Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jed Peters on June 03, 2010, 01:54:11 AM
-
If they can't pull off the shot (or even have a hope to pull off the shot), is all they can do talk in hypotheticals?
-
Jed,
Now here is a question on GCA that I certainly have the experience to respond to as I know full well that “pulling off the shot” can be a miss or hit (even a mis-hit) affair with me. I may believe that I can play the shot but, invariably, it will be overcooked and appear as a caricature. When all is said and done there is little finesse in my arsenal. However I can still see in the architecture what might well be the ideal approach in way of the golf shot. The beauty for me is to decide whether a sneaky, clever shot requiring much less expertise than the classic draw, high fade or whatever can be substituted. So, yes, beard-pullers can evaluate a golf course even though execution is not their forte.
The Hielander
-
Good one Jed and I think we almost got started a little on this topic during the KP.
I'd say it's pretty tough for a hack like myself to evaluate a course in just one visit to the same extent as a better player. Evaluating would probably just take more time and several visits. You'd almost do a better job of it by simply walking the course instead and sure ... it's probably going to be more hypothetical since you're not playing it.
But I think you certainly can appreciate the architecture and see the shot. That to me plays into evaluating, because if the opportunity for the shot isn't even there ... then the challenge isn't there to begin with either. The more variety and interest level to that challenge ... the better a course is in my book.
Now back to stroking the beard...
-
Jed:
I sort of agree with this line of reasoning, even though others have used it to question what I know about design, because I'm not a great player.
The most fun I had this week in Bandon was going out on Old Macdonald Sunday with just a couple of clubs and seeing whether I could play the holes with just one club. I actually played the last seven holes with one club and made a couple of pars that way, including on #18. I figured if I could do that, the golf course has to be reasonably playable for others.
It also got Josh Lesnik and Mike Keiser thinking about hosting a one-club tournament at Old Mac.
-
That's where core principals enters the picture.
-
That goes back to the question of how many gca's really have been great players. Some, but not all by a long shot.
Some aspects of gca are pretty measureable (see my shot values post) and some shot value qualities are by feel, which is hard for the blacksmith golfer to judge. I try to listen to better players whenever they are talking about what makes a shot good or bad, and especially try to listen to lesser players when they talk about what makes a shot good or bad.
In the end, whatever level golfer you are as a gca, you need to understand the full range of golfers. And, you also have to decide whether a feature absolutely perfect for one class of player but terrible for another should be included in a design.
-
Having a grey beard myself, I evaluate a course using playability and fun. Variety and aesthetics from architectural standpoints.
Anthony
-
I had a beard for a while, and when I saw some grey in it, I went clean shaven to avoid that distinction.
I do like variety and aesthetics in a golf course though, so maybe it still shows through?
-
Jed - I think the 'secret' is that evaluating golf courses isn't very hard to do at all, for anyone -- good players or bad, after multiple plays or just one. All those so-called challenges to evaluation are just what people say; it makes us beard-pullers feel better about ourselves to pile nuance upon nuance, so as to better separate ourselves from the masses. But the truth is, all a sound evaluation requires is a pair of eyes free from blinding preconceptions or biases; and, as Adam notes, some familiarity with basic principles. But note: I'm talking about evaluating courses, not ranking them.
Peter
-
I guess it depends on the shot you're talking about. I think a lot of beard-pullers can pull off the shot, just not that often - unless you're talking about hitting a 350-yard drive. And even then, I'm sure there are those who've stroked both the beard and the shot....
-
Jed,
I have mixed feelings on this topic...While there's no question that it would take me many more plays to evaluate a course than TomD, I don't think that has much to do with our relative golfing abilities. It's just as much a matter of experience and enlightenment if you will. Many of the best players I know evaluate courses solely on fairness and resistance to scoring, neither of which are high up on my list....and for the record, I'm an ex-beard puller...
-
If they can't pull off the shot (or even have a hope to pull off the shot), is all they can do talk in hypotheticals?
Who exactly are we doing this "evaluation" for?
Seriously...your question(s) are very much worth exploring, but let's lay the ground rules first.
-
....and for the record, I'm an ex-beard puller...
(http://music-onebox.googleusercontent.com/thumbnails/1/artist/16/1662d1307aaa81230b651ecf00d27180.jpg) which one?
-
Jim, you stole my thunder
-
....and for the record, I'm an ex-beard puller...
(http://music-onebox.googleusercontent.com/thumbnails/1/artist/16/1662d1307aaa81230b651ecf00d27180.jpg) which one?
well, definitely not Billy Gibbons...Never has there been a guy with so much talent who just phones it in for a paycheck....except John Daly.....
-
Jed:
Even the worst golfer may have the imagination necessary to see the merits of a strong hole.
-
I can play most courses three or four times and "evaluate" how the various holes stack up for my game pretty well. Not just do I like it or not but render an actual judgement about whether the course or a certain hole or a certain approach shot is of really high quality, just mediocre or perhaps even poorly thought out or implemented. All as it pertains to my game, or one a whole lot like mine.
Don't know what "beard puller" means but I have a fairly awful golf game by most standards so that's the context in which I can judge. And so can 'most anyone who cares enough to be a regular participant in these discussions or who likes to travel around to study and play a wide variety of courses. Anyone like that can evaluate a course as it pertains to their own game.
