Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Anthony Gray on January 23, 2011, 09:15:42 PM
-
Scott Warren recently mentioned that a GCAer told him he was not a good enough golfer to have a valid opinion.Is this true?Haven't nongolfers even made their mark as architects.I've outplayed raters before as a double digit handicapper.
Anthony
-
Two words:
Bernard Darwin
Two more:
Ron Whitten
-
Not at all, but you do need to be aware of how a good golfer plays. Same goes the other way as well.
-
Not at all, but you do need to be aware of how a good golfer plays. Same goes the other way as well.
I think a prime example is 16 at Sawgrass.The tree is invisable to the pros but can play havok with the average golfer.
Anthony
-
If Tavi Gevinson can evaluate fashion any hack with a keyboard can evaluate architecture.
-
Seth Raynor !
Mike Cirba,
Ron Whitten called Jasna Polana a modern day Winged Foot.
Do you want to edit or retract your post ?(;;)
-
IMO Ron Whitten is leading a panel of typically good golfers rating golf courses by good golfer criteria. The infamous "resistance to scoring" criteria. IMO good golfers are particularly unqualified to evaluate architecture, since they are in the minority of golfers. They come up with ratings like Pacific Dunes is better than Bandon Trails. :D All you have to do is look at the slope rating, and you can predict that evaluation ;)
Anyone who cannot get their facts straight when expressing an opinion of a course is unqualified to rate courses.
-
I hope not, else I am wasting my time here.
I might know what I should/could do, while execution is a different issue.
-
IMO Ron Whitten is leading a panel of typically good golfers rating golf courses by good golfer criteria. The infamous "resistance to scoring" criteria.
IMO good golfers are particularly unqualified to evaluate architecture, since they are in the minority of golfers.
[size=12point]
Is it your considered opinion that Ben Crenshaw is unqualified to evaluate architecture ?
Donald Ross ?
CBMacdonald ?
Bobby Jones ?
Pete Dye ?
Would you like to retract your statement ? (;;)[/b][/size]
They come up with ratings like Pacific Dunes is better than Bandon Trails. :D All you have to do is look at the slope rating, and you can predict that evaluation ;)
Anyone who cannot get their facts straight when expressing an opinion of a course is unqualified to rate courses.
-
I've talked to a whole bunch of golfers about GCA and I'm pretty sure that there's no way to correlate golfing ability to GCA evaluation ability.
Mostly because the actual percentage of golfers who give a damn about GCA is so low that finding sample is nearly impossible.
I do find that good golfers are slightly more likely to have strong opinions about GCA, and those opinions are nearly always limited to liking their courses simple, without centerline hazards, and with narrow fairways. But don't be throwing hard greens at them...
Of course, this generalization has plenty of exceptions, including the good players here on GCA.com.
I do agree with the suggestion that being good requires the ability to put yourself in the shoes of those most unlike yourself. And that's a rare ability.
K
-
No, but it helps.
Imagination and the ability to envision all levels of play seems to be a key to me. Certainly there are examples of average, poor and even non golfers who are great architects and I think it is fair to say many better players can have a very myopic view of the game and fail to take into account the way 95% of people play the game.
Having said that here is my controversial statement :) :
I think better golfers who make that mistake are being lazy and sloppy. There is no reason for them to make this mistake. On the other hand I think it is more difficult forba poor player to understand something they can never experience--certain golf shots that they could never play. I am only suggesting that better players should have an additional tool at their disposal with their unique experience of having played the game from beginner to expert levels. Of course that range of experiences is sometimes wasted.
-
Two words:
Bernard Darwin
Two more:
Ron Whitten
Mike,
Bernard Darwin was a pretty good golfer, playing in the Amateur Championship on many occasions. He also played Walker Cup, but I think that was because he had to step in at the last hour to replace someone else.
-
Anthony,
From a few posts I have seen on here, I have a lower handicap than Tom Doak (though I've never had a round as low as his 67 (?) at St Enodoc), which I guess answers the question!
I believe the full line was "You don't know what you're talking about. I've found your scores on <stats website where I log my rounds> and you don't shoot in the 70s often enough". ;D
It's John Lyon's favourite insult when we talk about courses.
-
It's a fascinating question - the correlation between one's playing ability and the ability to assess a course's quality.
I feel the "No, but it helps" answer sums it up best.
