 9, just not working well in places. Specifically, if the green were firm the approach shots on some holes became a bit of a crap shoot. This was driven by the fact that the internal slopes tended be sharp did not work together particularly well. Multiple shots landing within a 6 foot area could result in significantly different outcomes depending on which slope or counter-slope they happened to land on. Due to this the course would be kept somewhat soft most of the time and the faux links style with soft conditions did not seem right either. The back 9 had it's issues with routing and wetlands but given the style of the shaping worked much better than the front whether it was firmer or softer. Hopefully, this makes sense as an example of how one's playing level changes the way that one would consider the architecture of a course based on how they are trying to interact with it. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Does the same logic apply to being able to appreciate and recoginze the best golf courses?  [/size]


The above is the original question, not if you enjoy the courses.


I enjoy birds but am not qualified to serve on a migratory commission. It doesn't make me a bad person.[/color]

[Kyle Harris]

The entire point of improving in golf is to interact with as little of the golf architecture as possible.

Of course worse golfers are interacting with more it - they're playing more strokes!

[Mark_Fine]

So can we all conclude from this thread that regardless of one's playing ability, any level golfer could identify what most consider the best golf courses on the planet? 


If so, then who cares what the make up is of these different magazine ranking panels.  As long as you have a statistically significant number of golfers who travel around, playing ability should not be a qualifying criteria. 

[Kyle Harris]

So can we all conclude from this thread that regardless of one's playing ability, any level golfer could identify what most consider the best golf courses on the planet? 


If so, then who cares what the make up is of these different magazine ranking panels. As long as you have a statistically significant number of golfers who travel around, playing ability should not be a qualifying criteria.

Fixed this for you.

[Mark_Fine]

Kyle,
I hope Ran isn’t offended 

[Kyle Harris]

Mark,


The conversations are fun, but just as your playing ability, need to be tossed out as a consideration when actually determining whether or not you enjoy playing a golf course or not.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Does the same logic apply to being able to appreciate and recoginze the best golf courses? 


The above is the original question, not if you enjoy the courses.


I enjoy birds but am not qualified to serve on a migratory commission. It doesn't make me a bad person.

John,  not only that, but the old saying "ignorance is bliss" might apply to how average golfers look at a course, i.e., playing and not frying your brain about architecture quality likely makes for more happy golfers, no?  I recall as a teenager, spent many hours in deep thought about the world, etc.  Dad's advice was to find a girl, take her out for a cheeseburger, and then assess how important I thought world problems were after that.....and, he was right!  I think the golf corollary might be, "Just play golf, dammit!"

[Mark_Fine]

Would a better question be - From what perspective should a golf course be judged to determine how good it is?  Regardless of playing ability (let’s all agree it doesn’t matter) how should one judge the quality of a golf course?  Should it simply be based on one’s own game.  I find that to be the case most often when working with committees or just playing golf with others in general.  Again there are no right or wrong answers. 


I played a course last week and the course looks and plays very differently depending on what set of tees you choose. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


I am guessing that as a fellow architect, you go through the process for 3-5 generalized (and hopefully representative) groups during design?  Consider playing distance, carry and layup distances, typical dispersion patterns, etc.? 


I suspect that in the world of lists, at a minimum, some adaptation of the USGA course rating and SLOPE system may be adapted by some magazine, i.e., ratings for the best and the rest.  And maybe, even take a lead from designers and use those same 4-5 groups typically designated by tees and course yardages.


I think that might be the best, but I don't know if its practical.  Someone is sure to try.  And, the other advantage of five separate ratings, would be the chance for more courses to advertise in that mag that they get a 5 Star rating in the "Super Senior Men" category.......Every course gets a trophy!

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
I have another fairly major renovation that will start construction later this month.  I have always believed in engaging a wide cross section of members for their input into the proposed changes.  At the end of the day it is their course and they are the ones who will play it every day.  However, if they didn’t want outside guidance and advice they wouldn’t hire an architect and they would just do it themselves (some do that).  It is hard to please everyone but you have to try.  I am rarely worried about how a redesign or renovation will fare on “the lists”.  But I do want the course to be well perceived by the golfers who play there and they in turn want their golf course to be respected by others as well.  If I am doing anything differently lately it is making the golf course more enjoyable for the players who aren’t teeing it up from the tips. 

