[Adam Clayman]

Another key point in Greg's idea is that of "consistency."

For the golf course to consistently allow a bad shot to have the opportunity to score as well as a good one, a manner of consistency is required on the part of the golfer.

Consistency IS a skill. A golfer able to consistently strike a ball in the same manner while getting the ball to the necessary area or into the hole is demonstrating a significant amount of skill and should be a worthy opponent for many, regardless of the design.

Kyle, You are still pre-determing what a good or bad shot is. I'm not so stupid to think that the more skilled player will not win out almost every time.

A great example of this was at this years AM at CB. Quotes coming from officials were interesting, in that, they were seeing perfectly struck shots have poor results. Well, I say that wasn't a perfectly struck shot, if it's conception failed to account for the reaction once it returns to earth. Now, if perfectly struck shots can have bad results, golf's equilibrium (as I know it) would mean that poorly struck shots can have positive results on occasion.

That's what apparently happened to John Kirk's friend at Bandon. His execution was flawed but so was his thinking, pre-shot.

The consistent design elements that don't dictate the perfect shot, and encourage creativity, are better courses than the designs where the majority of shots are pre determined. Allowing the player who knows their own abilities, and/or lack there of, to use that knowledge to their advantage in achieving the score in the fewest strokes possible.

Two years ago we took our team down state. In the practice round, I had 100 yards uphill to a wide open green. I pulled a 5 iron and hit what I thought was almost exactly like what I wanted. It never got a foot off the ground. Our Freshman stick, turned to me and said "you didn't mean to do that". I showed him what club I hit, and he still couldn't believe I intended to have my ball approach in this manner. I asked him, " Do you think I hit 5 iron every time from 100 yards?" He still couldn't wrap his head around it, because all he knows is one shot pattern, one way to attack the hole. BTW, my ball ended up almost kick in distance.

[Kyle Harris]

Another key point in Greg's idea is that of "consistency."

For the golf course to consistently allow a bad shot to have the opportunity to score as well as a good one, a manner of consistency is required on the part of the golfer.

Consistency IS a skill. A golfer able to consistently strike a ball in the same manner while getting the ball to the necessary area or into the hole is demonstrating a significant amount of skill and should be a worthy opponent for many, regardless of the design.

Kyle, You are still pre-determing what a good or bad shot is. I'm not so stupid to think that the more skilled player will not win out almost every time.

A great example of this was at this years AM at CB. Quotes coming from officials were interesting, in that, they were seeing perfectly struck shots have poor results. Well, I say that wasn't a perfectly struck shot, if it's conception failed to account for the reaction once it returns to earth. Now, if perfectly struck shots can have bad results, golf's equilibrium (as I know it) would mean that poorly struck shots can have positive results on occasion.

That's what apparently happened to John Kirk's friend at Bandon. His execution was flawed but so was his thinking, pre-shot.

The consistent design elements that don't dictate the perfect shot, and encourage creativity, are better courses than the designs where the majority of shots are pre determined. Allowing the player who knows their own abilities, and/or lack there of, to use that knowledge to their advantage in achieving the score in the fewest strokes possible.

Two years ago we took our team down state. In the practice round, I had 100 yards uphill to a wide open green. I pulled a 5 iron and hit what I thought was almost exactly like what I wanted. It never got a foot off the ground. Our Freshman stick, turned to me and said "you didn't mean to do that". I showed him what club I hit, and he still couldn't believe I intended to have my ball approach in this manner. I asked him, " Do you think I hit 5 iron every time from 100 yards?" He still couldn't wrap his head around it, because all he knows is one shot pattern, one way to attack the hole. BTW, my ball ended up almost kick in distance.

Adam:

By your explanations we are in 100% agreement? I'm not quite sure I follow but am all ears to figure out why. Where exactly is the discord?

[Adam Clayman]

Kyle, I was reacting to Greg's question of fairness and to his doubts about en vouge designs. I assumed he was referring to the Doak, C&C etc, mediums that allow players to have fun, either through getting lucky, on occasion, or by designing a canvas that allows the player to determine what shot to play.

You pointed out that "consistently" or consistency was key to Greg's point and I responded that having pre determined shots dictated consistently was NOT Better. Sure, once in awhile throughout the round a player of less skill will be faced with a shot he/she cannot pull off, but, on a thoughtful design, they have an option to play it a different way, in two and still have a chance to keep the match or score close.

[Kyle Harris]

Adam:

I think I understand now.

In defining consistency as a skill, I'm saying that a golfer that can repeat a shot is demonstrating skill - even if it is a thirty yard slice (or a five-iron from 100 yards!), for example. If the golfer is then able to place that shot where it needs to be to attack the hole and score, the skillful golfer will likely do so. To some I can see how this could be misconstrued for a golf course allowing poor shots to succeed consistently.

That's why your example with your Freshman golfer confused me - I think I'm describing the same situation. You can consistently execute a shot that some may consider to be "bad."

