Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Shane Gurnett on March 26, 2007, 05:35:25 AM
-
We were all poor players once. Many still are. How does the poor player appreciate the architecture as it applies to the elite player? Give examples.
-
Great question
-
I suppose the poor player would need to play with the better player to see...
Then he might notice that his 30 yard hook left a realtively simple pitch whereas the better player's near miss is plugged in the face of bunker.
And so on.
-
We were all poor players once. Many still are. How does the poor player appreciate the architecture as it applies to the elite player? Give examples.
It all depends on the golfers ability to recognize others' playing characteristics and then visualize appropriately.
Let's face, we're talking golf here, not astrophysics - or Shakespeare, for the English majors out there.
A poor golfer might not be able to hit the shots, but it doesn't take that much imagination to be able to visualize them.
Also, given the inconsistencies in most golfers' game, there is a good likelihood he has in fact hit some darn good shots.
I think, if anything, the poor player tends to overemphasize the ball striking ability of top players, and underestimate their short games. Heck, even Michelle Wie does that, and she's not a poor player! :)
Also, it might be the ultimate form of condescension that so many on here think that a poor player isn't capable of relating architecture to the elite player.
I personally don't think there is any obvious connection between playing ability and architectural appreciation.
-
Different tees can help with that. Like over a forced carry.
-
"How does the poor player appreciate the architecture as it applies to the elite player? Give examples."
George:
I'm quite sure the best and most accurate example I could give would be for the poor player to sit down and talk to the elite player about how he looks at the architecture! ;)
I think any poor player would be quite surprised what he would learn about architecture through the eyes and mind of the elite player by doing that.
This notion that good players and tour pros and such "don't get" golf architecture is one of the most preposterous notions ever foisted on golf and golfers.
It may not be all that common for a really good player to look at architecture through the game of the poor player but even that isn't completely rare.
Perhaps the best and most realistic outlook I've ever heard of how architecture really does affect the poor player came from Nick Faldo. On a golf course that man just might be the most observant person (of everything) I have ever seen in my life.
A few years ago on this site Tom Doak mentioned how surprised he was and how much he learned about how, and perhaps how much, a tour pro looks at architecture by sitting down and just speaking with one about it.
-
George:
I'll give you an example I noticed that I'm totally convinced was not coincidencal at all.
The first time Mickelson won the Masters, the course was set up on Sunday just perfect---eg the IMM with firm and fast greens on which even the best could not go pin hunting by trying to stick it.
Hole after hole Mickelson hit approach shots into those greens to the ideal spots to filter the ball around using the architecture of those greens.
It was just a thing of beauty to watch because Mickelson was not just technically executing well struck shots, he (and obviously his caddie Bones) were reading the architecture of that golf course and playing it like a symphony.
-
Shane,
"once"?
I beginning to think gca is a bit like grade-school geometry: most of us already knew what a right-angle triangle looked like, but we were then taught the term, and a bit about its deeper implications. The ones who went on to become mathemeticians loved the subject and dug deep into those implications; the rest of us just remember the right-angle triangle, and can still spot one when we see it -- on those occasions when we think it's important enough to look for in the first place.
Which is to say, I think most who play the game with any interest at all can see at least a part of what's happening out there, at least in a general sense, and to the degree that it's relevant to them. There is, I think, a "selection process" going on for most players all the time, i.e. a partly conscious-partly unconcious choice of what features to even notice, let alone focus on; and this choice has much to do with their level of skill, or imagined skill. A looming fairway bunker draws almost everyone's attention, and with just cause; a very cleverly and strategically-contoured green might go un-noticed by the poorer player, who is simply hoping to get the ball on the putting surface in something close to regulation.
I worked on a golf course when I was 17, the kind that would let a newcomer like me cut the greens and the hole locations. I had rarely played golf before, and I didn't know the slightest bit about gca, at least consciously. But I could watch the play of others day after day, and I realized pretty quickly that the fairway bunker on the left side meant that players would tend to hit their drives to the right side of that fairway...and that therefore a pin placement on the right side of the green would make for a more difficult approach shot, especially if there was a greenside bunker on that side.
I'm sure I missed many, many nuances of the design (and that I still do). But I think I could see even then -- as most everyone can -- its basic and fundamental aspects, especially as it applied to my particular game.
I also think the better players do know and see more of the design features and strategies, if for no other reason than that they HAVE to; their game brings those features into play.
Peter
-
We were all poor players once. Many still are. How does the poor player appreciate the architecture as it applies to the elite player? Give examples.
Shane,
Seth Raynor and other prominent archittects who WEREN'T golfers might provide some insight.
I think it has to do with the inherent intellect of the individual, combined with experience and exposure to other elements of the game.
-
I wonder if many of them care! they very well might be more worried about their score
-
It might be better for the good player to appreciate architecture as it applies to the poor player :).
-
It might be better for the good player to appreciate architecture as it applies to the poor player :).
I'm currently a 12 and have played more than a little with players whose handicaps range from about +1 to 40, and I'm inclined to agree with you.
It seems far more likely that the poor player will understand the way certain features relate to the best players than the reverse.
For one thing, it's much more common for better players to negotiate a course on autopilot, thinking only of where they want their ball to go. If they ever play with average golfers, it's rare to see them spend much time observing the hacker's game, in fact, it's pretty likely that they'll try to ignore what's going on.
Hackers, OTOH, have a lot of interest in where the better players are hitting it, and how they approach the problems on the course.
In my experience it's rare for either group to spend much time thinking specifically about the architecture, and why or how it affects their game. Nevertheless, I seriously doubt that any of the really good players I know give a hoot about how golf course design impacts the 20 handicapper.
K
-
How does the poor player appreciate the architecture as it applies to the elite player? Give examples.
My father is a poor player who never gave much thought to golf architecture or strategy. I took him to the Crump Cup for an afternoon and it was as if a light switch had been turned on. He finally understood elements of golf architecture and playing strategy after not giving them much consideration previously.
