Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: John Kirk on February 23, 2011, 12:53:26 AM
-
A few months ago an acquaintance of mine played Old Macdonald. He's a great player, a multiple club champion at Pumpkin Ridge who made it to the round of 16 at the U.S. Mid-Am a few years ago. I asked if he liked Old Macdonald. He replied, "No. The course doesn't reward good shotmaking." I can't remember whether he shot a good score on a bad ball striking day, or a poor score though he was swinging well. I believe it was the former.
I believe the comment "The course does not reward good shotmaking" is invalid. There are golf holes which sometimes reward poor shotmaking. There are courses where luck plays a greater role in shot results and overall score, but I challenge the group to identify a golf hole that does not reward a good shot.
The golf course that consistently rewards the best shotmaking would be the least interesting course. It would simply be a collection of symmetrical golf holes of different lengths with virtually no hazards. Perhaps a donut shaped sand hazard or two around circular greens offers a perfectly fair challenge, and helps identify the best shotmaker. The course should also test the player's ability to hit uneven lies and curving putts, maybe a blind shot or two. But as a rule, the ideal course for evaluating ability will be mundane, symmetrical, and primarily flat.
Name a golf hole, or a golf hole design, that does not reward good shotmaking. Please explain why.
-
Let's not confuse "shotmaking" with "hitting it at the flag". Perhaps the mindset of the top golfers is such that if they are swinging well, that they take aim at the flag on each hole and consider it unrewarding when that shot does not result in a kick-in birdie.
Augusta National is the poster child for shotmaking v hitting at the flag ...
-
Thanks for responding Mike. I can't watch this thread closely, as I am busy writing other things. As you know, I am attempting to invalidate the remark.
Augusta National rewards great shotmaking, and is somewhat punitive for anything less than outstanding.
-
Yeah, what Benham said.
I have never seen a course ever reject a well conceived and creative shot that took the ground into account. I have seen plenty of shots hit "on the number", perfectly struck at a poor choice of target, be rejected.
Our country is so obsessed with stroke play. It's one of the most disheartening trends in America re: golf today. This idea that John's friend touches on is the prevailing attitude among many, many golfers out there. They believe a crisp shot, hit well and at their point of aim should assure them of success, no matter how ill-conceived the idea of the shot was. How can an architect design for that guy? It takes all creativity out of the equation.
I love a hole that forces the golfer to think about alternate avenues to the pin. The Dormie Club hole being posted on right now looks like one of those holes. Hit a towering wedge right at the pin vs. hitting a sawed off 8 iron up the slope to the top left and see who gets closer. Or take a hole like Nuzzo's 13th at Wolf Point. If the pin is anywhere near the back of the green, hitting a shot "on the number" and coming up 2 yards short will likely lead to a 3 putt. Whereas missing long on purpose means a relatively straight forward up and down, or even chance at birdie.
I'm amazed that more holes aren't designed this way. Match play people...match play!
-
I will disagree with John - sort of - if we can accept a standard of a good shot as one which can be hit by anybody - meaning the 18 capper. There are holes in which there is only one shot to be played. In my mind, this usually means a great shot. Good shots are less than great, but should still be accomodated. Usually, these holes involve wind, but I am not talking about the type where a very unusual wind is its undoing. Take #7 Rye for instance. Downwind at 15-20 mph this hole doesn't not reward good shots in the slightest. It takes a great shot to hold the green - something the vast majority of golfers don't have in them. There is no way to bounce the ball up without an incredible amount of luck and not enough room long to accomodate the good shot. Of course, we could alter our perception of "good" and say to be in a poor spot is good compared to the alternatives, but this is hardly good design imo. I don't think Deal's 4th is as bad as Rye's 7th, but it could certainly be better with more space long. St Enodoc's 8th is the same - not enough space to accomodate the design in a wind. The same applies for countless tee shots on 4s & 5s countless courses where wind is a major factor. I could say the same thing about tightly tree lined courses to a lesser degree eliminating shaped shots off the tee. We can't even begin to talk about shot making because most types of shots are not possible.
Ciao
-
John, I think that your friend may just not be a fan of the sometimes random aspect of a course of that nature. Sometimes people get used to playing on courses where the ball pretty much sticks where it lands and cannot adjust their thinking accordingly when a course doesn't reward that kind of golf.
Many golfers really dislike links courses in general for that reason but it's pretty much accepted that links courses and their ilk are a more complete test of shotmaking than most standard inland 'carry fests'.
-
Sean,
Have to disagree about Deal's 4th. Of course long is a bad place downwind (it isn't good in any circumstances I can imagine) to be but there is the option of playing a shot so that your miss is short right, which gives a chance of getting up and down. There's no miss short at Rye on the 7th. It's an impossible hole downwind.
