What did you learn this year about GCA?

[Jason Topp]

It has been a strange year.  My only golf travel was by car - one visit to Lawsonia and several visits to Northland Country Club in Duluth.  I played a wider variety of local (Minneapolis) courses and enjoyed having the time to do so.  My eternal quest to play better had middling success but at least was not as disastrous as the last couple of years.

Many local clubs have made substantial changes to their courses recently  Killing the old grass and replanting has taken place at five different clubs.  Others have shut down for substantial renovations that for the most part strike me as big improvements. A lot of money is being spent.  I like the results but am not sure it is well spent.  Lawsonia and Cedar Rapids CC show that a more conservative approach can yield a spectacular product.   

Oak Ridge Country Club, which I described in a my home course article 15 years ago https://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/oak-ridge-country-club/ was a particular treat after an extensive renovation by Dave Axeland.  The course was among my favorites in town before the work and while the removal of trees is jarring to a former member, many of the changes were things I thought made sense long ago and it is interesting to see them actually happen.  I would never have imagined some others but believe the course has dramatically improved because of them.

I also have spent a fair amount of time thinking through the analysis of some of the data people who argue that angles should largely be ignored when playing golf.  Their argument is that statistics show little benefit to having a favorable angle into the green and that the benefit is far outweighed by the risks.  Instead one should assume a tee shot will fall somewhere within aa 60 yard wide area and to give yourself the best chance at getting on the green from anywhere within that 60 yard area. 
This approach is so contrary to the way I think about golf courses and takes away some of the fun.  Nonetheless, I believe it does make sense much in the way the shift has become nearly universal in baseball. 

Finally, I have spent a lot of time fighting about a ball rollback on twitter. Doing so has about as much value as arguing about ranking lists. 

We are going to do a trial run of the snowbird life the first three months of 2021 so if anyone is traveling to Palm Springs, shoot me a note and let's play. 

Happy holidays to all.  I hope to see more of you in the coming year.

[John Kavanaugh]

That Lester George isn't scared.

[Jason Topp]

That Lester George isn't scared.

Is it a front or reality?

[John Kavanaugh]

Ballyhack is both.

[Lou_Duran]

Like at many clubs, my home course this year has seen a very large increase in the number of rounds played.  Some 18 yeas old and perhaps a common practice at the time, the architects used countless basins to drain the course, many in the landing zones off the tee and near the green complexes.  With the greater play this year, these are already divot fields and we have another three months to go before the bermuda starts growing again.  (Is taking into consideration which club to hit, e.g. 3-Wood vs Driver, and the line of play to avoid these poorly maintained areas a strategic principle, i.e. unintended hazards which reward the more astute golfer?)


Earlier this week I was fortunate to tour the new PGA courses in the company of a project manager and an architect.  The discussion of drainage and moving water was extensive, and despite some study in the subject matter, I quickly learned that I haven't even skimmed the surface.  It was a revelation, especially when we could observe the results of  a decision or two which were seemingly motivated less by function than other reasons.  Oh, the championship course (Hanse) has but a single catch basin in the short grass, and this one is on the slice side and unlikely to catch many balls.


So, what I learned this year was that perhaps we focus excessively on the lipstick without giving much thought to the mostly invisible, ignored aspects of gca that make the courses playable and enjoyable.  Another lesson is that the design and construction of a golf course which is to hold a good volume of rounds should never be left to amateurs.  I have high hopes for the PGA courses.


P.S.- Jason, if your wintering in CA means that you've retired, congratulations!  If you are just working from "home", all the better.  Can't imagine suffering through a MN winter.


 

[Jason Topp]

Thanks Lou.  Working from “home”

[Ira Fishman]

1. The obvious: missing the opportunity to experience new courses simply sucks. GIven my age, I have limited myself to my home club.


2. Perhaps obvious to many of you: I was amazed how much I enjoyed our home course after our new Superintendent did his work. The layout is pretty mediocre on a cramped space, but the green contours are really good. When he got the greens to roll true, one could really appreciate those contours.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

I also have spent a fair amount of time thinking through the analysis of some of the data people who argue that angles should largely be ignored when playing golf.  Their argument is that statistics show little benefit to having a favorable angle into the green and that the benefit is far outweighed by the risks.  Instead one should assume a tee shot will fall somewhere within aa 60 yard wide area and to give yourself the best chance at getting on the green from anywhere within that 60 yard area. 
This approach is so contrary to the way I think about golf courses and takes away some of the fun.  Nonetheless, I believe it does make sense much in the way the shift has become nearly universal in baseball. 

A lot to digest in a sort of mixed post covering many topics.  My first reaction is this PP could stand a unique thread of it's own!

[V_Halyard]

JT Great question. COVID has amplified my fascination with, and active participation in efforts to proliferate the benefits of well architected municipal golf.