Watching first rate amateur players navigate one of golf's finest designs is an invaluable lesson, perhaps even more worthwhile than watching tour professionals carve up the course of the week. Unlike the tour caliber professional, the amateurs are more likely to hit less than perfect shots so they will be forced to engage with the penal features of the design. Further, the amateur players do not have every shot in the bag like a tour professional. Instead of watching a professional overpower the course, or force shots wherever they need them to go regardless of the courses defenses, the architecture is more likely to dictate play and influence decision making of the amateur, and that is obvious to the spectator.
It is hard for a poor player to relate to an elite player on any level, and golf architecture is probably no different. However, I think that viewing a high level, non PGA Tour event, at a venue that has first rate architecture is a great place to start.
-
Tom P, I have no doubt that top players can understand architecture extremely well, especially as it relates to their own games, but that's not really what Shane seems to be asking, imho. That's an interesting point from Tom D, though, I'd love to hear more from him on the topic.
Jeff T -
Interesting story re: the Crump Cup. The only question I'd have is, how did your father know what the intentions of the players were? I'd guess his eyes were opened more by the greatness of Pine Valley than by the particular play of the top ams that participate.
-
I think that one of the really great exercises is to watch a tourney on a course you know well or have at least played before. The USGA spreads around their events, and then there are many college & regional events that allow spectators.
-
Shane,
What a stupid question.
Do you have to know how to write and direct a movie to critique it, or appreciate the craft behind it or understand its theme and subtext?
Do you have to know how to paint to understand art?
Assuming the poor player has eyes and a brain, I would have said it was pretty easy to appreciate how the architecture applies to the better player, merely by watching where they choose to hit the ball and what features do or don't come into play.
Of course, a rudimentary understanding of psychology comes into play, but since that is often part of an Arts degree, we can rule out any poor players with a Arts degree, since only useless dummies do an Arts degree.
How do you explain the number of good players who fail to appreciate architectural features?
-
Obviously touched a raw nerve there Mark. ::)
-
Far from it, Shane, since I don't have an Arts degree.
You stated in another post not so far back that my anger and negativity was one of the highlights of GCA, so far be it for me to disappoint my large and ever growing fan base.
-
There is certainly no shortage of anger there Mark, but its the context I worry about. So long as you think your cred is on the increase then all is well..
-
Dr Gurnett,
I am amazed that someone from the Business Faculty has the linguistic ability to deconstruct my prose and find anger where there is none.
I would have called it mild amusement.
By the way, don't you need to understand photography to be able to appreciate good pictures?
-
We were all poor players once. Many still are. How does the poor player appreciate the architecture as it applies to the elite player? Give examples.
What does it take to gain an appreciation for golf architecture in the first place? Or art, photography, or even building architecture? I think appreciation comes with some kind of knowledge. Like Mark says, one doesn't need to paint to appreciate paintings, but at the same time the appreciation of the painter will differ from the general audience, as will the appreciation of an afficianado from the generally clueless. The clueless still know what they like and what they don't like, but they may not know why.
The people on this board all have different golfing skills, and only a few are talented golf architects, yet everyone here can really appreciate golf architecture and how it can apply to golfers of all handicaps - with a little bit of imagination.
So how do people gain knowledge of golf architecture? Unlike paintings and other obvious art forms, I think a lot of golfers aren't even aware of "golf architecture" in the first place. Jeff Todd's story of his father is telling; it wasn't until "a light switch had been turned on" that he even considered such things. I know that I didn't even think of golf architecture until a few months ago, when I discovered the notion on the internet.
Some golfers become aware of "golf architecture" on their own, either playing the game or watching it. Others may need more erudite sources. Once the knowledge has been gained, it takes creative imagination to consider how the architecture works (or fails to work) for the play of others, not to mention oneself. That, in turn, takes knowledge of the different kinds of golf shots that are possible.
Here the golfer may have a more profound appreciation than the non-golfer, and the skilled golfer even moreso than the average golfer. How many golfers even consider the kinds of ground game shots that may apply on a given hole? I never thought of the ground game until last year. I always - always! - approached greens aerially, looking for the perfect pitch. My game has improved and my appreciation for the subtleties of golf architecture has expanded now that I've developed an appreciation and some skill for the ground game. And that in turn has started to impact how I prepare to play the hole from the tee, preparation which necessarily must consider the architecture. Fancy that.
-
I would have called it mild amusement
This may explain why you are in the bad books with so many of the locals.(and yes I know that you don't care).
Cassandra,
Nice rant, however you didnt read the question properly. All you have done is relate the architecture as it applies to you. The questions asked was:
How does the poor player appreciate the architecture as it applies to the elite player?
If you cannot execute the shots as they apply to the elite player, are you saying that your imagination is enough? Moreso, if the anwer is a "yes" then is walking the course sufficient and is playing the holes therefore not required?
The whole argument about appreciating art/photography etc just by looking at it is nonsense - golf is a game that is played on a different landscape every time under different conditions. There are variables at play every time. There is input from the admirer every time. To appreciate the game and its architecture the course must be played not simply admired from a distance using your imagination.
-
If you cannot execute the shots as they apply to the elite player, are you saying that your imagination is enough? Moreso, if the anwer is a "yes" then is walking the course sufficient and is playing the holes therefore not required?
Then I'd suggest you read Patrick's answer.
It depends on the golfer - some people can look and envision with little effort, others will never understand.
The logical extension of the lesser player not being able to appreciate the shots of the better player is that Tiger Woods is literally the only person on the face of the earth that can appreciate and understand his game, and is the only person that can understand how to relate architecture to his game.
-
George,
If imagination is enough, then why play?
The Woods example is interesting. Sure he is the best golfer in the world at the moment. But does that mean that say Mickelson cannot appreciate the architecture as it applies to Woods. No way! I am talking about the quantum difference between poor and elite players - hardly the tags you would allocate to Woods and his sub peer group (Mickelson etc).
-
This may explain why you are in the bad books with so many of the locals.(and yes I know that you don't care).
Quite right, I consider it a badge of honour.
The whole argument about appreciating art/photography etc just by looking at it is nonsense - golf is a game that is played on a different landscape every time under different conditions. There are variables at play every time. There is input from the admirer every time. To appreciate the game and its architecture the course must be played not simply admired from a distance using your imagination.
Utter rubbish. Photography, especially of the landscape, changes almost with every passing second. There are a huge number of variables - what film, what lens, what filter, what composition, what focus, exactly when do I push the shutter, do I come back another day?