Must I be able to paint like Monet in order to appreciate and objectively comment on art?
MM
-
I follow the Huckabean Theory of Architecture Evaluation. Only those in the know can really judge how well an archie performed on a project. Everybody else is more or less looking at the final product and making a personal judgement on what they think of the course with the exception of those in the business who can have a good idea of why certain things may have been a certain way. Not that this type of opinion isn't valuable or can't be insightful, for sure, it often can be both, afterall most people could care less bout the constraints of a project. They care about how the course plays. In either case I don't think playing ability necessarily makes much difference. A lot of different skills can either be important or not depending on the who is doing the evaluation, who is the audience, what is the purpose and the criteria.
Ciao
-
Must I be able to paint like Monet in order to appreciate and objectively comment on art?
That is a completely fallacious analogy, Matthew.
-
Must I be able to paint like Monet in order to appreciate and objectively comment on art?
That is a completely fallacious analogy, Matthew.
Why? Not picking a side, just genuinely interested in why you think so.
-
By all accounts Dr MacKenzie was a pretty average golfer for most of his life, only getting better in his later years - presumably as a result of living in the sun and having more time to play. Yet he was able to fashion courses of the very highest standards.
If we take it as read that all but a few top championship courses are designed with the full range of golfing ability in mind, then surely an average golfer is perfectly qualified to evaluate the architecture of a course as it plays for the average golfer. Equally a scratch player is best placed to evaluate the course from a scratch player's point of view.
I guess that there is an argument that the scratch player can see the course from all perspectives, as he was an 18 handicap hacker once.
I really wouldn't know though, as '18 handicap hacker' is still an aspiration as far as I'm concerned!
-
Anthony
Do You Have To Be A Good Golfer To Evaluate Architecture - NO, but you have to be a Golfer to evaluate architecture
Melvyn
-
This fall I suprisingly rediscovered my game and my handicap dropped dramatically ... does that mean I now understand architecture better...
-
Do you need to know everything about Tiger Woods to evaluate his swing...?
Nope.
However, if you were the one evaluating (and qualified to evaluate) his swing, it would be helpful to know as much as possible about the player.
-
I follow the Huckabean Theory of Architecture Evaluation. Only those in the know can really judge how well an archie performed on a project. Everybody else is more or less looking at the final product and making a personal judgement on what they think of the course with the exception of those in the business who can have a good idea of why certain things may have been a certain way. Not that this type of opinion isn't valuable or can't be insightful, for sure, it often can be both, afterall most people could care less bout the constraints of a project. They care about how the course plays. In either case I don't think playing ability necessarily makes much difference. A lot of different skills can either be important or not depending on the who is doing the evaluation, who is the audience, what is the purpose and the criteria.
I'm a junior partner in the firm of Huckaby and Arble.
PS - Ian, that's a great tag line you have there. And the full quote would be worthy of a thread, I think: "Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows."
-
What is Golf Course "Architecture"?
If it's the result, why does it matter what was there before?
If it's the effort, how could more than a few people in the world be qualified?
-
Some of you like your musical analogies. Here's one.
Do you have to be a good player/singer/conductor/composer to be a good music critic? The answer to that is, 'No.' How many great composers have been good players/singers/conductors? Surprisingly few. What you have to be able to do is to understand the medium in such depth that you are able to say how and why Rattle's Eroica Symphony differs from Karajan's if you are a critic, or how to translate that original idea and its sound world into a code which musicians can recreate as you want it, if you are a composer.
I grant that there are a few composers who have been self taught yet successful, but I doubt if any could be considered great, however influential. Almost all the great composers have studied the works of many other composers in great detail before being able to make their own mark. The critics, too, have had to study works in great detail before venturing into print in a serious journal. How can you study to write a criticism of the first performance of a new work? You study previous works by that composer alongside those of his or her contemporaries operating in the same genre. Study is deep analysis in a big way.
So, however poor your own play in golf, if you've studied in the right way and have played enough golf over not only the masterpieces but also the lesser courses of great architects you begin to get an understanding of what is there, what they did, and the pertinent features of their style. Others have written about it already. What do you learn from them? You then are able to recognise and understand the development of that architect's style. A good contemporary observer might be able to recognise stylistic development in contemporary architects as it happens (as a modern music critic has to be able to do). The less observant of us will have to sit back 50 years to be able to trace the evolution of style and practices of Doak or Coore/Crenshaw, as most of us have to do with music - although in music's case it may well be 100 years or more.
