[Chris Mavros]

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.

Heavy generalization that every panelist "sees" courses the same way.  Of course, there are some that rate courses without ever playing them, which has never really felt right to me. 

[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.

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.

Don't take this the wrong way but I may have learned just as much about golf courses from non-golfers as I have from you!

My best friend (an almost militant non-golfer) once asked me why moss couldn't be used as a good golf surface. The subsequent 2 hour conversation educated us both.

[Mark_Fine]

I wonder if Alice Dye's playing ability helped Pete (even though Pete was also an excellent golfer)?  But be clear, we all agree there is no substitute for being well traveled and well studied in GCA regardless of playing ability.   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik - this distinction is very important. Higher handicap players are forces to interact with more of the course simply because they have no choice.

I agree.

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.

I agree with that as well. Which is why I also think that generally speaking, higher handicappers don't think about the architecture as much as lower handicappers, despite "interacting" with it more. They often can't do as many things "intentionally" to play against the architecture.

(They can, again, through study or observation, know more about architecture than a good golfer. Like many here.)

[jeffwarne]

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.

Throw in many years as a caddie or teacher navigatating players of all levels and speeds around and you're on to something.
and to this day and for this reason I'll never agree with the rankings placement of Pine Valley(despite its quality for many players)

[Rob Marshall]

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.

Throw in many years as a caddie or teacher navigatating players of all levels and speeds around and you're on to something.
and to this day and for this reason I'll never agree with the rankings placement of Pine Valley(despite its quality for many players)

I suspect that playing with Pat Mucci would fit these descriptions to a tee.

[Garland Bayley]

... higher handicappers don't think about the architecture as much as lower handicappers, despite "interacting" with it more. They often can't do as many things "intentionally" to play against the architecture.
...

Or, maybe they can do, but just fail trying much more often.

[William_G]

need to be able to have fun is the base level

[Mark_Fine]

William,
Thumbs up!  Having fun needs to be a base level.  It is hard to appreciate any kind of activity if you can't have some amount of fun and satisfaction doing it. 

[Garland Bayley]

Fun is making scratch golfers like William sweat bullets just to manage a half in a match.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Fun is a great point, and the few who advocate for some puritanical life test of values and morals seem to miss the point.


Why do most of us play golf?  To get away from the stress of every day life.  Why would we want some life or death challenge?  As I have said before, 90% of the time, 90% of golfers want a suitable challenge (who wants to play putt putt and brag about their score of 45, for instance" think that challenge is suitable when they shoot an explainable score near their average (i.e., well, I put three in the water on 12, so I didn't break 90." 


And, yes, some potentially "great" architecture does get eliminated when a gca tries to average out all those feelings in trying to be suitable challenge to more golfers most of the time.....but I think we could also argue that some great (but punishing) feature really isn't all that great if it hurts most golfers.  I think Mac said something similar.  To Garland's point, traditionally, a good design is somewhat flexible, in that rough can grow, greens speeds can increase, and pin positions can be moved, to increase difficulty on specific days to some degrees.


If playing for more than you can afford, is it you sweating, or your wallet?  Even so, all but really bland designs have a way of separating similar golfers by a stroke or hole, without separating bad golfers by dozens of strokes, at least in most cases.


Short version, isn't the greatest good for the greatest number of golfers (and perhaps others, i.e., environmental issues) a good criteria for assessing golf architecture?

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Excellent post!  This all comes back to definitions again which rightfully so we will never find agreement about on this site - what is great? what is the best?,...


My wife would hate Pine Valley or Merion or Shinnecock Hills because she wouldn't have any fun.  She doesn't like any forced carries (even 50 yards) because they create too much anxiety and she chokes.  That is no fun.  She does recognize pretty holes from bland ones but her definition of great/best would be ones where she doesn't have worry about losing a ball and has some chance to make a bogie or even an occasional par.  That said, when she manages to carry the creek with her tee shot on the 7th hole at Lehigh and land on the green she is so proud of herself and can't wait to tell me about it.  Interesting 

[David Ober]

Jeff,
Excellent post!  This all comes back to definitions again which rightfully so we will never find agreement about on this site - what is great? what is the best?,...


My wife would hate Pine Valley or Merion or Shinnecock Hills because she wouldn't have any fun.  She doesn't like any forced carries (even 50 yards) because they create too much anxiety and she chokes.  That is no fun.  She does recognize pretty holes from bland ones but her definition of great/best would be ones where she doesn't have worry about losing a ball and has some chance to make a bogie or even an occasional par.  That said, when she manages to carry the creek with her tee shot on the 7th hole at Lehigh and land on the green she is so proud of herself and can't wait to tell me about it.  Interesting 

Exactly! My wife is the same way. She hates any kind of cross hazard, but when she does manage to carry it, she is, well, exuberant.