Photographing golf courses can reveal more about the architecture than playing it . Observing the play of light across the ground reveals all the fascinating details that may be missed in the harder light of later in the day and which a player may never go near.
-
If you cannot execute the shots as they apply to the elite player, are you saying that your imagination is enough? Moreso, if the anwer is a "yes" then is walking the course sufficient and is playing the holes therefore not required?
That's a valid question, especially regarding walking the course.
But George is right, the ability to envision the interaction between architecture and player isn't limited to one's own game. IMHO, it does take more than walking the course for most of us. however.
I am a short hitter, but I play a fair amount with players who are 50 to 100 yards longer off the tee than I am. During rounds with them, I am very interested in how their length changes the options they have a hole.
I am a lowball hitter, but I have several friends who hit it VERY high--and long. Because I am interested in how golf courses work, I pay attention to how their games interact with the course. In fact, I would say that I know more about their games and how they should manage their way around the course than they do.
I am a 10.something index, but I also sometimes play with guys who are scratch. I learn a lot from playing with them, some of it applies to my game, and some of it is enlightening about how golf course design affects them.
Almost none of them, however, give a damn about how my short drives interact with architecture. In fact, some of them are remarkably dense about how golf course design and maintenance affect weaker players.
But some good players are very perceptive about this.
So, I'd say that there's little or no correlation between playing ability and the liklihood of a someone understanding architecture and its effects on all levels of skill.
If there is a a correlation, my instincts tell me it is inverse, if only because bad golfers are far more interested in watching good players than the reverse.
K
-
Kmoum,
If you are a 10 marker you are not a poor player.
Mark
Photographing golf courses can reveal more about the architecture than playing it
If you think that architecture can be fully appreciated in 2 dimensions then you really do have no idea. Or no game. Or both.
-
Shane,
It is you who have no idea, as you have - not surprisingly - COMPLETELY missed the point.
Just in case you are occupying the back seats in the lecture theatre sniggling with your mates over some porn DVD one of you swiped -
Photography is a TWO-DIMENSIONAL representation -
- OF A THREE-DIMENSIONAL world.
Got it? Two-dimensional representation of a THREE-dimensional world. You do have to be part of that THREE-DIMENSIONAL world in order to make those THREE-DIMENSIONS appear as THREE-DIMENSIONS on the two dimensional reproduction of film or paper. It actually takes quite a lot of skill, talent, technique, OBSERVATION and yes, IMAGINATION in order to be able to do so.
Repeat every hour for the next day or so so you can begin to comprehend. Two-dimensional represesentation of a THREE-DIMENSIONAL world.
On a thread a long time ago, you surmised that I was perhaps incapable of understanding Barnbougle's 4th hole because of my pitiful, woeful, sad derelict game, as opposed to the unholy, God-given talent that you possess which enabled you to understand all.
I perfectly understand the hole and how it relates to the mighty and gifted such as you.
I just don't think the options presented are terribly interesting.
Disclaimer: This was not an angry post.
-
Mark, it is possible for you to stick to the topic without resorting to personal attacks? Your primary defence mechanism of ripping into someone (everyone) on a personal level who disagrees with you is becoming rather tiresome, and severely effects the credibility of your arguments here.
Shane.
-
Nice try, Shane.
One of the differences between us is that you couch your personal attacks - "If you think that architecture can be fully appreciated in 2 dimensions then you really do have no idea. Or no game. Or both " - in rather more gentle terms than I so you can act all wounded and sanctimonious when someone does give you a bollocking back.
I have stuck to the topic. Quite a number - the majority? - of posts here have refuted your original hypothesis, and some of the respondents - shock gasp horror - seem to be quite good players. Not that you seem interested in accepting their point of view, of course.
You attempted to disparage me talking about something you either know very little or nothing about, and I shot you down.
Maybe - no, definitely - if you had responded in a different manner in the first place and not attempted a cheap shot, you would have received a calm and measured response back.
Or at least one without capitalisation, and a reference to porn, which I agree is becoming a little overdone.
-
Mark, you need to read the whole thread again from start to finish. The opinions stated here do not easily fall into one argument or another. This is the point you continue to miss. Unlike some of your photography, the subject is never simply black or white. It's all about expressing an opinion and having a discussion, rather than your continued slagging of everyone on a personal level when you run out of credible points to put forward.
I go easy on you here Mark because I know how fragile your ego is when it comes to discussion on your game.
Why do you have a fascination with porn? Hardly an appropriate subject for this architecture related forum (it makes you look like a real dick when you bring it up time and again)
Shane.
-
Dr Gurnett,
"I go easy on you here Mark because I know how fragile your ego is when it comes to discussion on your game."
You should be performing at the Comedy festival with work like that. My ego is far from fragile when it comes to discussion of my game, although I would like to see your case notes so I can ascertain how you arrived at such a startling conclusion. You might have to burn that thesis and hand back your PhD.
I know my game is crap. That's why I am doing something about it. Maybe when it gets back to the level it was a few years ago I will understand golf architecture better. According to your original argument, I should be able to.
I don't continue to miss any point. I think George Pazin's two posts, and Patrick Mucci's, are concise, succinct and perfectly flawless responses to your original thesis. You are merely pointing out the others' arguments to support your weak question in the first place. That isn't to say their points have no merit, but rather George's and Patrick's are well reasoned.
Don't take this the wrong way Shane, but I would surmise that you have very little imagination. That is why you continue to doubt that imagination - and knowledge - is enough for the poorer player to see what the elite does. It all comes down to the individual.
And I don't slag everyone on a personal level - only certain types are the recipient of my venom and anger.
-
I once played with a US visitor from this board whose game was simply abysmal who made the comment that he wished he could hit it better so he could appreciate the architecture more. It certainly gets irritating when people who are pretty much incapable of executing even basic shots start becoming abusive about the merits of a hole or course when their vision exists solely in their mind and isn't grounded in reality or experience. Although I guess the abuse is a necessary smokescreen as it is difficult to construct a coherent and sensible argument when you don't have a clue.