-
This fall I suprisingly rediscovered my game and my handicap dropped dramatically ... does that mean I now understand architecture better...
........or does it mean not enough work and too much time to practice ? Hopefully wrong and just down to your natural ability (insert smiley)
Niall
-
Must I be able to paint like Monet in order to appreciate and objectively comment on art?
That is a completely fallacious analogy, Matthew.
Why? Not picking a side, just genuinely interested in why you think so.
Mark,
Anyone can appreciate art whether or not they have an understanding of it.
To objectively comment upon art requires a knowledge of the techniques used in its creation, but nothing more. You don't need to have directed a film in order to be able to comment upon the direction of a film, but you need to know what good direction is. To be an artist is to have a gift of creativity that few people have.
I've always been intrigued by songwriters who say they can't read or write music, yet they can play instruments and create music. Isn't Paul McCartney the most famous example?
-
I believe the full line was "You don't know what you're talking about. I've found your scores on <stats website where I log my rounds> and you don't shoot in the 70s often enough". ;D
You have to admit, this is a whole lot easier than rebutting someone's points.
The thing folks like this never seem to realize, is there's always someone better than them (unless they're Tiger 2K - I guess that guy was the ultimate authority on golf, too bad he's gone!).
-
I'd add that one doesn't need to be a high skilled player, but needs to know what the skills are, or the objectives are, even if you can't physically execute them well consistently in terms of evaluating good golf design. But I'd add to those that imply more outside skills and knowledge are needed to be a good critic. Those as mentioned, are knowing and experiencing a large sampling of various courses by various architects, and the historical aspect. And, I'd add that one would be even better equipped to evaluate course design with knowledge or keen observation of the process; from field routing, pencil and paper design on topo, and understanding the engineering and actual construction techniques. All of that goes into a higher quality evaluation or critique, IMHO.
So, the more you expose yourself to all aspect of the art and craft of GCA, including the actual construction, on top of the actual playing experiences and skill set, the better you should be as a critic.
-
No. The only people capable of evaluating architecture are golf course architects.
-
JC,
At the pointy end of golf architecture, I'm inclined to agree with you (and Sean and Huck).
The initial comment that lead Anthony to start the thread pertained more to just having an opinion about a hole's merits, so while Anthony's question above concerned "evaluating architecture", that was not really the crux of the discussion that yielded the quote that inspired the thread, if that makes any sense at all.
-
JC,
At the pointy end of golf architecture, I'm inclined to agree with you (and Sean and Huck).
The initial comment that lead Anthony to start the thread pertained more to just having an opinion about a hole's merits, so while Anthony's question above concerned "evaluating architecture", that was not really the crux of the discussion that yielded the quite that inspired the thread, if that makes any sense at all.
Scott
If you would have mispelled something I would have understood it better.
Anthony
-
who in the most aggregious example of poor player/astute GCA critic ever? Note: not "architect"; rather "critic". Open question.
Shivas...the most egregious example of a poor player that I've ever seen is without doubt Eric Smith.
-
Well, what is a poor player? Compared to what? Is a 10-14 handicap a poor player compared to a scratch? How about a 15-20 compared to the average frequent golfer of somewhere aroung 12-14? Or, is a poor player one that hardly plays much but is hand-eye athletic coordinated to play to a 10 or so but he is so infrequent of a golfer that he hasn't really a clue, just raw talent?
I'll go with the 10-14handi compared to scratch, and offer this. A guy that knows his brief when it comes to GCA, isn't around here anymore, but I'd say, 'the Emporer' without naming him. Most all of you know who I mean.
-
there seems to be a disconnect here between evaluating golf course architecture and designing a golf course.
Why are Doak/McKenzie etc being used as examples of 'not great players' being good architects. The discussion revolves around evaluating courses, not designing them!
Having said that, as an actual architect, I find the use of the term 'architect' for someone who designs a golf course rather amusing ;)
Bit like the guys who change the tyres on aeroplanes being called Engineers!
-
Duncan, before becoming a famous architect, Doak made a name for himself by writing the CG. I think he also ran GM's golf course ratings. i.e. he did a whole lot of evaluating, and had/has a major impact on how others saw/see the world's top-ranked courses.