-
I think there may be a mindset that a "good shot" that works on a typical modern style layout should work on every type of golf course. On some courses, a "good shot" is not always the "right shot" and the key is understanding and adapting to the difference.
-
Perhaps a more apt quote to describe a course like OM would be, "The course doesn't reward a poorly conceived shot" or "the course does reward a creatively conceived shot executed well". In the case of OM, a poorly conceived shot is one which doesn't take into account the non traditional features (at least as compared to most American courses) that influence the outcome of the shot. It has already been said in this thread, but such course's are not designed for point and shoot golf.
-
I think its fair to say that often times good players like courses that separate them from their weaker counterpoints, which is exactly the opposite viewpoint of many here that prefer courses that bring them closer together. A good course for some is a test of their ability. I can't speak to the courses being mentioned, but I'm not surprised that they wouldn't necessarily be "tests of golf" as much as whimiscal adventure types of places.
I also see nothing wrong with wanting to keep score. While one doesn't have to play competitively, I certainly don't see an issue with those that do and stroke play is the dominant method in golf today.
-
Our country is so obsessed with stroke play. It's one of the most disheartening trends in America re: golf today.
Why? I don't understand this attitude. I have played since age 8 and typically keep my score. For the most part I would say golf has always been one of the greatest pleasures of my life...whether I played stroke or match. Keeping count is one way for me to measure how I did. I wouldn't say it is a trend, I would say keeping score has been the way most American golfers have played the game since its beginnings here.
I'm with KBM on this one.If you're not keeping score,you're just practicing.
The guy who made the original "shotmaking" comment certainly understands match play.Final 16 in the Mid Am and multiple times club champion means that he gets match play better than most.
-
Our country is so obsessed with stroke play. It's one of the most disheartening trends in America re: golf today.
Why? I don't understand this attitude. I have played since age 8 and typically keep my score. For the most part I would say golf has always been one of the greatest pleasures of my life...whether I played stroke or match. Keeping count is one way for me to measure how I did. I wouldn't say it is a trend, I would say keeping score has been the way most American golfers have played the game since its beginnings here.
And Ben then drew a conclusion about the effect of the stroke play fixation which wasn't justified either. It doesn't matter what game you are playing, a poorly conceived shot well played is a poor shot whatever the format.
-
The last thing I knew good shotmaking is determined by the result. Yes occasionally luck will factor in both good and bad but mostly the result is determined by creativity and execution. Sounds to me like the player in question had a bad day and his ego was bruised.
-
I would suggest that the extremely large greens are a factor in his opinion. Really good golfers believe that if they hit a green in regulation they should not 3 putt and if anything, they should have a chance at birdie. The greens are so big at OM that perhaps he is not realizing that hitting the green in regulation doesn't mean that he has necessarily hit a good shot. You can easily 3 or 4 putt there so you might think that you hit good shots that day because you hit so many greens but your score is not so good because of all the putts you took. A good shot not only winds up on the green but it is within a reasonable distance of the hole.
-
Isn't it self evident that under different playing and turf conditions, "Good Shotmaking" takes on different defintions?
-
I had a similiar incident where a past employer of mine and a decent player spoke how much he disliked Old Macdonald. I buy into the fact that hitting to another area to have the ball react and ultimately end at the final target is fun. I know he's not the kind of player to find enjoyment in that. Does the stree of execution win out over strategy and creativity? For some, yes.
One course that did pop to mind for me is Royal St. George's. Each time the Open gets played there, we see guys on some holes not finding fairways off the tee no matter where the tee shot is placed. Having crowned fairways to shrug some shots off line is fine, but doesn't RSG go to an extreme??
Ken
-
I've heard different variations on this theme from a bunch of low handicappers who are used to being able to predict, with unerring accuracy, where their ball will wind up in the fairway or on the green, when it is still in the air. They generally are saying that it will wind up pretty much where it landed, with room to roll out. They aren't used to playing courses where the "run-out" can take the ball down nooks and crannies that will funnel it into tight spots, bad lies or hazards. They aren't accustomed to hitting the front of the green, having the ball catch a cleft that pulls it left off the green, down a hill to the side of the green, leaving them a 60 yard shot to the hole. You'll see this sort of shot from time to time at places like Old MacDonald and Chambers Bay. I talked with Peter Uhlein a couple weeks after he won at Chambers Bay and he was still somewhat tormented by some of the bad results that players wound up with after "good" shots. (He said he liked the golf course and loved the experience, but I could tell that he wouldn't really relish playing that style of golf on a regular basis.) Golf courses that emphasize the ground game can often dramatically alter the strategy that a player has in his head standing over the golf ball because he has to really focus on what will happen once the ball hits the ground. That can become a primary thought. On most tournament courses, it's not even a secondary thought, more like a tertiary concept.
-
Not rewarding good shotmaking usually means shots are uncomfortable for the execution driven player and/or its too easy for the high handicapper to play to his index.
