[Andrew Thomson]

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  

[James_Livingston]

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.

[cary lichtenstein]

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 Burns]

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?

[Mark_F]

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.

[James_Livingston]

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.

[Mark_F]

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?

[James_Livingston]

Mark, I think they may be a couple of other reasons why no one else has chimed in.  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.

[James Bennett]

My goodness me.  How sad.

James B

[Sean Walsh]

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.

[Ian Andrew]

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.

[James Bennett]

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

[Chris Cupit]

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.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()