Can anyone design great courses without being able to evaluate golf course architecture? Seems like a disconnect to me, though maybe an idiot savant type could do so. I understood through this website that Seth Raynor either played little golf, or no golf at all.
-
IMO Ron Whitten is leading a panel of typically good golfers rating golf courses by good golfer criteria. The infamous "resistance to scoring" criteria.
IMO good golfers are particularly unqualified to evaluate architecture, since they are in the minority of golfers.
[size=12point]
Is it your considered opinion that Ben Crenshaw is unqualified to evaluate architecture ?
Donald Ross ?
CBMacdonald ?
Bobby Jones ?
Pete Dye ?
Would you like to retract your statement ? (;;)[/b][/size]
They come up with ratings like Pacific Dunes is better than Bandon Trails. :D All you have to do is look at the slope rating, and you can predict that evaluation ;)
Anyone who cannot get their facts straight when expressing an opinion of a course is unqualified to rate courses.
Patrick,
The good golfers reference was intended to refer to the use of amateur low handicappers as raters by Ron Whitten. I doubt any of the names you mention are on Ron's panel. It would seem you agree with me as evidenced by your many disagreements with the Huckster. ;)
I also suffer from lack of writing skills in that I probably did not get across that I was referring to using golfing skill as a qualification for the job. Clearly intelligent, sympathetic people of all skill levels can learn to do a proper job.
-
No. The only people capable of evaluating architecture are golf course architects.
WRONG!
-
Why are Doak/McKenzie etc being used as examples of 'not great players' being good architects. The discussion revolves around evaluating courses, not designing them!
Well, in Doak's case at least, he was famous for evaluating golf courses long before anyone paid him to design one.
K
-
This fall I suprisingly rediscovered my game and my handicap dropped dramatically ... does that mean I now understand architecture better...
Yes. Congratulations. Quite the revelation, isn't it?
But seriously folks...
You have to have seen an ample number of golf shots by players of varying abilities. I think it's hard to leave it completely to one's imagination. The possibilities how golf shots can be hit. An assessment of what typical golf shots look like. Learning to jusge the reactions, the fears, the elation of your playing partners, what they like and what they don't like. I think it also helps to be creative, and try to execute different shots.
The ability of an architect to get the most out of his site is one criteria, but I prefer to evaluate purely on what is presented, regardless of the original palette.
-
How about a panel of "bogey golfers" doing ratings for Golf Digest? Diversity is a good thing these days.
-
The ability of an architect to get the most out of his site is one criteria, but I prefer to evaluate purely on what is presented, regardless of the original palette.
I agree with this. Afterall, the purpose of the architect is to prepare a golf course which will be played upon, isn't it?
I disagree with the notion that one person can evaluate a course through the eyes of others though.
-
Melvyn hit the nail on the head . You have to be a "golfer" to really get it, as the vagaries of spin , wind, roll and strategy are easier to analyze if you get it> However you better understand drainage and budgeting also .
-
Every golfers opinion is worth 1/800th of a magazine rating.
-
Every golfers opinion is worth 1/800th of a magazine rating.
That's why I think it's bogus for them to also rate the course from my perspective in addition to their own...and yours...
-
Going back to some of the word parsing on the Myopia thread, there was a discussion about evaluating vs elevating architecture.
You can evaluate anything without any particular skill and have a valid opinion.
You have to be a pretty darn good architect to elevate architecture.
-
This fall I suprisingly rediscovered my game and my handicap dropped dramatically ... does that mean I now understand architecture better...
The ability of an architect to get the most out of his site is one criteria, but I prefer to evaluate purely on what is presented, regardless of the original palette.
Architecture isn't just about the archie getting the most out of site. In fact, we can debate all day what getting the most out of a site means. Architecture explains why decisions were made. Its fine to say we don't like something about a course, but the actual architecture behind that feature could be solid as a rock. I draw a distinct line between the architecture of the course and how the course plays. These are two separate deals which are certainly related, but it is entirely possible for a course to have great architecture, but just be average in the quality of how it plays. Its not so different from differentiating between architecture and the maintenance of the course. I would like to think there is a perfect balance between architecture, course playbility and maintenance meld, but I think that there is so much subjectivity involved that its impossible to talk for anybody else. Again, there is nothing wrong with a more superficial look at courses that most of us get because for the vast majority that is all there is and that may be all they/we want.