I love the trend toward more "playable," easy(er) to maintain, more walkable, more "fun" golf courses. Absolutely love it. As long as we realize that there is value in the "heroic," "difficult" shot for plenty of players and we incorporate that feature into our courses once a round or so, I have no complaints.

[Dan Herrmann]

This thread reminded me of a story Eric Pevoto shared in the early days of French Creek GC.    He was out in the community trying to attract members.    He came armed with photographs and design drawings, along with early hole narratives written by Gil Hanse (we're talking 2002-2004 here).


Eric said he was challenged by prospects that complained about center-line fairway bunkers, some forced carries, and strategic short par 4s.   


I love those things, but it appeared that many wanted to "have it all laid out in front of them".   Eric used to joke that these folks wanted a big arrow painted on the tees to let them know the exact direction to play.


Fact of the matter is that most golfers probably only give a passing thought to architecture.

[Thomas Dai]

Folks usually look at a course through their own playing eyes or those who they usually play with.
Some however, especially those 'in the business', have to look at a course through the perspective of all those who it is intended will play the course and ultimately those who do actually play it ..... elite players, decent players, men, women, seniors, juniors, a whole spectrum of players.
I'm not convinced that all highly competent players have it in them to view courses from a variety of player perspectives.
atb

[archie_struthers]

 


How about flipping this just a bit. Would a tour caddie understand the golf course better than the tour player? Probably depends on the player and the caddy. One can hit the ball with incredible precision the other studies the terrain probably more than anyone else on earth relative to playing and scoring.


Who understands the game better? I think it would generally be the looper ( ) ! His livelihood depends on it and value to the player is rooted in this knowledge. Many times an exceptional caddy knows the answer is YES even if there is a slight discrepancy in the yardage or a read on the green, slight is slight.


AS to the ability to build the best course if someone was blessed with great golf ability , an understanding of the ability of others (note Mark's reference to Mrs. Fine and hazards) and a large degree of artistry and imagination they would be theoretically the ultimate candidate to build a great golf course.


Of course don't forget more than a nodding acquaintance with engineering so the drainage works!

[William_G]

Fun is making scratch golfers like William sweat bullets just to manage a half in a match.

handicaps can make it more fun especially if you are getting a stroke every hole, if you are into that kind of thing, LOL

[John Kavanaugh]

Fun is making scratch golfers like William sweat bullets just to manage a half in a match.

handicaps can make it more fun especially if you are getting a stroke every hole, if you are into that kind of thing, LOL

I wish there were more cards in life displaying the incompetence of your competition. Before the internet you could just look at a guys shoes.

[Steve Lang]

Fun is making scratch golfers like William sweat bullets just to manage a half in a match.

handicaps can make it more fun especially if you are getting a stroke every hole, if you are into that kind of thing, LOL

William G,  your line reminded me of an old guy quote I once heard at my home muni course: "real men don't take strokes"

[Garland Bayley]

Fun is making scratch golfers like William sweat bullets just to manage a half in a match.

handicaps can make it more fun especially if you are getting a stroke every hole, if you are into that kind of thing, LOL

William G,  your line reminded me of an old guy quote I once heard at my home muni course: "real men don't take strokes"

William is a real man. He is willing to give strokes and make his game stand up to the strokes given. A lot of low cappers would rather whine, make excuses, cast aspersions, etc. And, you want to call them "real men"?

Of course he doesn't have to give me strokes if he lets me start the round 4 1/2 holes into the course while he starts on the first tee.

[Steve Lang]

Garland,


Slow the swing down, man... the operative word in that old man stroke bartering/banter line was "take," not "give."   


William_G sounds like a good person/player if he gives strokes to folks to promote a fun match, at least for other competitors, fine, but we all know old man par doesn't, and if that's who you're competing with, a little gca knowledge and playing competency certainly goes towards that good fight.


play on.

[Garland Bayley]

Steve,

It's about time old man par passed away and quit inhibiting the future of golf.

[Jason Thurman]

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.

Throw in many years as a caddie or teacher navigatating players of all levels and speeds around and you're on to something.
and to this day and for this reason I'll never agree with the rankings placement of Pine Valley(despite its quality for many players)

I suspect that playing with Pat Mucci would fit these descriptions to a tee.

I was thinking of Pat in the back of my mind as I typed that one out, and also thinking of about a dozen guys at my club who continue to play sub-80 golf well into their 60s and 70s. Get those guys talking about how they approach certain holes, and you quickly realize just how much they understand architecture's influence on the outcome of shots, even if they don't always know a Redan from a Road.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()