DECADE vs. Golf Course Architecture

[Ira Fishman]

Jim,


You care about score. I rarely keep score. I am not saying that my philosophy and approach is better, but just that it does not discredit the architecture.


Ira

[JMEvensky]

Jim,


You care about score. I rarely keep score. I am not saying that my philosophy and approach is better, but just that it does not discredit the architecture.


Ira

I know Sully a little and probably won't hurt his feelings by trying to interpret.


The difference between Sully and most is that although he doesn't always care about the score, and will screw off some holes hitting the less than appropriate shot, if necessary, he can hit the correct shot--and hit it very well.


If/when scoring really matters, he's a lot better than most at shooting a score.

[JESII]

I love my buddies Jeff, and Peter coming to my rescue. Thank you fellas!


Ira, when is the last time you hit a wedge off the tee on a par 4?


My point is simply that you may not keep score but I'm certain you know if you're hitting good shots or not, and it matters. just by the fact that you try different shots into holes indicates you're interested in the result. That's what matters. I've said from the beginning, it's not about shooting a score, it's about trying to play the hole.


Walking a golf course with a wedge as a walking stick and hitting wedges all the way around sounds like an extremely enjoyable exercise...but it's not golf. It's time on a golf course, and the more attractive the better.




There's a chance "discredit" was the wrong word, but the conversation has followed where it would if I'd found the perfect word. My hope was to describe a lack of respect for the effort put forth by the architect and superintendent to present the hole/course for the day.

[Garland Bayley]

..., interestingly a while back Scott claimed the only reason to play golf was to shoot the lowest score possible ...

Heresy!

[/size][/color]

[Garland Bayley]

  DECADE...

Distance, Expectation, Correct Target, Analyze, Discipline, Execute,

where's the fun in that?

It's missing the most important ingredient.

Opponent

[/b]

[Jim Sherma]

It's missing the most important ingredient.


Opponent
Maybe not missing, only irrelevant.


These types of systems/mindsets describe golf as a "solvable dynamic programming problem" with the objective function of minimizing the expected score resulting from each step of the process. Since all normal golf games with an opponent is won by having a lower score why would a disciple of these methods believe a sub-optimal decision at any point in time would increase their chance of winning.


Of course Fast Eddie Felsen would question this.

[Garland Bayley]

It's missing the most important ingredient.


Opponent
Maybe not missing, only irrelevant.


These types of systems/mindsets describe golf as a "solvable dynamic programming problem" with the objective function of minimizing the expected score resulting from each step of the process. Since all normal golf games with an opponent is won by having a lower score why would a disciple of these methods believe a sub-optimal decision at any point in time would increase their chance of winning.


Of course Fast Eddie Felsen would question this.

We'll put you down as card and pencil. I've been in matches at Buda where no one used either. The opponent was the most important ingredient.

[Ira Fishman]

I love my buddies Jeff, and Peter coming to my rescue. Thank you fellas!


Ira, when is the last time you hit a wedge off the tee on a par 4?


My point is simply that you may not keep score but I'm certain you know if you're hitting good shots or not, and it matters. just by the fact that you try different shots into holes indicates you're interested in the result. That's what matters. I've said from the beginning, it's not about shooting a score, it's about trying to play the hole.


Walking a golf course with a wedge as a walking stick and hitting wedges all the way around sounds like an extremely enjoyable exercise...but it's not golf. It's time on a golf course, and the more attractive the better.




There's a chance "discredit" was the wrong word, but the conversation has followed where it would if I'd found the perfect word. My hope was to describe a lack of respect for the effort put forth by the architect and superintendent to present the hole/course for the day.

Jim,


I think I understand your point, and I do try to hit good shots even if I do not care about my score. But often times, the good shots I try to hit would not be the type that are the straightest line to a good score. And often times those shots feature the variety of the architecture (or at least try to do so) which in my mind is showing respect for the effort put forth by the architect and superintendent. We have a new superintendent who is opening up the necks to the greens which will better highlight the contours of the green and it’s surround. An aerial shot probably will still be the DECADE way to play most holes, but using the ground game will give respect to what the superintendent is doing. I not infrequently play with four or five clubs. I find that it really highlights the architecture and set up.


Ira

[Adam Lawrence]

Whether you score by strokes, holes, Stableford points, number of trees hit or something else, golf from a competitive point of view is a contest between two or more players. The golf course is not a participant in this contest, but a venue for it. This, IMO, is why the ‘defence of par’ is such a stupid concept.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam, especially when that defense of par concept comes out of a conversation including the phrase, "I wonder what the Tour Pros would shoot here, if they ever came."   In defense of RTJ, who I think originated the phrase for his US Open work, his work was for Tour Pros, and the USGA who wanted to embarrass identify the best player of the year.


One point I have been trying to make here, is that as gca's, we have some obligation or at least its a good idea to use some of this new data to improve designs.  If a low handicapper isn't going to be able to go for a tucked pin, using his (or the USGA Slope guide_ 12% of distance, i.e., 18 yards wide and deep for Sunday Pin, I think we ought to design it at least, say 17 yards wide and deep.  Going by feel and coming out with 15 yards deep/wide isn't likely to generate the aggressive play we intended otherwise. 