My experience is Doak courses actually require a player to hit "shots" instead of the get a yardage, pull a club approach. Good courses require players to think about things like trajectory and ground influences as opposed to just throwing darts.
What John's friend is probably saying is OM is too easy for a 15 to break 90 but too hard for the scratch to shoot par.
-
What John's friend is probably saying is OM is too easy for a 15 to break 90 but too hard for the scratch to shoot par.
Ding ding ding.
-
It seems to me the comments so far are focusing on the wrong thing. It doesn't sound like this is a case where a good golfer is ticked off because well struck shots turned out bad. Rather, John said he thought his friend had a bad ballstriking day but still posted a good score. It is the opposite concern of that described in most of the replies and, in my opinion, a far more interesting question. At what point does a failure to punish bad shots reflect poorly on a course? For what it's worth, I do not believe this is a concern at Old Mac. I suspect John's friend just had one of those blessed days when good fortune smiled on all his misses. More likely than not, tempting fate again with similar poor play won't be treated as kindly.
-
Our country is so obsessed with stroke play. It's one of the most disheartening trends in America re: golf today.
Why? I don't understand this attitude. I have played since age 8 and typically keep my score. For the most part I would say golf has always been one of the greatest pleasures of my life...whether I played stroke or match. Keeping count is one way for me to measure how I did. I wouldn't say it is a trend, I would say keeping score has been the way most American golfers have played the game since its beginnings here.
I'm also with Kelly here. Challenging oneself to get around in the fewest strokes requires mental rigor.
I believe the comment came on a day when my friend Jim shot 73 with a "C+" level of execution.
Courses that concave playing surfaces that consistently gather the ball, such as a punchbowl green, negate a shotmaker's advantage. Also, some complex courses should require a learning curve, where the player's knowledge of the proper shot to attempt increases with experience. Among the courses in my universe, both Stone Eagle and Kingsley were courses that took time to figure out. A good example of the learning curve is the Eden (#2) at Old Macdonald, where the hole plays very long for the yardage, or the Ocean (#7), where you'd have to play a number of times to figure out where to miss your approach.
I also find that outstanding players like my friend Jim have less difficulty playing a complex course for the first time. Robbie Deruntz came to Stone Eagle and shot 1 under the first time around. He's real good.
-
Seems to me this is Crane/Behr all over again. And throw in Nuzzo's Challenge-centric vs. Fun/Adventure seeking golfer...and you've got it.
I've heard golfers rave about Old Mac and I've heard others who've dislike it. It isn't hard for me to discern which camp each of these guys are in.
In my mind, it isn't that the course is good or bad...it is rather which type of golfer it appeals to.
-
It seems to me the comments so far are focusing on the wrong thing. It doesn't sound like this is a case where a good golfer is ticked off because well struck shots turned out bad. Rather, John said he thought his friend had a bad ballstriking day but still posted a good score. It is the opposite concern of that described in most of the replies and, in my opinion, a far more interesting question. At what point does a failure to punish bad shots reflect poorly on a course? For what it's worth, I do not believe this is a concern at Old Mac. I suspect John's friend just had one of those blessed days when good fortune smiled on all his misses. More likely than not, tempting fate again with similar poor play won't be treated as kindly.
That's right, Ed. My initial post is a bit opaque, though I do suggest that is the case.
And I agree with your assessment. He had a lucky day. In my opinion, Old Macdonald is a pretty tough golf course (back tees especially) if you're not playing well.
-
It seems to me the comments so far are focusing on the wrong thing. It doesn't sound like this is a case where a good golfer is ticked off because well struck shots turned out bad. Rather, John said he thought his friend had a bad ballstriking day but still posted a good score. It is the opposite concern of that described in most of the replies and, in my opinion, a far more interesting question. At what point does a failure to punish bad shots reflect poorly on a course? For what it's worth, I do not believe this is a concern at Old Mac. I suspect John's friend just had one of those blessed days when good fortune smiled on all his misses. More likely than not, tempting fate again with similar poor play won't be treated as kindly.
Agreed 100%. The problem is not with the course, but with the premise. It's far more likely a course doesn't punish bad shots than not rewarding good shots.
-
J - another good thread by you. I think Ed Oden's comment/approach to the topic is a good one. I would opine that, since the interaction with a golf course/architecture is a subjective experience, your friend's comments are valid -- for him. Can we draw any objective value out of them? I don't know. I assume from what you and Ed and others have said here and elsewhere the answer is no.
Peter
-
Stroke play itself is not the problem. The issue is when golfers let their score interfere with their judgment of the golf course. When a good player objects to a golf course by saying "the course doesn't reward good shotmaking," he's saying that he doesn't think the course rewards his game. This is a terrible way to judge a golf course, because "shotmaking" is a very arbitrary word that means something different to everyone. Additionally, shotmaking only applies to a small percentage of the golf population. Most golfers who are worse than scratch can't call themselves "shotmakers."