[Mike Sweeney]

1) RTJ, Dick Wilson, and William Mitchell built some really good original golf courses.


2) RTJ, Dick Wilson, and William Mitchell bastardized some great golf courses with "renovation" work.

3) RTJ, Dick Wilson, and William Mitchell did nothing wrong. The country and golf was growing at a rapid rate.

4) There were others to add to the above from the 60's and 70's.

[Peter Pallotta]

I learned that if I want to score my best I should walk a course before I play it — but not with an eye to playing it for my best score.

If I walk a course as if I was strolling through the woods or hiking along a trail, the golf-specific features and hazards take on a different ‘aspect’: in not looking at them solely from an architectural perspective and as parts of a field of play, I see them better and more completely, ie for what they are.

And seeing them for what they actually are instead of what the architect intended them to be (and designed them for me to think they are) I become a little more free of them — I’m not ‘directed’ or ‘compelled’ to think about them in any specific way, nor (in the event) to play them the way my golfing brain tells me that I ‘should’ play them.

Peter

PS - I know exactly what JT means. He’s right, and in one sense it is indeed less fun.

[Mike Sweeney]

Oops. Repeat post.


I will add that Pete Dye was a transition architect, but I prefer William Mitchell.

[Steve Lang]

   I learned that after several years, I still cannot choose a favorite between the Red and Black Loops at Forest Dunes, going to have to play them some more next summer!

[Jason Hines]

What I learned: Caprock Ranch lives!!

[Ronald Montesano]

After reading five great books (TD's Getting To 18, Ian's In Every Genius, Jonathan's The Rating Game, Brett Cyrgalis' Golf's Holy War, and Luke Reese's One For The Memory Banks) I made an effort to conduct a Buffalo's Best Golf Course poll on Twitter. I was encouraged by golf experts all across the region to give up my folly, and to appoint an expert panel to the task, instead. I did not cave, as I wanted to educate the common golfer on what the term Best actually entails. I took a lot of shots, but any shot is publicity, and publicity is a good thing for a regional golf website.


I then enlisted my trusty cohort to visit the courses that were most offended by being told that their course was not a Best course. It's funny how a course mistakes Best for most enjoyable or easiest or best halfway house or best cart service. You have to continue to push people push the envelope, and that gives me great admiration for the architects and superintendents who do just that.


I don't know that I learned much new about golf course architecture, but I do know that I continued to ask questions of every architect that I interviewed for GolfWRX and BuffaloGolfer. Although I'll never be the subject of one of Ran's Feature Interviews, my appreciation for the work of archies allows me to teach my varsity kids about gca, and to ask each new playing partner what is really out there, beyond the tee deck.

[Tom_Doak]

I also have spent a fair amount of time thinking through the analysis of some of the data people who argue that angles should largely be ignored when playing golf.  Their argument is that statistics show little benefit to having a favorable angle into the green and that the benefit is far outweighed by the risks.  Instead one should assume a tee shot will fall somewhere within aa 60 yard wide area and to give yourself the best chance at getting on the green from anywhere within that 60 yard area. 
This approach is so contrary to the way I think about golf courses and takes away some of the fun.  Nonetheless, I believe it does make sense much in the way the shift has become nearly universal in baseball. 

Luckily, the main thing I learned this year is that the above is not true, if you build greens with run-offs at the sides, and you have bermuda rough.  It may not cause the players to lean to one side of the fairway over the other, but most of them said if they drove it into the rough they had to play defensively on the approach shot, and that meant not even trying to get on the green when the angle was wrong.

[Jason Topp]

I also have spent a fair amount of time thinking through the analysis of some of the data people who argue that angles should largely be ignored when playing golf.  Their argument is that statistics show little benefit to having a favorable angle into the green and that the benefit is far outweighed by the risks.  Instead one should assume a tee shot will fall somewhere within aa 60 yard wide area and to give yourself the best chance at getting on the green from anywhere within that 60 yard area. 
This approach is so contrary to the way I think about golf courses and takes away some of the fun.  Nonetheless, I believe it does make sense much in the way the shift has become nearly universal in baseball. 

Luckily, the main thing I learned this year is that the above is not true, if you build greens with run-offs at the sides, and you have bermuda rough.  It may not cause the players to lean to one side of the fairway over the other, but most of them said if they drove it into the rough they had to play defensively on the approach shot, and that meant not even trying to get on the green when the angle was wrong.

Houston I presume.  I will be interested to see how it plays as it matures and players get to know it better. 

[Tom_Doak]

Houston I presume.  I will be interested to see how it plays as it matures and players get to know it better.

To your point, I don't think many of the players will do anything but aim at the middle of the fairway and bomb away, and then just react if their second shot is out of position.  Being in the fairway is important, and they aren't going to hit many more fairways with a club other than driver.  But if they're in the rough on the wrong side, their strategy for the approach shot will be markedly different, and maybe some of them will be encouraged to pick a side of the fairway.