-
Being presumptious, I will speak on behalf of the good player. (Or at least this player). I, for one, when playing for score, for the most part, could care less about the architecture. I try to drive it about 300 in the fairway, then I try to hit it in the center of the green. I don't hit run-ups. When I hit my drive in the trees I try either pounding it over the trees or punching out to the front of the green. There really isn't much thought to it. In fact, its been repeatedly stated to me that the best players are the dumbest - they don't constantly think about the consequences (I think Tiger proves this statement wrong however).
When playing social golf, I think the good player can appreciate the architecture just as well as the bad player...they just need to know what they are looking for.
-
Although I guess the abuse is a necessary smokescreen as it is difficult to construct a coherent and sensible argument when you don't have a clue.
I actually prefer your favourite response James.
The classic "I can't be bothered", or the even more classic "The kids are running amok," that people use to hide the fact that they have no idea what they are actually talking about in the first place and then hide behind the whiny "don't be so abusive' argument to cover up that fact.
Interesting that more than a few of the O/S good players who have responded believe that the poorer player is capable of understanding.
The only two good ones from here who don't seem to believe that are the ones who haven't even left their country to play.
Funny that.
-
Doesn't this whole debate come down the appreciation of the game; how it's supposed to be played and an understanding of the subtleties of it?
In baseball, there are great hitters and bad hitters. Many players lose track of the fact that the point of the game is to get more people to cross home plate than the other team. Bad hitters can be productive players when the understand the game....great hitters can be unproductive players when they don't.
Golf is no different in my opinion. Skill level doesn't matter...it's what between the ears and in the soul that matters.
-
Doesn't this whole debate come down the appreciation of the game; how it's supposed to be played and an understanding of the subtleties of it?
Golf is no different in my opinion. Skill level doesn't matter...it's what between the ears and in the soul that matters.
100% spot on Ryan.
A couple of posters are mired in their myopia, that's all.
By the way, what is a 'bad hitter' in baseball?
-
I too believe it comes down to the person’s appreciation of the game & what is important to them. The greatest architects of all time have come from a variety of skill levels in regard to golfing ability.
I don’t believe the understanding of golf course architecture is particularly difficult, if the person has a willingness to understand. That doesn’t mean it is easy to design a course, but understanding what has been done is not hard.
If imagination is enough, then why play?
Shane,
If imagination is enough, then why have sex ?
-
If imagination is enough, then why play?
Shane,
If imagination is enough, then why have sex ?
Andrew, I agree 100%, participation is mandatory to fully understand. But Mark Ferguson would have you believe that just taking photographs is suffiicient :o
-
I can see I am going to have to add you to the list of Melbourne ignoramuses Shane. Your selective paraphrasing may work in the scabrous ether of ISG, but not in the real world.
I DID NOT say that "just" taking photographs is sufficient.
"Photographing golf courses CAN reveal more about the architecture than playing it . Observing the play of light across the ground reveals all the fascinating details that MAY be missed in the harder light of later in the day and which a player may never go near."
Your English comprehension is utterly appalling.
If you don't think the above quote has some truth to it then you are a lost cause.
Or better still try it yourself.
Go to a course and observe the play of light at the end of the day across the landscape.
You might be surprised at what you will see.
-
What is the famous saying? " I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" or something like that. I think if you dropped 4 alien golfers, a 0, a 10, a 20 and a 30 onto the 1000 best courses in the world and told them to give you the best 100 of those. I would think that 80% of the answers would be the same.
-
Mark,
I think you missed the original question.
Shane is not asking if a poor player can understand architecture, nor inferring that they can't. I believe the question is more can a poor player understand architecture as it applies to the elite player.
The only inference is that of course an elite player can understand architecture as it applies to a poor player, because at some time or another, they were a poor player, the same is not true in reverse.
My feeling is that one gets a very different understanding of a golf course when they play it as compared to if they simply walk it. When you walk a course you play each hole in your mind, and the optimist in you has each imagine stroke having the desired result - thus providing you with an 'apparent' understanding of the architecture from an elite or at least 'very good' players perspective. The same could be said if spectating an elite field play a certain course.
On the other hand, when you actually play the course and you are forced to execute the shots you imagine, reality can bite you, and you could possibly miss the point altogether.
There's plenty to be said for playing the shots to gain an understanding, but if you lack the ability to consistently keep it on the planet, then perhaps you might be well served by walking a course in addition to playing it.
Things like fairway bunkering in particular can often not be understood by poor players, as they have such a fear of sand, they simply aim as far away as possible without considering the variety of options in front of them.
-
Thommo,
No, I did not miss the intention of Shane's question.
Sometimes poor players can understand how architecture affects better players more completely than the better players themselves.
You only have to look at the number of better players who attempt to drive the 14th green on the Gunnamatta course and come unstuck in a big way, for instance.
Although that of course is probably due to poorly shaped greens.
Look at the fussing and moaning by the better players over the 10th and 13th holes on the same course. They are unable to execute the shots that may best ensure a par because they are incapable of thinking what to do when their plan of attack misfires.
Maybe the optimist in you imagines each stroke having the desired result when you walk a course and play it in your mind, but the natural pessimist in me looks at all sorts of things - what will happen if my ball lands ten/20/30 yards short of where I was aiming? What will that slope do? That hollow? That mound? What if it lands ten/20/30 yards further? To the left? Right?
Of course, some of the above is pure conjecture on my part since I am incapable of landing a ball 10 yards further than where I am aiming, even if I am aiming at the ladies tee.
-
So rather than say that its a stupid question, instead your viewpoint is that the answer to the question is "yes, the poor player can appreciate the architecture as it applies to the elite player, here are some examples...."
I don't think its a stupid question, but I do contend that no matter what standard of golf you play, there are those that get it and those that don't. Furthermore, of the ones that do get it - they can still have wildly differing opinions on many architectural nuances.
This of course comes from someone whose game ranges from extremely poor, to quite good on any given day.
-
You only have to look at the number of better players who attempt to drive the 14th green on the Gunnamatta course and come unstuck in a big way, for instance.
Through poor execution or poor understanding? Or both?
I think the answer would be different for every individual.
-
I actually prefer your favourite response James.
The classic "I can't be bothered", or the even more classic "The kids are running amok," that people use to hide the fact that they have no idea what they are actually talking about in the first place and then hide behind the whiny "don't be so abusive' argument to cover up that fact.