If anything, a course that doesn't reward shotmakers might be the ideal golf course: it gives lesser players ways to make pars and bogeys while hitting less than perfect shots, and it doesn't hand out birdies to those who consider themselves "shotmakers."
-
Or Alex, a complex golf course like Old Macdonald yields a broader spectrum of shot results, so the chances of shooting a lucky good score is greater. And that will generally disturb the better, score oriented player.
I have to drop out of the discussion for a bit.
-
Nice topic. I think all courses reward good shotmaking but the interesting question is whether certain courses place a greater emphasis on the skill than other courses.
One example of a course that diminishes the skill to my mind is a course with lumpy greens without a theme. One course in my area has greens that resemble moguls with little discernable ryme or reason as to their placement. If you are on the wrong side of a mogul, you have to make a 15 foot putt at minimum to two putt. The problem for me, having played the course infrequently, is that standing in the fairway I have no idea what side of the hole leaves a good putt and what side of the hole leaves an impossible putt. Nonetheless, even on that course, the good shotmakers score better than me.
A second type of course where I think shotmaking ability is devalued somewhat is on a course with gigantic flat greens. My weakness tends to be iron shots, but on a course that fits this description, I can hide the weakness by aiming for the middle of the large greens and hit a large percentage of them.
Both of these views are heavily dependent on my individual skill level. Gigantic flat greens still reward the player that can get the ball close enough to the hole to make a ton of birdies. For me, those days are rare.
-
I don't have a problem with someone keeping score. I don't think anyone is saying that here. My argument is that it has become too much of the focus. I think the singular focus of par is a bad way to gauge the game for 95% of the golfing population. For the 5% that are legitimate sub-5 handicap golfers, that can play well in tournaments, or post a number at their member-guest, I'm fine with it.
The problem that develops when stroke count is such an integral part of the game, is that those that have no business worrying about score, start worrying about their score. It leads to market overload of any number of products promised to lower your score, slow play, over-expectation in regards to conditioning, etc. I believe that for a majority of the golfing population, focus on medal scoring muddies the water.
What this has to do with John's friend is long connection, but I'll try to make it. My overlying problem with his assessment of Old Mac is, "who gives a flip?" I feel that so many good to great players look down on a course that allows poorer players to have fun and score decent for no good reason. Is he just mad that he can't self gratify himself for his abilities against other golfers? Where is it written that great architecture stratifies the abilities of golfers? I thought the US Open was made to identify the best player, not a resort course in Oregon.
-
Ben,
Would you agree that golf course architecture must aim to present some form of challenge to getting the ball into the hole?
-
Ben,
Would you agree that golf course architecture must aim to present some form of challenge to getting the ball into the hole?
Jim,
Let's not get into absolutes here. But when a good golfer pans a golf course for not rewarding shotmaking, I read that to mean their pissed that they can't showcase their exceptional skills, rather than they think the architecture flawed.
-
Ben, again, i believe you are misreading his concern. Based on what John has posted, his friend thought his score was better than his shotmaking deserved and felt the failure to punish his mistakes was a strike against the course.
-
I agree with John's statement in his opening post...it's an invalid statement. At some level it must reward shotmaking...did the ball ever go in the hole?
But your objection to keeping score unless you're a 5 or lower is mindblowing...how else would someone know if they've improved a shot or two on average? Or how about the addictive nature of trying break 100 or 90 for the first time?
-
Ed,
I read his concern to mean that there isn't enough of a "difference" between good and bad players. Maybe I'm making an assumption there, but nearly every time I hear this argument, it's been in the context of average golfers scoring low and good golfers scoring around their normal--no matter how they struck the ball. Hence that they feel there is no benefit to being a good striker of the ball on that particular course.
-
Ben,
Would you agree that golf course architecture must aim to present some form of challenge to getting the ball into the hole?
Jim,
That's undoubtedly right. However, we don't know how this player (who sounds like a real player and must be a scratch golfer, I assume) made his 73. It's possible he got some great helpings of luck. What I know from my few experiences of playing with very low handicap players is that, on the whole, they have games very resistant to high scores. Chuck in a couple of lucky breaks and a C+ performance by a scratch golfer might well equate to a 73, particularly on acourse where he mighnt shoot in the 60s playing well.
Obviously the difficulty we have is that we just don't know how he played or how he made his score.
-
I agree with John's statement in his opening post...it's an invalid statement. At some level it must reward shotmaking...did the ball ever go in the hole?
But your objection to keeping score unless you're a 5 or lower is mindblowing...how else would someone know if they've improved a shot or two on average? Or how about the addictive nature of trying break 100 or 90 for the first time?
Jim,
The mindset has so permeated the psyche of the American golfer that we have special sections--in every issue--of Golf Digest that are dedicated to breaking 100, 90, 80. I understand the appeal. Doesn't mean I agree with or eve like it.