I don't have all the ShotLink data for the event yet, I am curious to look through it and see if there were any holes where the field didn't all pick the same target.

[Thomas Dai]

I also have spent a fair amount of time thinking through the analysis of some of the data people who argue that angles should largely be ignored when playing golf.  Their argument is that statistics show little benefit to having a favorable angle into the green and that the benefit is far outweighed by the risks.  Instead one should assume a tee shot will fall somewhere within aa 60 yard wide area and to give yourself the best chance at getting on the green from anywhere within that 60 yard area. 
This approach is so contrary to the way I think about golf courses and takes away some of the fun. Nonetheless, I believe it does make sense much in the way the shift has become nearly universal in baseball. 

Luckily, the main thing I learned this year is that the above is not true, if you build greens with run-offs at the sides, and you have bermuda rough.  It may not cause the players to lean to one side of the fairway over the other, but most of them said if they drove it into the rough they had to play defensively on the approach shot, and that meant not even trying to get on the green when the angle was wrong.

Curious as to what would be the likely situation somewhere where the rough isn't bermuda?
atb

[Mike_Trenham]

1) RTJ, Dick Wilson, and William Mitchell built some really good original golf courses.


2) RTJ, Dick Wilson, and William Mitchell bastardized some great golf courses with "renovation" work.

3) RTJ, Dick Wilson, and William Mitchell did nothing wrong. The country and golf was growing at a rapid rate.

4) There were others to add to the above from the 60's and 70's.

I would add George Fazio to this list, his original designs are quite good, yet his renovation work bastardized a number of excellent courses following the trends of the times.

[Mark_Fine]

While we are all always learning new things, sometimes revalidating what we think we already know is just as important.  Here are some things that I learned/revalidated:[/size]- Renovation work is a lot of fun vs restoration work which is fun but much more tedious and time consuming.  You can see why most architects prefer to do their own thing. - Higher handicap golfers like some level challenge too.  Proper balance is key.  - Trees are probably the most controversial and emotional aspect of any kind of restoration/renovation work but also the one change that can make the most difference. Skeptics often don’t see the vision but can be converted after seeing the results. - No matter how good the architect, there is no substitute for a good superintendent - The same goes for a great contractor and shaper; they will make or break any course improvement project.  - Play it forward has a lot of merit and more courses should encourage it and accommodate it with shorter tees- Centerline hazards will continue to be misunderstood and under utilized. Sometimes just one is enough in 18 holes to re-introduce the concept and to start to get buyin.  - Less can often be more if careful thought is given to what and where the less is. - Closely mown grass is a great hazard that should be used more on many courses and not just on the highest end ones. - Quality architecture is important but like it or not conditioning will always be paramount on the list for most any golfer. - Never compromise on drainage as a wet soggy course will cost more money in the long run and result in unhappy owners/golfers- Design interest is more important than design difficulty.  Sometimes they are congruent sometimes they are not.  - It is hard for golfers to objectively critique anything without thinking about their own game. 

[Mike_Young]

To your point, I don't think many of the players will do anything but aim at the middle of the fairway and bomb away, and then just react if their second shot is out of position.  Being in the fairway is important, and they aren't going to hit many more fairways with a club other than driver.  But if they're in the rough on the wrong side, their strategy for the approach shot will be markedly different, and maybe some of them will be encouraged to pick a side of the fairway.

Have watched a couple of good tour players who won several tournaments last year and play at our course.  What you are saying above is spot on.  They understand the advantage of the proper angle for approach while on the tee but will still take the middle of the fairway on the tee shot and accept fairway before they worry about angle for approach.....and I think that is ok..

[Mike_Young]

I learned that as much as I have always considered maintenance to be what defines good architecture for 95% of golfers, social media is right there with it and actual design is a distant third...

[Tommy Williamsen]

This was the worst year I've had for golf since I tore my ACL skiing fifteen years ago. I played four different courses. I was a member at three of them and rated Indianwood when I visited my daughter in Michigan. I injured my foot in August, which sidelined me off and on til now. I didn't played more than 30 rounds all year, most at Ballyhack. I played the course where I live exactly twice. They were expensive rounds.


The only things I learned happened on GCA. What's worse is that I didn't miss golf much because I played so poorly. I can't remember playing this badly for decades. I got a lesson and the changes were so drastic that I couldn't make the switch. It is hard to change after swinging one way for 65 years. Either next. year is better or I quit.

[Tim Martin]

That you don’t need more than a fun set of holes and some like minded individuals to enjoy the game. I’m wondering if some of the full service clubs will eliminate valets, outdoor bag handlers, locker room attendants, etc. going forward regardless of vaccine status.