MF, could you please give some examples of my 'favourite response'. I've just scanned all my posts here and have been unable to find anything that approximates your description. The commentary on your ongoing abusiveness actually related to how it is being used to cover what is either your lack of knowledge or abject laziness in bothering to support your positions. The end result is there is now simply little chance of having a sensible discussion whenever you become involved. Which is very sad.
-
James,
He couldnt give me any examples a few weeks back of things I had supposedly said so I dont figure you are going to get any either.
Stick to the topic Mark.
-
Danny:
So nice of you to join us. How many of those stellar 100 posts you have made have been on a topic you started, I wonder, as opposed to pithy coments.
You didn't make those remarks here, of course. You know where you did, so be a man and stop pretending you didn't.
Thommo:
I would say it is poor understanding. It's a green that is maybe 15 yards across. It would need a pretty exact fade to hold it on perhaps the firmest green on the course, and considering the number of players who end up with the ball back at their feet at the base of the valley alongside, not very smart I would have said.
From my one round with you I wouldn't say your game veers from extremely poor to quite good - maybe quite wild to more controlled is more apt.
James:
I'll be happy too.
"I didn't really want to list examples as it would likely end up in a highly technical and dull 'it does/it doesn't' argument (and the kids are running amok and I don't have time)."
There's one you missed. Here's another;
"Although there are a surprising amount of blind and semi-blind shots, which are arguably overdone (not that I'm in the mood for an argument)"
So you start a post but then can't be bothered to elaborate your thoughts, assuming you actually had any, since that is quite a good cover up in itself.
Here's something else:
"Do you agree there is often less thought involved in the recovery shots at StAB. Given the transition from green to the often vast short grass surrounds is regularly level and any movement around the greens usually fairly constant, was the construction perhaps too minimalist?"
That's a direct quote from you, in case you can't remember. My response, which of course you didn't answer;
The fallaway front and behind the first green is regularly level?
The right to left slope to the right of the second green is regularly level and fairly constant?
The gigantic upslope in front of the third green followed by the enormous fallaway at the rear of the the third green is replicated elsewhere?
The bump in front of the the 7th green?
The curvature around the 8th green?
How are the recovery shots around 10 replicated elsewhere?
Here are a few peoples' responses on the thread that you couldn't be bothered articulating your position on;
From James Bennet:
You said you chose to use a six-iron every time, whilst others might go with a putter every time. How often did you get up and down using this approach? Could you have done better by playing a different shot - perhaps a pitch on some occasions?
Perhaps this range of greenside recovery options and choices should be viewed as similar to a 'strategic' golf hole whereby an easier route can be taken that avoids the bunkers, but makes a par more difficult. And perhaps the addition of longer-grass at random spots at Dornoch adds a 'penal' aspect where such a hazard has to be avoided (by an aerial shot). The Dornoch approach reduces the recovery options occasionally, the US Open approach (excluding Pinehurst #2 of course) specifies a single recovery shot (a lob), and the St Andrews Beach allows the player to choose what they wish, even if it isn't necessarily the best approach.
So, the US Open approach requires the least thought (lob every time) and the St Andrews Beach approach requires the most thought. The other dimension is that Dornoch limits the options on occasion, forcing a player to vary his method. Whereas St Andrews Beach does not force this limitation as often.
From Thommo:
This may be the case for some but I found it quite the opposite. I was constantly tossing up between bump and run / putter / wedge options.
Much like James L I also found myself falling back on the same recovery shot (or club) around the greens on most holes.
However, this is more due to the fact that I lack the ability to hit some of the subtle shots demanded of me when I missed the green, not an inherent design flaw in the green complexes themselves.
Greens like 2,3,5,7,8,10,14,15 and 17 all seemed to me to have many options in mode of recovery, depending on where you missed and how adept you are at executing a certain shot type.
From David Elvins:
I think that one reason that a lot of players go back to their default recovery shot is that the recovery shots are so hard. The good player will vary his recovery shots to get within 3-6 feet of the pin. THe slightly less confident player will always use his most trusted club to make sure he gets on the green or within 10 feet of the pin.
There are many "risk/reward" possibilities in the recovery play at St Andrews Beach. And often no right answer.
So it would seem there are a number of people who disagree with your opinion.
I am not using anything to cover up lack of knowledge or abject laziness.
I have provided numerous examples a number of times on a number of topics that you - and others - have simply chosen to ignore because it didn't suit your preconceived positions.
You would also find there is plenty of sensible discussion to be had if you don't deliberately attempt to selectively quote me or ascertain - mistakenly, of course - what my thoughts are in order to make silly points in order to support a weak or non-existent position.
-
Thommo:
I would say it is poor understanding. It's a green that is maybe 15 yards across. It would need a pretty exact fade to hold it on perhaps the firmest green on the course, and considering the number of players who end up with the ball back at their feet at the base of the valley alongside, not very smart I would have said.
Hmm, I would argue that this perhaps shows a lack of understanding of the thought patterns of some of the better players.
On the day I played with you, I don't recall the shots David and yourself hit, but Shane and I both attacked the green. From memory I think Shane knocked it high left and had a delicate pitch down the slope and I hit it in the front right bunker.
If the gren is 15 yards wide, there is another 10 yards of bunker short and right and plenty of space short and left to leave it too - giving perhaps 40-50 yards of width to aim at. Many good players would take it at that green, because knocking it in the bunker isn't a massive penalty. I went back for another game late last year and went at the green again, and again ended in the front right bunker.
Generally, I feel that I would knock it closer to the flag from the bunker than I would pitching a second shot from a laid up tee shot, hence I repeated my attempts at driving the green.
I reckon if 100 'elite' players played the hole, more than 80 would attack the green with driver - some of them might be guys like Ogilvy that 'get it' and others might be blokes that don't.
-
David had a biff at the green I think, but I can't remember the result. I of course was 10 yards left of the tee in the grass.
I would be very careful if I were you mentioning width in yards, since I think it is generally a given that your measurements of fairway width aren't exactly what one would call accurate... :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
If you played that hole ten times, what would you expect your score to be the majority of time? Would you be satisfied with a four, or miffed that a three wasn't more common?