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen (I assume your response was directed to me), while I appreciate the story, I think you might be near the worst 20 handicap to use as a case study.  There have to be very few 20 handicaps who have put the amount of reading and thought into this topic as you have.  For steps 1-3, I agree that there is no reason why a better play would automatically see or figure these things out in a way that is demonstrably better.  But in the real world with real golfers who range from average to very good, I still believe the better golfer is more likely to see and appreciate more of the hole because they have generally spent more time in the game. 

The point has been debated before, but I think architecture and strategy is probably more important for the lesser skilled player for a variety of reasons.  That being said, the amount of experiences better golfers have makes it more likely they will see things in a hole that the average (non-GCA 20 handicap) golfer won’t. 

Ira, I agree that natural abilities are extremely important and we underrate genetics in society, but naming a couple outliers is not that instructive.  I’m sure your assistant pro played 200-300 rounds a year for at least a decade to get to the level he is.  I don’t doubt there are great players who rarely play and rely on natural ability, but all the good players I know play a lot (50+ rounds per year) and have had periods in their life when they played far more than that.  This could easily be solved with some data and is purely an empirical question, but googling didn’t yield anything.  Until proven otherwise, I’ll maintain that average number of rounds for 0-5 handicaps is greater than 15-20 handicaps.

To be honest, I’m surprised either of these sentiments are controversial.  The idea that lesser skilled players play more frequently and can assess a course more easily than better skilled players on average seems very counterintuitive to me.

Joe,

Sorry about that, that was intended for you.

I certainly subscribe to the theory that better players just plain play more, and end up seeing more of the course more often.  However, for 99% of holes, I don't believe you need to see/play it dozens of times to be able to figure out a good strategy and/or to decide if its a good hole.  By playing more a good player will perhaps learn a few micro undulations on the green to make birdie more often, but a 20 Capper can certainly get enough information to occasionally get a par, and avoid double bogey after just a few rounds.

And yes I certainly agree that given 10 rounds each for a scratch and a 20 capper, the latter will certainly interface more of the architecture.  Given the wide array of ways a high capper can screw up a hole, I have no doubt they will interact with more of the course.

[SL_Solow]

I suspect that we all agree that one need not be an outstanding player to be an outstanding architect.  Leaving aside our friends on the board, certainly MacKenzie and Raynor were not great players.  Colt and Travis were very good.  We could say the same thing with regard to less respected architects.  If architects of all playing ability can encompass the spectrum of ability to create good golf courses, then why shouldn't players of different abilities be able to understand and appreciate the work created by others?  That ability depends in large measure on a willingness to take the time to learn and understand the various challenges faced by the architect and the objectives set by their "patrons".  In our own experience we know that there is no direct correlation between architectural understanding and playing ability.  Exhibit A was our late great friend George Bahto.  No one wondered why George wasn't on tour but he was better than scratch when it came to architectural knowledge and judgment.  Similarly, we all know good players who have no clue, not to mention the many tour pros with similar acumen.  I suggest that there is no correlation in any direction regarding this issue.  My conclusion is also borne out by my experience on various committees over many years.  Across the board, the level of architectural knowledge is less than ideal.

[Tom_Doak]

So can we all conclude from this thread that regardless of one's playing ability, any level golfer could identify what most consider the best golf courses on the planet? 


If so, then who cares what the make up is of these different magazine ranking panels.  As long as you have a statistically significant number of golfers who travel around, playing ability should not be a qualifying criteria.

My wife, who has never played much golf at all, will sometimes come along with me to see a golf course, and she can form strong opinions of whether it's good that have nothing to do with hitting a golf ball.  Her eye is drawn to certain features, just the same as for all of us, but she has no bias about whether it's good or bad because it is a certain distance from the tee.  Still, she will react strongly when the composition is poor, or the features look unnatural, or the bunkers look like catboxes.


My kids used to think Crystal Downs was a great course because there were so many places where you could lie down and roll down a slope, or jump off one, and they were right to point out that the terrain was just inherently fun, golf be damned.


There should be more people like that rating courses, instead of more people who have been indoctrinated to see them the same way all the other panelists do.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()