[JNC Lyon]

I'm jumping into the 4th at Deal discussion a little late, but here goes:

The 4th at Deal can be very precarious, especially when a Northeaster forces players to hit mid-irons into the green.  However, I see the hole as being eminently fair.  The golfer just needs to understand where to miss around that green.  If you stand on that tee without full confidence in your club selection, the best choice is to favor the right side.  I find that a tee shot that ends up just right of that green leaves a fairly straightforward up and down from the short grass.  There is plenty of fairway over there, and the golfer will make a four at worst.  The aggressive play to the left-center of the green brings the back-left hollow into play, which is much more treacherous than the front-right miss and can lead to big numbers.

4 at Deal is an excellent hole because it forces a golfer to know his limitations.  If a golfer has full confidence in his swing and club choice, he can be aggressive while accepting some risk.  For the rest, the best play is to take the medicine and steer away from the left side.  If a golfer has a reasonable amount of control, he will always get away from the 4th with no worse than 4.

It's a tough short three--much tougher than the 8th, I believe, and it's a great example of how short grass can create strategy and terror.

[Sean_A]

John

All holes are eminently fair - that isn't the issue. 

If a guy is good enough to hit a ball right of the green and keep it on short grass, why can he not hit the green - a much larger target?  To me, a true bailout area is one which a player favours; meaning he is aiming for a soft side of the target, not aiming to miss the target.  I am not sure Deal's 4th provides a true bailout when the wind is blowing, but I could be wrong.  To me, its a flawed hole and nowhere near the status of great simply because there is too little room in conditions which aren't uncommon.  Yesterday, I identified the 8th having essentially the same problem although because of an over-abundance of sand rather than rough.   This theme is not particular to Deal.  Many courses have holes which are too restrictive to be considered ideal.   

Ciao

[George Pazin]

So much of it sounds like perception based on a small sample size. If you see one lesser golfer get away with something one time, then it sticks in your mind, when in reality, as Kyle says, those things tend to even out over the long haul - you just don't end up remembering that.

[JNC Lyon]

John

All holes are eminently fair - that isn't the issue. 

If a guy is good enough to hit a ball right of the green and keep it on short grass, why can he not hit the green - a much larger target?  To me, a true bailout area is one which a player favours; meaning he is aiming for a soft side of the target, not aiming to miss the target.  I am not sure Deal's 4th provides a true bailout when the wind is blowing, but I could be wrong.  To me, its a flawed hole and nowhere near the status of great simply because there is too little room in conditions which aren't uncommon.  Yesterday, I identified the 8th having essentially the same problem although because of an over-abundance of sand rather than rough.   This theme is not particular to Deal.  Many courses have holes which are too restrictive to be considered ideal.   

Ciao

Sean,

I should have used a different word than "fair."  Perhaps "forgiving" is a better word choice.

It's much easier to find the area to the right of the green than it is to find the green itself.  The land feeds away from the green gently into that right side area.  Furthermore, the area to the right of the green provides a much great margin for error: there is plenty of room for a miss to the right, and a left miss will probably find the green.  Having played that hole in several different winds, the right side is a very viable bailout.  If you miss it right there, you'll make a three or kick yourself for making a four.  That's not unreasonable, is it?

The right side of the 4th is a large bailout area with considerable room for error on windy days.  On calm days, the green will be much easier to hit, so players will have only themselves to blame for finding themselves in a poor spot.  I think 4 is a very good par three that defends itself consistently with only wind and gravity.

The 8th is tightly guarded by sand in the front, left and right.  However, there is plenty of room long-left of the green.  Moreover, the 8th green is a huge target, and it should be a straightforward task to hit it in all but the stiffest breezes.

[Ed Oden]

Ben, again, i believe you are misreading his concern.  Based on what John has posted, his friend thought his score was better than his shotmaking deserved and felt the failure to punish his mistakes was a strike against the course.

Ed

So how do we get around this divide without resorting to different courses for different class players?  I have always felt the option and power of recovery are marks of a distinguished course.  One of the few of this type we see used for the big boy and hacker alike is TOC.  Its a given that par is an easy score (like on virtually all courses the pros play on) to achieve on a great many days.  Wind, firmness, TOUGH hole locations and a bit more rough than many would like to see here and there are the great equalizers.  Unfortunately (and as I suspect at Old Mac), two of these features can't be produced by flipping a switch.  Does this mean TOC is no longer a viable championship venue or that Old Mac can't properly challenge good amateurs?  That is a question I can't answer because I am not good enough, it does seem to me that if its just a numbers game, we can change the numbers.

Ciao

Sean, sorry I missed your post.  Not sure I can answer your questions directly, although I do have a few tangential thoughts.

It's interesting that you bring up TOC.  Comparisons between Old Mac and NGLA are inevitable because of the CBM genealogy.  But, from my perch, Old Mac shares far more in common and is a kindred spirit with TOC more so than NGLA.  The characteristics you describe and admire at TOC are what I see at Old Mac.  I suspect Old Mac would yield similar results to TOC in tournament play by world class players.