If you thought there should be more threes than you had, is it your execution that has been failing you, or your understanding of the architecture? i.e that perhaps a three is easier with a bump and run - or pitch - up the bank in front.
Or would you change your plan of attack and attempt to drive it high left and have a little chip across and down the green?
-
It's merely a fucntion of my game. I'd rather play a bunker shot than a short bump and run, ohers are the complete opposite.
If I played the hole 10 times, I'd expect 5 x 3 and 5 x 4 - as I said before I'm an optimist ;D
-
James:
I'll be happy too.
"I didn't really want to list examples as it would likely end up in a highly technical and dull 'it does/it doesn't' argument (and the kids are running amok and I don't have time)."
There's one you missed. Here's another;
"Although there are a surprising amount of blind and semi-blind shots, which are arguably overdone (not that I'm in the mood for an argument)"
So you start a post but then can't be bothered to elaborate your thoughts, assuming you actually had any, since that is quite a good cover up in itself.
Here's something else:
"Do you agree there is often less thought involved in the recovery shots at StAB. Given the transition from green to the often vast short grass surrounds is regularly level and any movement around the greens usually fairly constant, was the construction perhaps too minimalist?"
That's a direct quote from you, in case you can't remember. My response, which of course you didn't answer;
The fallaway front and behind the first green is regularly level?
The right to left slope to the right of the second green is regularly level and fairly constant?
The gigantic upslope in front of the third green followed by the enormous fallaway at the rear of the the third green is replicated elsewhere?
The bump in front of the the 7th green?
The curvature around the 8th green?
How are the recovery shots around 10 replicated elsewhere?
Here are a few peoples' responses on the thread that you couldn't be bothered articulating your position on;
From James Bennet:
You said you chose to use a six-iron every time, whilst others might go with a putter every time. How often did you get up and down using this approach? Could you have done better by playing a different shot - perhaps a pitch on some occasions?
Perhaps this range of greenside recovery options and choices should be viewed as similar to a 'strategic' golf hole whereby an easier route can be taken that avoids the bunkers, but makes a par more difficult. And perhaps the addition of longer-grass at random spots at Dornoch adds a 'penal' aspect where such a hazard has to be avoided (by an aerial shot). The Dornoch approach reduces the recovery options occasionally, the US Open approach (excluding Pinehurst #2 of course) specifies a single recovery shot (a lob), and the St Andrews Beach allows the player to choose what they wish, even if it isn't necessarily the best approach.
So, the US Open approach requires the least thought (lob every time) and the St Andrews Beach approach requires the most thought. The other dimension is that Dornoch limits the options on occasion, forcing a player to vary his method. Whereas St Andrews Beach does not force this limitation as often.
From Thommo:
This may be the case for some but I found it quite the opposite. I was constantly tossing up between bump and run / putter / wedge options.
Much like James L I also found myself falling back on the same recovery shot (or club) around the greens on most holes.
However, this is more due to the fact that I lack the ability to hit some of the subtle shots demanded of me when I missed the green, not an inherent design flaw in the green complexes themselves.
Greens like 2,3,5,7,8,10,14,15 and 17 all seemed to me to have many options in mode of recovery, depending on where you missed and how adept you are at executing a certain shot type.
From David Elvins:
I think that one reason that a lot of players go back to their default recovery shot is that the recovery shots are so hard. The good player will vary his recovery shots to get within 3-6 feet of the pin. THe slightly less confident player will always use his most trusted club to make sure he gets on the green or within 10 feet of the pin.
There are many "risk/reward" possibilities in the recovery play at St Andrews Beach. And often no right answer.
So it would seem there are a number of people who disagree with your opinion.
I am not using anything to cover up lack of knowledge or abject laziness.
I have provided numerous examples a number of times on a number of topics that you - and others - have simply chosen to ignore because it didn't suit your preconceived positions.
You would also find there is plenty of sensible discussion to be had if you don't deliberately attempt to selectively quote me or ascertain - mistakenly, of course - what my thoughts are in order to make silly points in order to support a weak or non-existent position.
Well at least you put some effort into dragging out those selective quotes, so kudos there MF. In response to my hypothesis that StAB lacked interest around the greens due to a lack of movement you cited 7 greens, leaving a mere 11 out. And I disagree with you about 1, the back of 3 and 8 (although I'd throw in 6, 9,11 and probably 18). I simply didn't see enough movement or interest around much of many greens to force me to agonise over the club to choose for the most part, just pick your favorite and hit it. In answer to the James Bennett questions, no, it wouldn't have made any difference which club I chose, a point I'm sure I made clear. I wrote that topic off pretty much from the time you commenced your defence with snide remarks about Brian Walshe, who hadn't even posted on it. It was thus obvious that your position was set in stone and the tone of your replies meant it wasn't worth spending any time discussing the questions with you (ironic, huh).
I appreciate the general thrust of what Doak has tried to do at StAB, I'm just unconvinced he has pulled it off. A 'shorter' course should allow for much more interest around the greens, but I just don't see it on a lot of holes. Maybe I'm spoilt. Maybe I expected too much of Doak. And unlike Thommo, I think I have sufficient proficiency around the greens to hit any shot if forced to choose. Dave Elvins also articulates well a view that is the opposite of my experience. And Dave certainly went out of his way to show me that there were plenty of interesting shots to be had around the 7th last time we were there. ;)
-
There is a hole at The Ritz in Jupiter, the 17th, a par 5, that on occasion with a big wind behind I have gone for with a 7 wood or 4 wood, but most of the time, I just lay up with an iron and take the 3rd shot in with a sand wedge from 90 yards. Way too much trouble to try to get closer to the green.
A couple of guys who hit it 50 yards past me are going in with irons they hit a mile high. I can ony bounce it on and I have to thread a needle in the front and the green is canted to the left with traps all over the place, so my 7 or 4 wood has generally run into one of the traps even if I hit the green.
I am a poor player as it relates to this hole, and had I not played it many times with better players, I would not have understood this hole totally.
Even with a sand wedge, the green is very tough depending on pin placements, so I think as it relates to the poor player, they can see and appreciate the architecture, but I think the shot values are what they don't appreciate.