When's the last time you read an article on, "how to beat the guy that drives it longer than you" or, "how to play against a good putter"? I am not saying that we should never keep score, heavens no. But making it the focus of the game to the extent that it drives slow play, straight forward architecture, expectations of perfect conditioning? I think that's the Golf Channel syndrome and part of golf's problem moving forward.
Golf needs to be more fun, less penal, less about a number and more about getting outside and spending time with friends. Play against friends, not par.
-
Ben,
We agree, I would just argue it differently...I think all those byproducts you mention can be put in perspective along with trying to lower your score/handicap. They can be mutually exclusive.
Another reason John's friends statement is invalid is...how would he know? Assuming this was his one trip that is...
-
Ben,
We agree, I would just argue it differently...I think all those byproducts you mention can be put in perspective along with trying to lower your score/handicap. They can be mutually exclusive.
Another reason John's friends statement is invalid is...how would he know? Assuming this was his one trip that is...
Jim,
Whew. So glad I don't have to collect my thoughts any further on the topic. Ha!
I like courses that give guys like me a chance, which is why Tom's courses appeal to me. He has even said as much in explaining his design ethos in regards to match play. I have heard the argument that wide, contoured, "linksy" (whatever that means) courses don't do enough to separate golfers of different abilities. When my opinion is that true shot makers are revealed in these conditions, rather than just guys that can hit a ball high and straight every time.
But yeah, they can be separate but equal philosophies of golf.
-
I'm a bit confused by the premise that if a course doesn't punish poor shot making somehow it doesn't reward good shotmaking. Is he saying that all shotmaking is baseline good and is differentiated by the degree that poor shots are punished?
Perhaps, not understanding the strategy of the course, this golfer mishit shots to where he should have hit good shots but just didn't realize it and if he had managed to hit it where he was aiming, he realized that the result would have been poor.
That said, I don't think that an architect is demanding a high level of shotmaking when he puts in a punchbowl green and to assume that he is, well that's just an erraneous assumption, nothing more, nothing less.
-
I don't know the player and have not made it up to OM just yet.
Good golfers in general are not the sharpest tools in the tool box. They get into golf because they feel it doesn't require much thought process. Many of them would prefer to just take their range game to the course. On the range they know if they hit a good shot or a bad shot and they just want the same treatment of shots out on the course. To them the course should require no more thought process than hitting balls on the range. Faced with a course that requires strategy they claim it doesn't reward good shots. If they are 170 yards from the hole and they hit a perfect 170 yard shot they expect a birdie putt. If it doesn't, then it must be something wrong with the golf course. It would never occur to them that they should plan how to play a golf hole.
I see this as the big difference between golfers. There are those willing to think their way around the golf course and there are those that believe the golf course is just an extension of the driving range.
This gets into the whole range finder phenomenon, golf courses as just a collection of 18 holes, grand conditioning, slow play, the obsession by the USGA with the card and pencil game, etc... In other words, the Americanization of golf.
Cheers,
Dan King
I owe everything to golf. Where else would a guy with an IQ like mine make this much money?
--Hubert Green
-
For what it's worth, I've always been capable of grinding out decent scores on tough courses or when I don't play very well but have rarely been able to shoot very low scores on courses many people think are easy. There are several factors, but none of them actually tell me whether or not a course is any good.
It should be fun to try to shoot low scores on a course that allows it and at the same time, it is defintely fun to me to work hard on a round on a tough course.
-
Dan,
I hear that type of stuff all the time around here and I couldn't disagree more.
That attitude permeates every level of golfer.
-
Jim Sullivan writes:
That attitude permeates every level of golfer.
Of course it does. Many American golfers, regardless of ability, want to be just like the pros. They will use the same clubs, move just as slowly, try the same shots and measure themselves against the best at the game. If the best at the game aren't given any reason to think their way around the old golf course, neither should they. If the pros get exact yardage from their caddy then everyday golfers should also have a mechanism for exact yardage.
Cheers,
Dan King
Golf puts a man's character on the anvil and his richest qualities - patience, poise, restraint - to the flame.
--Billy Casper
-
What John's friend is probably saying is OM is too easy for a 15 to break 90 but too hard for the scratch to shoot par.
Ding ding ding.
Double this. Don is on a roll today.
This is also the logic of "defending par" in my opinion.
Kelly Moran also has me re-learning how to spell erudite!
-
Our country is so obsessed with stroke play. It's one of the most disheartening trends in America re: golf today.
Why? I don't understand this attitude. I have played since age 8 and typically keep my score. For the most part I would say golf has always been one of the greatest pleasures of my life...whether I played stroke or match. Keeping count is one way for me to measure how I did. I wouldn't say it is a trend, I would say keeping score has been the way most American golfers have played the game since its beginnings here.