But I think you're asking for something more general. You want to know who is able to render overall summary evaluations of courses as they will be experienced by a wide variety of players. If that's the question, then once again I don't know the word "beard puller" (although I do have beard it's too short to pull on) but the number of people I'd trust to do that kind of evaluation I could probably count on two hands. Tom Doak probably has that ability, most likely Mike Young too. Someone like Brad Klein who makes that sort of evaluation a major part of their life is probably a safe bet. But I don't think some college kid who can shoot 65 in a US Open qualifier or the guy who's won your state Amateur championship five times or some Tour pro who break par at Oakmont in a 20mph breeze is necessarily equipped for that sort of evaluation.
-
Is there a difference between the 20 handicapper who knows there is a speed slot just over that bunker that will give his drive 40+ extra yards but can never execute and the better player who also knows it's there BUT can execute the required shot to actually see and experience what his ball will do?
Is there something more meaningful/insightful/authentic when evaluating a course if the player can actually 'interface with the architecure' and not just theorize?
-
Is there a difference between the 20 handicapper who knows there is a speed slot just over that bunker that will give his drive 40+ extra yards but can never execute and the better player who also knows it's there BUT can execute the required shot to actually see and experience what his ball will do?
Is there something more meaningful/insightful/authentic when evaluating a course if the player can actually 'interface with the architecure' and not just theorize?
I would say yes. The more likely the player is to execute a specific shot, the less likely they would seem to be to consider other options...so the less likely they are to be observant of any other options.
-
Is there a difference between the 20 handicapper who knows there is a speed slot just over that bunker that will give his drive 40+ extra yards but can never execute and the better player who also knows it's there BUT can execute the required shot to actually see and experience what his ball will do?
Is there something more meaningful/insightful/authentic when evaluating a course if the player can actually 'interface with the architecure' and not just theorize?
I would say yes. The more likely the player is to execute a specific shot, the less likely they would seem to be to consider other options...so the less likely they are to be observant of any other options.
Are you two talking at cross purposes here?
EDIT: I figured out what I wasn't figuring out about the relationship of the two posts so I no longer have the feeling that porpoises are involved.
-
What's a porpoise have to do with anything?
-
I've learned never to cross porpoises...those guys hold a grudge forever!
-
It seems to me that golfing skill has little to do with evaluating a golf course. Tom Doak is considered to be a good evaluator of golf courses by many here. He considers his time caddying for all sorts of folks at The Old Course to be quite important to his view of what makes a good golf course and hole. With his intellect, I don't think it makes a hill of beans worth of difference if he were a 0, 10, or 20 handicap. His course evaluation skill would far exceed those of the originator of this thread. ;)
How, am I doing Sully? Does the nurse need to put away the glue still? ;)
-
Of course they can....to a certain degree.
A hack can evaluate the course from a hack's perspective. I.E. How does the course play for the hack.
Now, is the hack qualified to speak for the architecture insofar as how the course plays for the expert.
No, not really.
-
Of course they can....to a certain degree.
A hack can evaluate the course from a hack's perspective. I.E. How does the course play for the hack.
Now, is the hack qualified to speak for the architecture insofar as how the course plays for the expert.
No, not really.
But likewise there are some great players not really qualified to speak to how a course plays for a 20-handicapper.
-
Of course they can....to a certain degree.
A hack can evaluate the course from a hack's perspective. I.E. How does the course play for the hack.
Now, is the hack qualified to speak for the architecture insofar as how the course plays for the expert.
No, not really.
Dugger,
How about the hack that happens to be the caddy for ohhh, sayyyy Nick Faldo?
-
Garland:
Your last post gave me an idea ... I'm going to suggest to GOLF Magazine that they ask a couple of Tour caddies if they want to participate in the rankings process.
Caddies are some of the best in the world at "interfacing with the architecture". Most good caddies are reasonably good players, but none of them are good enough to play for a living, or they would.
-
Michael,
I would echo what Brent says...frankly I don't see how anyone can really evaluate a course for anyone else with any degree of certainty.
Sure, I could tell you some course is going to be brutal for one type of player, or that some other course is too easy...but can I really make an evaluation of a course through the eyes of two 8 handicappers that have completely different games? Can Tom Doak? I don't think so, but that's not the point..."greatest pleasure for the greatest number seems to be the point", right? Still doesn't mean it's a course I personally want to play.
-
Garland:
Your last post gave me an idea ... I'm going to suggest to GOLF Magazine that they ask a couple of Tour caddies if they want to participate in the rankings process.
Caddies are some of the best in the world at "interfacing with the architecture". Most good caddies are reasonably good players, but none of them are good enough to play for a living, or they would.
Tell them my special request is for Fanny.
;)
-
Garland:
Your last post gave me an idea ... I'm going to suggest to GOLF Magazine that they ask a couple of Tour caddies if they want to participate in the rankings process.
Caddies are some of the best in the world at "interfacing with the architecture". Most good caddies are reasonably good players, but none of them are good enough to play for a living, or they would.
I think that's a great suggestion. My college roommate used to caddy on tour and has always maintained that there are a lot of very good players caddying on tour. I have a couple of friends out there now caddying for top 50 players, and they both can flat out play. One having won a state Am, a state Open, Big Break II, and the other, who I used to work with, was always capable of reeling off 3 or 4 birdies in a row on demand in staff skins games. (His guy just won The players btw!)
-
There are shots my 70 year old mother hits (she plays every day at Sun City Palm Desert) that Jack Nicklaus can't hit. (OK maybe he can but I just don't think he tries those out while "testing" his design)
Where a good player with strength might fly a 9 iron, a weaker player might have to hit another type of shot. Why defer to the good player? One thing I promise is he ain't paying the bills.