Personally, I don't get the generalizations people on this site make about good v. bad golfers.  While skilled golfers (taken as a whole) may gravitate more toward the fair side and high handicappers (again, taken as a whole) may be more inclined to accept quirk, we are talking degrees and not absolutes on both ends of the spectum as well as everywhere in between.  In my opinion, it is a huge mistake to take those general inclinations and assume they apply in any meaningful way on either a micro or macro level.  For example, my rounds at Old Mac included a group of 8 golfers ranging in skill from scratch to high teens.  As far as I can tell, their response to the course had nothing to do with ability and everything to do with personality.

Finally, I don't subscribe to the "one size must fit all" mentality.  Isn't that a recipe for compromise?  The fact that Jack in the box has added teriyaki and tacos to their menu doesn't make me any more likely to go there for dinner.  I am ok if different courses find different niches.  In fact, I think that is a good thing since it fosters variety. 

I probably didn't address your questions.  Best wishes nonetheless.

[Sean_A]

Ben, again, i believe you are misreading his concern.  Based on what John has posted, his friend thought his score was better than his shotmaking deserved and felt the failure to punish his mistakes was a strike against the course.

Ed

So how do we get around this divide without resorting to different courses for different class players?  I have always felt the option and power of recovery are marks of a distinguished course.  One of the few of this type we see used for the big boy and hacker alike is TOC.  Its a given that par is an easy score (like on virtually all courses the pros play on) to achieve on a great many days.  Wind, firmness, TOUGH hole locations and a bit more rough than many would like to see here and there are the great equalizers.  Unfortunately (and as I suspect at Old Mac), two of these features can't be produced by flipping a switch.  Does this mean TOC is no longer a viable championship venue or that Old Mac can't properly challenge good amateurs?  That is a question I can't answer because I am not good enough, it does seem to me that if its just a numbers game, we can change the numbers.

Ciao

Sean, sorry I missed your post.  Not sure I can answer your questions directly, although I do have a few tangential thoughts.

It's interesting that you bring up TOC.  Comparisons between Old Mac and NGLA are inevitable because of the CBM genealogy.  But, from my perch, Old Mac shares far more in common and is a kindred spirit with TOC more so than NGLA.  The characteristics you describe and admire at TOC are what I see at Old Mac.  I suspect Old Mac would yield similar results to TOC in tournament play by world class players.

Personally, I don't get the generalizations people on this site make about good v. bad golfers.  While skilled golfers (taken as a whole) may gravitate more toward the fair side and high handicappers (again, taken as a whole) may be more inclined to accept quirk, we are talking degrees and not absolutes on both ends of the spectum as well as everywhere in between.  In my opinion, it is a huge mistake to take those general inclinations and assume they apply in any meaningful way on either a micro or macro level.  For example, my rounds at Old Mac included a group of 8 golfers ranging in skill from scratch to high teens.  As far as I can tell, their response to the course had nothing to do with ability and everything to do with personality.

Finally, I don't subscribe to the "one size must fit all" mentality.  Isn't that a recipe for compromise?  The fact that Jack in the box has added teriyaki and tacos to their menu doesn't make me any more likely to go there for dinner.  I am ok if different courses find different niches.  In fact, I think that is a good thing since it fosters variety. 

I probably didn't address your questions.  Best wishes nonetheless.

Ed

In a very real sense TOC is a major thread running through the geneology of CBM.  In my mind's eye I see Old Mac as a common ground course for NGLA and TOC.  Maybe one day I will get to see it - it sure is high on my list of Doak's to see along with Ballyneal and Apache Stronghold. 

You are right of course about the continuum of golfers' skill and about golf architecture.  Rarely is anything black or white in golf. 

Perhaps you are right that the one size fits all mentality is an impossible realization - just as Adrian (and many other knowledgable folks) stated a few posts back.  However, I can't help but to think that this is a noble goal for all archies.  Why else have one set of rules and the concept of any man playing a championship course?  Additionally, we do have an epic narrative of one such successful venue in its rich history of providing fun for the high marker and a challenge which retains elements of fun for the touring pro.  If TOC is anything it is the embodiment of bringing all classes (meaning levels of golfers) of golfers together under one roof and providing much the same experience with the history acting as the common bond.  It is certainly an ideal worth striving for even if modern golfers have slowly turned their backs on this history of classless golfers enjoying the same golfing ground.  I know there has been many side line conversations about how this state of affairs has come about, but I am still not quite sure I understand it.  Just as I am not sure why golfers visit the UK, applaud the conditions and how clubs are run, then go home and advocate for something on the other end of the continuum.  Its all Greek to me my friend. 

John

We shall have to agree to disagree.  Everybody has a right to blind love.  In many ways golf is like wine.  In the right circumstances some wine is wonderful and yet when tried on another occassion it disappoints. 

Ciao   

[Greg Tallman]

 links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.

  Anthony

Anthony, What percetage of shots within 30 yards of the green are played with one club? Not saying there are not options but what percentage do you take one particular club?

Is this any differnet than those that complain about just grabbing a sand wedge from the rough around a green?

Just food for thought.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()