Kelly
I agree with your comments. People keep score all over the world, not just the US. A lot of golfers keep score even in matchplay, myself included. Its one way of keeping concentration and confims how you're playing or gives you a goal to achieve.
Niall
ps just about to post and saw your last post which I also agree with.
-
Ben,
I don’t disagree that it could be a problem for you playing behind a 30 handicap player who insists on putting out every stroke, who bears down on each shot as if it might be his last on earth. However, what strikes me is the number of “crisis” moments in golf described here and on many other threads. It seems everything is a reason for the decline of golf. If it is not keeping score, it’s riding a cart, it's using a rangefinder, it’s taking a practice swing, it’s slow conditions, it’s Rees Jones, it’s 14 clubs, it’s the PGA Tour, it’s spitting on greens, it’s architects, it’s overshaping, it’s taking another practice swing. Everything is a crisis.
A beginning player reading this website would do well to avoid it or they may be too discouraged to continue playing. He may think well gee I am tired sometimes and like to take a cart, that Rees Jones course was kind of fun, I like knowing my score, it helps me to take a practice swing, but I’m beginning to think I’m the problem according to all these experts on golf who post here.
For many of us golf is good 99.9% of the time, it’s never been so good, and that is certainly is not because of a bunch of people hanging around a website all day! So what this expert golfer does not like Old Mac. So what he decries the lack of shot making required. Do you like Old Mac? Yes? Well then go play it and have fun!
It is amazing the amount of disrespect shown to the game on this website. People on here live in a perpetual state of crisis. It is exhausting and psychologically demeaning.
KBM
Best post I have read here! Nicely played.
Golf is about fun and/or enjoyment, not perfection.
I've been searching all my life for a course that rewards bad shotmaking - that would be sweet!
CJ
-
I don't know the player and have not made it up to OM just yet.
Good golfers in general are not the sharpest tools in the tool box. They get into golf because they feel it doesn't require much thought process. Many of them would prefer to just take their range game to the course. On the range they know if they hit a good shot or a bad shot and they just want the same treatment of shots out on the course. To them the course should require no more thought process than hitting balls on the range. Faced with a course that requires strategy they claim it doesn't reward good shots. If they are 170 yards from the hole and they hit a perfect 170 yard shot they expect a birdie putt. If it doesn't, then it must be something wrong with the golf course. It would never occur to them that they should plan how to play a golf hole.
I see this as the big difference between golfers. There are those willing to think their way around the golf course and there are those that believe the golf course is just an extension of the driving range.
This gets into the whole range finder phenomenon, golf courses as just a collection of 18 holes, grand conditioning, slow play, the obsession by the USGA with the card and pencil game, etc... In other words, the Americanization of golf.
Cheers,
Dan King
I owe everything to golf. Where else would a guy with an IQ like mine make this much money?
--Hubert Green
Dan,
This whole post reads as an indictment of the better player...do we agree that the instant gratification mindset appears at all levels?
-
Jim Sullivan writes:
This whole post reads as an indictment of the better player.
It is good to see I was successful at getting my point across.
do we agree that the instant gratification mindset appears at all levels?
Yep, but the problem starts at the top.
Cheers,
Dan King
Golf is the only game where the worst player gets the best of it. He obtains more out of it as regards both exercise and enjoyment, for the good player gets worried over the slightest mistake, whereas the poor player makes too many mistakes to worry about them.
--David Lloyd George
-
Why?
There are alot more bad players than good.
-
It seems to me the comments so far are focusing on the wrong thing. It doesn't sound like this is a case where a good golfer is ticked off because well struck shots turned out bad. Rather, John said he thought his friend had a bad ballstriking day but still posted a good score. It is the opposite concern of that described in most of the replies and, in my opinion, a far more interesting question. At what point does a failure to punish bad shots reflect poorly on a course? For what it's worth, I do not believe this is a concern at Old Mac. I suspect John's friend just had one of those blessed days when good fortune smiled on all his misses. More likely than not, tempting fate again with similar poor play won't be treated as kindly.
Maybe John's friend underrates his own strategic thinking and execution. Maybe he had his C+ game but coupled it with A+ thinking and that is the real reason he still scored relatively well.
-
Why?
There are alot more bad players than good.
That means a lot more bad players are looking to good players as an example.
-
Examples of instant gratification?
-
Why?
There are alot more bad players than good.
That means a lot more bad players are looking to good players as an example.
My thoughts exactly.
-
Examples of expecting instant gratification?
-
Jim Sullivan writes:
Why?
There are alot more bad players than good.
It's not all that tough to figure out. Many more bad players want to become good players than visa versa. So you are going to get many more bad players imitating good players rather than good players imitating bad players.
Cheers,
Dan King
Excessive golfing dwarfs the intellect. Nor is this to be wondered at when we consider that the more fatuously vacant the mind is, the better for play. It has been observed that absolute idiots play the steadiest.