I say this because most of these big hitters go for the green from 220 or 230 out, and I grin because they maybe hit it 3 in 10 times, and wind up left in the water, or right in the hazard or somewhere with an unplayable lie.
How a 25 handicap could see any of this is beyond me because they are trying to hit the green with their 4th shot, and while they can appreciate the beauty of the hole, beauty of the trap shapes, the shot value vision is pretty tough to imagine.
-
Cassandra,
Nice rant, however you didnt read the question properly. All you have done is relate the architecture as it applies to you. The questions asked was:
How does the poor player appreciate the architecture as it applies to the elite player?
If you cannot execute the shots as they apply to the elite player, are you saying that your imagination is enough? Moreso, if the anwer is a "yes" then is walking the course sufficient and is playing the holes therefore not required?
The whole argument about appreciating art/photography etc just by looking at it is nonsense - golf is a game that is played on a different landscape every time under different conditions. There are variables at play every time. There is input from the admirer every time. To appreciate the game and its architecture the course must be played not simply admired from a distance using your imagination.
Hi Shane,
I'm sorry I didn't express myself as clearly as I thought, or maybe I didn't quite get the gist of your question. I took your question to be a "how" question. Are you asking whether a process exists by which a poor golfer can appreciate how a skilled golfer is challenged (or not) by the architectural features of a golf course? And if so, what that process might be?
If so, then I would say that such a process does exist, that the poor golfer can appreciate how the architecture of a course applies to the elite player. That process must start with knowlege, both of the game of golf and of golf architecture. This golfer's appreciation will increase with knowledge of all the different types of shots that could possibly be executed; likewise, that appreciation will also increase with knowledge of kinds of architectural features and designs that might be employed at a golf course. Once we have knowledge of these things, *then* we can use imagination to envision all kinds of scenarios, hypothetical or real, and thereby gain some appreciation of what's going on.
So, I'm not saying that imagination is enough. I'm saying that it takes imagination informed by knowledge.
Imagine a 400 yard hole, with a steep downslope to the green from 125 yards in. A nasty creek also guards the green, and let's say it's 50 yards in front of the green. How is the elite player going to interface with this architecture? A big boomer may choose to lay up to 130 yards out, if he doesn't want to flirt with the creek nor have a downhill lie. If the green slopes left to right, he may aim left of the pin expecting the ball to trickle down to the hole. Does this not exemplify appreciation of architecture as it applies to an elite player?
I remember a shot Tiger made in the Masters, I think it was his 1997 blowout. It was a par 5, his second was left in the woods. He hit a low hooking punch shot that rolled over a mound and right near the cup. My appreciation for this shot has increased with my knowledge of the game and the features that were navigated, even though I could never execute that shot as well as he did. And I've never played Augusta, obviously, I've only seen it on TV. But I've hit off of pine needles, I've learned how to (inconsistently) execute a low running hook, and I've even used a mound in front of a green to slow down a shot so that it doesn't run over to the back. I think it's particularly cool that the mound which normally guards the green by deflecting the less than perfect shot is instead used to control the distance of the shot to the player's advantage.
Having knowledge of the shot, and knowledge of the features in play, I can appreciate the shot, and I can appreciate the architecture. Any poor player who has at least the knowledge of the kind of shot and the kind of architecture navigated can really appreciate what happened there. That appreciation may not be the same as, say, the appreciation experienced by Tiger himself or one of his peers, but appreciation isn't an all or nothing proposition, is it?
-
James,
You clearly don't have sufficient profiency around the greens or else you would consider other options.
I only mentioned 7 holes because I couldn't be bothered reciting the rest. It gets so tedious explaining things to you and one or two others, with your formulae and preconceived notions.
But I will, if only to enlighten you. Even though you stated yourself that you play everything with a 6-iron, someone else plays the short shots with a choked down 9-iron, and someone else putts. Excuse my feeble mathematics, but isn't that three different approaches right there? I would guess therefore that it is in fact you who is one dimensional and not the course. Especially as your comment to me when we played was - and I am paraphrasing - "why don't you run it along the ground more with a 6 or 7 iron instead of hitting it in the air with a wedge".
So that's in fact four different approaches.
You state: "Given the transition from green to the often vast short grass surrounds is regularly level:
You must have grown a lot since I last saw you, since I would have said the first green is at least four to five feet above you if the ball was at its base.
I would have thought the area to the left of the fourth green had quite a slope away from the green. No, it doesn't have a bunch of dips and hollows, because that is not what was there. That's the genius of the hole - the expanse is smooth enough to consider a putter, but a chip would be less risk, and you could also pitch back behind the flag and let the ball run back down.
Pin top right of the 5th green and you are ten yards right. You are going to be able to get a 6-iron close? I don't think so.
The 8th green - if you are short there is a little dip in front of the green - putt through, chip through or pitch? There is also a crown front left, not to mention the curvature of the bowl around the right hand side. Gee, sounds like a bit of movement and options there.
11th Green - There's a dip and hollow in front. Steep fall off to both sides. A sharp ridged hill above the green. Not exactly regularly level. Or fairly constant.
I could go on, but I am bored. Please don't tell me the 14th and 15th greens don't also have significant, albeit subtle, movement around them. Ditto 17, which has an UPSLOPE at the front, a SIDESLOPE on the right hand side, then a FALLAWAY at the left - not too mention the bunkers left and behind. Not much movement there, I admit.
-
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s19/sirmog1/Gunnamatta15thgreen.jpg)
I'm not sure you have a clue what I'm talking about. Obviously my fault as I'm an ignoramus. ::) The above photo was taken from your review is of the 15th. It is representative of many of the greens there. There is little in the way of wrinkles, hollows or interesting small undulations. Speaking for myself, the lowest risk/high payoff shot is along the ground. Doesn't matter what club you use, it is along the ground. There is nothing on the way to the pin that makes me agonise over the shot to play. Now whilst it may be nice for the purists to have a new course with such a large emphasis on the ground game, I just find after a while it is just as boring as playing a course which constantly demands an aerial approach. It places similar demands on the short game as the sand greens I played in my youth. It is nice for a change, but the green complexes are just a little too minimal for my tastes.