Ciao
-
Sure you can say that a guy did a great job with the crap site he was given. But doesn't the decision to build on a crap site to begin with have to factor into the equation? I know guys are just happy to have any job these days, but isn't the final product what really matters, whether it was the best oceanfront linksland or a torn-up parking lot?
-
Jud
Of course you are right. However, what often happens is that folks will say such and such archie is/was the best/top 5 or whatever. Without knowing architecture its an impossible to leap to knowing architects. The slope is very slippery from saying architecture doesn't really matter, its the final product which counts to the best archies are....Plus, there is a value to be placed on a well built course which is definitely aprt of the architecture. When I say well built I don't mean bunker placement and green contour. I mean does the course drain, are the view taken advantage of, are walks between greens and tees kept to a minimum etc. If we just focus on the playing quality and not so much the experience then some of these basic elements of good design can be ignored. I am right behind you with the final product being the real thing, but the architecture behind that product is very important as well.
Ciao
-
Jud
I mean does the course drain, are the view taken advantage of, are walks between greens and tees kept to a minimum etc.
Seems to me this also comes under the final product catagory as well...
-
This fall I suprisingly rediscovered my game and my handicap dropped dramatically ... does that mean I now understand architecture better...
Yes. Congratulations. Quite the revelation, isn't it?
But seriously folks...
You have to have seen an ample number of golf shots by players of varying abilities. I think it's hard to leave it completely to one's imagination. The possibilities how golf shots can be hit. An assessment of what typical golf shots look like. Learning to jusge the reactions, the fears, the elation of your playing partners, what they like and what they don't like. I think it also helps to be creative, and try to execute different shots.
The ability of an architect to get the most out of his site is one criteria, but I prefer to evaluate purely on what is presented, regardless of the original palette.
What you have to understand John, is that Ian has seen all the shots! He has seen them coming off his own club head. He has probably thought that's an awesome effect, now if I could only hit that shot on demand, I could be great.
;)
-
Not at all, but you do need to be aware of how a good golfer plays. Same goes the other way as well.
I think Ryan makes a good observation. The higher handicap player needs to know what landing areas, angles, and green locations the better player is striving for. Conversely the better player should also know what the options are for the higher handicap player. To properly evaluate the architecture the playing corridors have to be evaluated for players of different skill levels.
-
Scott Warren recently mentioned that a GCAer told him he was not a good enough golfer to have a valid opinion.Is this true?Haven't nongolfers even made their mark as architects.I've outplayed raters before as a double digit handicapper.
Anthony
Whoever told Scott that is dead wrong.l Do you have to be a good golfer to be an architect? No, you don't. Mackenzie couldn't hit the back end of a mule with a yardstick.
-
Jay,
Maybe he was 4 feet away.
-
How about a panel of "bogey golfers" doing ratings for Golf Digest? Diversity is a good thing these days.
Cruden Bay wins the top spot.
Anthony
-
Duncan, before becoming a famous architect, Doak made a name for himself by writing the CG. I think he also ran GM's golf course ratings. i.e. he did a whole lot of evaluating, and had/has a major impact on how others saw/see the world's top-ranked courses.
Can anyone design great courses without being able to evaluate golf course architecture? Seems like a disconnect to me, though maybe an idiot savant type could do so. I understood through this website that Seth Raynor either played little golf, or no golf at all.
I was being facetious ;)
I still prefer to call them 'designers' though. I'm not aware of any undergraduate study that allows them to refer to themselves as an 'architect'.
:D
-
Duncan, before becoming a famous architect, Doak made a name for himself by writing the CG. I think he also ran GM's golf course ratings. i.e. he did a whole lot of evaluating, and had/has a major impact on how others saw/see the world's top-ranked courses.
Can anyone design great courses without being able to evaluate golf course architecture? Seems like a disconnect to me, though maybe an idiot savant type could do so. I understood through this website that Seth Raynor either played little golf, or no golf at all.
I was being facetious ;)
I still prefer to call them 'designers' though. I'm not aware of any undergraduate study that allows them to refer to themselves as an 'architect'.
:D
Duncan, you will find that most actually have an undergrad degree in Landscape ARCHITECURE, some with Masters in LA, while others of us went the Engineering route. Speaking of Building Architects, how many could of their "designs" could be built without Civil, Structural, Meachanical and Electrical Engineers to impliment the "design"? I wouldn't get so hung up on titles.