--Sir Walter Simpson (The Art of Golf)
-
There is this feeling amongst the beter players that a golf course should be 'fair'. There are a variety of dislikes amongst the pro's but they generally involve the bounce. Lots do not like TOC, and for a sub 10 handicapper it can be anoying to hit a good 7 iron and it stop within 10 feet at one hole and then run 80 feet away at the next, at the 3 you hit an upslope and 4 a downslope, but a yard or so shorter or longer could yield opposite results. The arguement I suppose is it tests your metal.
Plenty of Americans have never crossed the water, or refuse to come back over.
Most linksy courses have a way round, but they involve fiddly shots, its not to everyones liking.
If we are going to build new courses that mirror the old fashioned links, you will get these same comments, perhaps it is even a back handed compliment.
-
Ben,
I don’t disagree that it could be a problem for you playing behind a 30 handicap player who insists on putting out every stroke, who bears down on each shot as if it might be his last on earth. However, what strikes me is the number of “crisis” moments in golf described here and on many other threads. It seems everything is a reason for the decline of golf. If it is not keeping score, it’s riding a cart, it's using a rangefinder, it’s taking a practice swing, it’s slow conditions, it’s Rees Jones, it’s 14 clubs, it’s the PGA Tour, it’s spitting on greens, it’s architects, it’s overshaping, it’s taking another practice swing. Everything is a crisis.
A beginning player reading this website would do well to avoid it or they may be too discouraged to continue playing. He may think well gee I am tired sometimes and like to take a cart, that Rees Jones course was kind of fun, I like knowing my score, it helps me to take a practice swing, but I’m beginning to think I’m the problem according to all these experts on golf who post here.
For many of us golf is good 99.9% of the time, it’s never been so good, and that is certainly is not because of a bunch of people hanging around a website all day! So what this expert golfer does not like Old Mac. So what he decries the lack of shot making required. Do you like Old Mac? Yes? Well then go play it and have fun!
It is amazing the amount of disrespect shown to the game on this website. People on here live in a perpetual state of crisis. It is exhausting and psychologically demeaning.
Kelly,
Yeah I hear you. Golf needs more optimism right now. I agree.
My argument to you seems psychologically demeaning. Okay. You're in the business--which is more than I can say for 98% of the pontificates like me on this site--so I respect what you say. I do get preachy about my opinion of sustainability and supply and demand. I get it.
However, I feel like your post above is intellectually demeaning. In my opinion, it's not just the economy's fault. To pretend like there aren't some crises in golf right now is to be dishonest about the state of things. It's not all doom and gloom, but some things need to happen for golf to be as strong as it once was. Notice I didn't--and hardly ever--write about many of the things you mentioned. I have always focused on slow play and unrealistic maintenance expectations, and today I spun those two tenets into this argument and spoke about medal play. It's kind of my thing right now to blame everything including the war in Iraq on slow play and maintenance practices being out of whack.
If you feel that we shouldn't--among the true geeks, the members of this site--discuss things that are contributing to the decline of the game, then where else can we talk about it? I am all for optimism, as long as we can educate folks and be honest about why we're optimistic. There shouldn't be any marketing going on here. Just discussion.
-
Dan - this is our disagreement...
I wrote:
do we agree that the instant gratification mindset appears at all levels?
You responded:
Yep, but the problem starts at the top.
I think "the problem starting at the top" is a throw away, gratuitous comment that cannot be defended. How exactly does an average player imitate a good player expecting instant gratification?
I agree there are good players that think a course should reward every reasonable shot they hit. I disagree that an 18 handicapper that hits a reasonable shot, for them, feels it should be rewarded BECAUSE the good player felt their shot should be rewarded. I think it's simply because the game is very hard and they want a break.
-
A good shot: One that is rewarded.
A rewarded shot: One that is good.
John,
You friend is talking logical nonsense. He might as well say tautologies don't exist.
-
I agree there are good players that think a course should reward every reasonable shot they hit. I disagree that an 18 handicapper that hits a reasonable shot, for them, feels it should be rewarded BECAUSE the good player felt their shot should be rewarded. I think it's simply because the game is very hard and they want a break.
I THINK I agree,if I'm understanding correctly.
Would you be saying that the bad player should have less of a reasonable expectation of a good outcome than a good player--but thinks that "luck" should be equally distributed?
-
I might be...hadn't thought of it in the context of luck, but it's undeniable that the closer a shot is to being good, the more valuable/influential a stroke of luck can be...and it's equally undeniable that a scratch will have more shots closer to good than an 18.
-
Jim Sullivan writes:
I think "the problem starting at the top" is a throw away, gratuitous comment that cannot be defended.
You were the one that brought up instant gratification. I assumed -- perhaps wrongly -- that you were using it as a shorthand for what we were talking about: golf as a physical game, ignoring the mental aspects of the game.