Or, as players get more scientific about things, maybe gca's ought to as well.  That seems to be the long term trend in most fields of endeavor.  Sometimes, I think the gca who would build something because Tillie did it that way would probably recommend blood letting if they had gone into medicine, LOL.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:


I have thought about your topic the past couple of days, while spending time on my new course in Ireland, which by the way is a very beautiful walk   


The part of your argument that concerns me is trying to take the logic to its conclusion.  If my ethical obligation is to try and shoot my lowest score, does that mean you're going to make me carry fourteen clubs, even though I only want to carry seven?  Do the people who are no good have to quit the game so they won't hold you up?


I am on Adam's page here, that the golf course is the venue for the game, it's not the examination.  As a venue, or a catalyst [n.  A substance, usually used in small amounts relative to the reactants, that modifies and increases the rate of a reaction without being consumed in the process], the other charms of the course can factor into its desirability as a venue one would choose. 


For example, Cruden Bay is compelling because its routing explores a beautiful property so thoroughly.  That doesn't make it as testing as Balmedie, but it could be the reason you want to play against your friends at Cruden Bay instead.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik:
Angles mattered even for the Tour players at Memorial Park last year, because they had difficulty stopping the ball out of Bermuda rough, and the greens roll off at the sides if you run through.

Yeah, so the ball was rolling. They weren’t able to stop it, so the angles mattered.

That’s why angles will matter around the greens, too, because they sometimes can’t play spinning shots that stop quickly, and so they have to play a rolling ball.

Angles matter a great deal when the ball is rolling, though.

I didn’t have the time to see much of the Memorial Park event but obviously trust your recollection of it.

———

The the topic, Scott will often say that the ENTIRE point of “golf” is to play for and shoot a lower score.

I feel sad for him if he truly believes that.

[Jim Sherma]

Before I get labeled as solely a card and pencil heathen please note that I described what a disciple is likely to believe. Not necessarily what I do at all points.


Big tent people! When out by myself in the evening I’ll hit all sorts of shots. When grinding for a score I’ll at least try to play more like these systems would suggest. Deep in a tight match play round I’ll hunt pins if I think it’s merited.

[Tom_Doak]

The more I think about this, we are discussing the difference between an amateur golfer and a professional.


An amateur can afford to be vain.  He wants to believe hitting it stiff on a par-3 is all talent and not just aiming four yards left of the target and leaking it four yards right.



If you make your living by playing golf, then you have to be realistic about your own ability and what makes sense for you to get around in the lowest number.

[Sean_A]

Whether you score by strokes, holes, Stableford points, number of trees hit or something else, golf from a competitive point of view is a contest between two or more players. The golf course is not a participant in this contest, but a venue for it. This, IMO, is why the ‘defence of par’ is such a stupid concept.

Couldn't agree more. That is not a slight on the course or the archie, it's just a fact that the course is not a competitor. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Whether you score by strokes, holes, Stableford points, number of trees hit or something else, golf from a competitive point of view is a contest between two or more players. The golf course is not a participant in this contest, but a venue for it. This, IMO, is why the ‘defence of par’ is such a stupid concept.

Couldn't agree more. That is not a slight on the course or the archie, it's just a fact that the course is not a competitor. 
Ciao

Yes and no to both the above.
There is also the 'par as a target' view and related aspects such the 'chess on grass' approach, where satisfaction is gained from planning a route from the tee to the hole that hopefully permits the least number of shots to be played and then executing each shot in a manner that achieves this.
Or another related approach, namely battling the conditions, where a player gains satisfaction from beating, or at least dealing with, the elements.
atb

[Sean_A]

Whether you score by strokes, holes, Stableford points, number of trees hit or something else, golf from a competitive point of view is a contest between two or more players. The golf course is not a participant in this contest, but a venue for it. This, IMO, is why the ‘defence of par’ is such a stupid concept.

Couldn't agree more. That is not a slight on the course or the archie, it's just a fact that the course is not a competitor. 
Ciao

Yes and no to both the above.
There is also the 'par as a target' view and related aspects such the 'chess on grass' approach, where satisfaction is gained from planning a route from the tee to the hole that hopefully permits the least number of shots to be played and then executing each shot in a manner that achieves this.
Or another related approach, namely battling the conditions, where a player gains satisfaction from beating, or at least dealing with, the elements.
atb

That is something, but it ain't competing. A course cannot compete or play...it is the field of play.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Disagree.
Atb

[Sean_A]

Disagree.
Atb

When is the last time a golf course signed a card? 😎


Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

Does the course pay its bets if you beat it?

[Thomas Dai]

2 against 1 but I ain’t changing my position.
Atb

[Sean_A]

2 against 1 but I ain’t changing my position.
Atb

I think you went to the Trump School of Alternative Facts 🙂.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Each to their own
Atb

[Michael Felton]

Isn’t basically the entire point of this board to discuss the contest between player and architect? The architect attempts to confuse, challenge, inspire the golfer and the golfer attempts to beat the architect - as represented by the course. I’m with Thomas.


When I lived in England I played by myself a fair bit. I viewed myself as in a battle then. If not the course then with whom was I battling?

[Matt MacIver]

Some people like to compete against Old Man Par (I don’t). Isn’t that competing against the course?


The clubhouse wall is filled with names of people that bested the par 3s on the course (not mine, yet).