-
some mechanics are called engineers too.
also, please note my use of ;P
-
No No and again No! the capacity to picture, quantify, understand shot values etc has nothing to do with skill to execute shots and manage ones emotions as well as their game in competition.
-
Not anymore than one needs to be a good designer to create architecture.
-
Every golfers opinion is worth 1/800th of a magazine rating.
That's why I think it's bogus for them to also rate the course from my perspective in addition to their own...and yours...
I'm late to the party, but if I play the course with my wife, and we discuss how to best play each hole for her perspective, I do get some insight into her thoughts.
I give more credence to one's imgaination than you seem to be willing to give.
-
duncan betts:
I won't get started on the architecture / golf architecture / landscape architecture debate...
but there is just as much, if not more technical knowledge demanded in building a golf course than a building
That said, I would say that a tour pro or a person like that who just show up and talk about golf concepts is indeed a designer... the one that turns the concepts in reality is an architect
-
It helps but no. You have to be able to visualize shots and understand the given topography and how the arch dealt with
-
Must I be able to paint like Monet in order to appreciate and objectively comment on art?
That is a completely fallacious analogy, Matthew.
Why? Not picking a side, just genuinely interested in why you think so.
Mark,
Anyone can appreciate art whether or not they have an understanding of it.
To objectively comment upon art requires a knowledge of the techniques used in its creation, but nothing more. You don't need to have directed a film in order to be able to comment upon the direction of a film, but you need to know what good direction is. To be an artist is to have a gift of creativity that few people have.
I've always been intrigued by songwriters who say they can't read or write music, yet they can play instruments and create music. Isn't Paul McCartney the most famous example?
Mark,
Thanks for the answer. I get what you say and agree. Why, however, can't similar arguments be applied to GCA?
-
I read a chapter in a 1912 book ("To the Links", I think, compiled by HL Sutton) last night, written by Colt. He addressed just this question and concluded forcefully that you did not need to be an expert golfer to appreciate course design. Over the weekend and before I have to give the book back to its owner I'll try and copy the relevant bits.
-
I won't debate this ridiculous premise except to say that everyone knows good food when they taste it. No matter their level of cooking ability.
So do you have to be a good golfer to evaluate architecture? No. You just have to be a golfer.
Shucks, I agreed with Melvyn on something.
-
I won't debate this ridiculous premise except to say that everyone knows good food when they taste it. No matter their level of cooking ability.
So do you have to be a good golfer to evaluate architecture? No. You just have to be a golfer.
Shucks, I agreed with Melvyn on something.
I think I agree with your conclusion Ben but I don't agree with the analogy. I think cooking skill is analogous to the ability to design a golf course. Eating a lot is analogous to being a good golfer.
My wife was a pastry chef in some of the best restaurants in NYC and she is absolutely able to evaluate food much better than I can. I am able to say, "I like this dish" or "I don't like this dish". But because of her training she is able to go much deeper. Last month I was eating a cookie from a bakery and I said that I liked it and that it had an interesting taste. Knowing only the type of cookie and that I thought it had an interesting taste, she said to the owner, "did you use [insert spice I had never heard of] in the cookie?" And she was right, without even having to taste the cookie.
Similarly, I would gladly concede that any of the architects here are much more skilled at evaluating a golf course than I am - they have more training and experience than I do. But I wouldn’t make that concession with respect to the average 2 handicap (I am a 13 handicap) just as I wouldn't necessarily trust a restaurant recommendation from a fat person.
-
I'm definitely a scratch eater. Being fat is just a bonus....
-
I'm definitely a scratch eater. Being fat is just a bonus....
Insert grin
-
Every golfers opinion is worth 1/800th of a magazine rating.
That's why I think it's bogus for them to also rate the course from my perspective in addition to their own...and yours...
I'm late to the party, but if I play the course with my wife, and we discuss how to best play each hole for her perspective, I do get some insight into her thoughts.
I give more credence to one's imgaination than you seem to be willing to give.
Perhaps.
Do you credit everybody with your level of imagination?
If your wife has developed an opinion on a course why wouldn't I just listen to her? As opposed to your interpretation of her opinion? Or even further, your assumption of her opinion...if in fact she didn't play that course but you're rating it anyway?
Why wouldn't it be more valuable for you to tell me how the course worked and didn't work for you?
-
I think being able to execute a variety of shots certainly helps. Less important is the number you write in the box.
Drew