And I clearly don't have sufficient proficiency around the greens? It is probably for the opposite reason. As I have a reasonably good array of shots at my disposal around the greens I like to be challenged, whereas you are challenged no matter how simple the shot that confronts you is. Which is a good example of why Shane asked the question he did and why the musings of the less capable player on matters architectural should often by taken with a grain of salt.
-
Alas poor James, it is you who have no clue. If you think the 15th green and green complex is "representative of many" on the Gunnamatta course, then you are either an ignoramus, or a blind fool. Or both.
The 15th green complex is one of only TWO bunkerless ones for a start, and if you think the 8th green complex even remotely resembles the 15th, you are a very, very sad case indeed. "The above photo was taken from your review is of the 15th." You can't even get your grammar correct. If the very basics of communication fail you, then I think it is fair to assume that everything else does as well.
It's no wonder I am having so much trouble understanding you. Firstly, you don't know what you are saying, then you can't get your point across anyway. Fabulous, absolutely fabulous. I've always loved that combination.
You could write a Sylvester Stallone movie easily. Do it. Sly hasn't had a hit in quite a while, so there could be a good deal of money involved. Certainly enough to rebuild the greens/complexes on the Gunnamatta course to your specifications.
Nice selective photo by the way. It is from my review, but not mine. It does nothing to show the left to right slope left of the green, the dip right, nor the sharp drop off behind the green. But then I guess you knew that, because it supports your weak and flailing argument.
If your second shot was way left, and the pin was hard left, you don't think you would have a different shot than to one where the pin was hard right? Or would you just land it in the same place with the same club, and just change the amount of force involved? SUCH a magician. What about if the pin was back centre and you were over the back? What about if the pin was hard right and you were off to the right? Same shot as if you were left? Noooooooooooooooooo.
"Speaking for myself, the lowest risk/high payoff shot is along the ground." I'm glad you brought this up. Does everyone else feel the same way? Clearly not, so FOR YOU the green complexes are the same.
"There is little in the way of wrinkles, hollows or interesting small undulations." And where exactly are these elements at Royal Melbourne? Kingston Heath? Commonwealth? Are they there in abundance at those courses?
You are a one dimensional player James. The third at KH is played the same way, time after time, after all. Iron short of the bunker, pitch, two simple putts.
I guess everyone on this board is envious of your golfing prowess and architectural knowledge, which is why they haven't chimed in.
"Why the musings of the less capable player on matters architectural should often by taken with a grain of salt."
I just love this. Given that you are either a similiar handicap as Tom Doak, or perhaps even slightly better, Tom's architectural thoughts are clearly redundant to yours and Shane's.
I wonder if he needs a ghost architect? :D
-
Mark, I think they may be a couple of other reasons why no one else has chimed in. :o As Sean Walsh intimated, you either agree with Mark or you don't. Might be more helpful if you accepted that people can have an alternative perspective and accept it, given it is a discussion group, rather than the rancour with which you are currently conducting yourself.
The reason that photo was chosen was simple, it illustrated a point and none of your B+W ones were of an acceptable standard. Which is presumably why you didn't use them in your St Andrews Beach sales pitch, sorry, review.
And I did find that many of shots demanded for a miss around much of the 8th green were similar to those around 15. And to save you the time, yes I am clearly an idiotic ignoramus that has failed in the basics of everything.
The absences of wrinkles, hollows or interesting undulations at RM, KH and Commonwealth was compensated for with more shaped green complexes. I look forward to seeing what Clayton does with the greens on the Fingal.
Tom Doak doesn't meet the criteria of a less capable player. And you missed the use of 'often'. Just as you seemed to have missed the use of every other qualifier I've used in order to present my position as a blanket statement applying to the entire course.
How did you play the 3rd at Kingston Heath on the occasion of your visit?
But I must go, I have a Sylvester Stallone movie to write. Cheerio.
-
My goodness me. ::) How sad.
James B
-
I think Cassandra makes a very good case. I can imagine how an elite player would play a course or hole or specific shot but until I've seen (and preferably in the flesh) such a player do it I can't be anywhere near sure of how that player would actually do it.
So personal imagination + first hand knowledge of elite players + knowledge of golf architecture = architectual appreciation by the poorer player.
How full this appreciation is will depend on each individual and how they process the information.
----------------------------
The constant bickering between some of the australian personalities has gone past the point of being tiresome. These spats usually leave the thread in which they occur devoid of any enjoyment. I realise I have been involved in some of these arguments and regret the result. I would propose that if you feel personally offended by an attack to ask for an apology for that that caused offence. If none is forthcoming then report the author to the moderators. That is after all what they are for. It is a shame that what should be polite discussion has degenerated to this level.
-
There has been a long standing assumption that the level of a player's ability equates to knowledge of golf architecture. I bet I've worked with a couple of hundred committees to this date and I can assure you that this just isn't the case.
You see knowledge about architecture has nothing to do with golfing ability. Pat's example of Seth Raynor should be eye opening. Do we need to bring up Mackenzie's handicap too.
-
Ian Andrew (and others)
has their been a 'good' architect that wasn't proficient on and around the greens at some stage of their life? They might not have been able to strike the ball from tee to green, but around the greens, I assume the less gifted have shown imagination beyond their 'handicap' in their play.
As always, the opposite applies as well.
James B
-
For the great majority of bad golfers, architecture is lost on them. They care more about the condition of the course, tha halfway house and what features exist on the cart. Of the reasons people play golf I would think that "appreciation" of the architecture is somewhere near the bottom of the list.
I do differentiate between the bad golfer who shoots high scores but is not physically strong and the golfer who is so horribley inconsistent they shoot terrible scores. The former can appreciate the course more because they have a consistent enough (though bad) game that allows them to reasonabley startegize their way around the course.
The wildly inconsistent player doesn't have the ability to "plan" anything. He's out for the beer and to check out the cart girl.
If you watch some players top, chunk, slice and hack away I don't see how you could ever design a course with them in mind!! And why bother? Maybe a design that allows them options and ways around hazards but to design to their games would be futile.
I will say that the most dangerous person at a club may be the better player who THINKS he/she knows a little about architecture and the game--they will do more harm 'cause they are just smart enough and well-travelled enough to screw things up.