I agree there are good players that think a course should reward every reasonable shot they hit. I disagree that an 18 handicapper that hits a reasonable shot, for them, feels it should be rewarded BECAUSE the good player felt their shot should be rewarded. I think it's simply because the game is very hard and they want a break.
The 18 handicapper doesn't know how to become a better golfer, therefore they imitate everything they see better golfers do. Regardless if it is wearing a Titliest hat, spitting on the course, lining up a putt from every possible angle, having exact yardage, carrying stupid bags, waiting until it is their turn to hit before doing anything, etc... They will try it all.
The PGA setup courses that require minimal thought because it is more important to keep the players happy rather than create a real test of golf. The best players play essentially the exact same course every week with the hot putter winning most weeks.
Cheers,
Dan King
Tom Watson's a great golfer, but that's all. Larry Nelson, a nice guy but so absolutely colorless you'd think he'd at least wear some bright clothes. Lon Hinkle, forget it. Ben Crenshaw's Texas drawl is his charisma. Bill Rodgers, nothing. Hale Irwin ought to be a banker. Most of these guys don't even drink. Only bullfighting and the waterhole are left as vestigal evidence of what bloody savages men used to be.
--Tommy Bolt, 1980
-
Ben:
From very early on, anyone I know that tries the game with me gets to hear about how overcoming all the little variables is an aspect and appeal of the game and that the ultimate challenge of the game is to get the ball into the hole in the fewest amount of strokes possible. I try to be upbeat about tough breaks, bad lies, and non-manicured conditioning as developing a positive attitude about these things I think is key to developing the mind of a golfer.
-
links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.
Anthony
-
links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.
Anthony
Anthony that does not make sense to me.
-
It's kind of my thing right now to blame everything including the war in Iraq on slow play and maintenance practices being out of whack.
we can educate folks and be honest about why we're optimistic.
Ben,
I wish you well in your mission.
Dishonestly yours!,
Kelly
Was there supposed to be an emoticon there? If so, which one, and how many?
Kyle,
Nice work.
-
links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.
Anthony
Anthony that does not make sense to me.
Liks courses play fast and firm usually.So you can take high or take it low ect.More than one way to play the shots thus putting a premium on shot making.
Anthony
-
.
The PGA setup courses that require minimal thought because it is more important to keep the players happy rather than create a real test of golf. The best players play essentially the exact same course every week with the hot putter winning most weeks.
I don't think many people would play to their handicaps on courses set up for the PGA Tour--even those really strategic thinking 15 handicaps.The presumption that Tour players don't think themselves around a golf course is just wrong.
Why the bias against against guys who are really good at playing golf?They're not all bad people.
-
Dan,
Every 18 handicapper on the planet knows what it would take to get better...it hits them in the face each time they play.
In addition, I'll guarantee you that a course prepared for a PGA Tour event will demand more thought than that same course set up by any of us on this board.
-
In addition, I'll guarantee you that a course prepared for a PGA Tour event will demand more thought than that same course set up by any of us on this board.
Great minds...
-
links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.
Anthony
Anthony that does not make sense to me.
Liks courses play fast and firm usually.So you can take high or take it low ect.More than one way to play the shots thus putting a premium on shot making.
Anthony
Anthony I still dont know if premium is the right word, just because of the options. Thinking outside the square if you take a punchbowl green, does that reward good shotmaking because here are options? No. In all honesty a punchbowl green does not reward a good shot at all it is the total opposite, it rewards slighty errant one. I think kick backs, back stops are great for the higher handicapper, not sure the scratchman gets the same juice though.
-
It's really not a stroke play/match play issue. This same guy would likely be just as frustrated if he was in a match and felt like he was hitting great shots at the flag all day long but never had good opportunities for birdie. Hell, he might have been even more frustrated because he would be, potentially, losing holes to some guy not hitting it right at the flag every time.
This player's issue is he thinks that hitting it straight at the hole is always the ideal line. Of course it's not, not even on many holes with a lot less quirk than seems to exist (I've only seen photos tours) at OM. OM is the style of course that rewards study and multiple plays for a player to discover the best places to miss a shot, and when it is OK or not OK to go right at the pin. That attitude isn't born out of a stroke play mindset, just one that doesn't appreciate quirk or any kind of challenge that isn't inherently straightforward.
Ultimately, not every "good shot" will be rewarded. Consider the two player's experiences at 14 on Pebble Beach a few Sundays ago. Mickelson and Points both hit approach shots that just cleared the bunker in front and hit in the rough in front of the putting surface. Points' ball took a soft hop and rolled into the hole for an eagle. Phil's ball hit hard and kicked all the way down the slop on the left leading to a bogey. Both players were trying to hit the same kind of shot--one that landed as close to the front of that green, maybe even in the rough over the bunker, as possible. Both hit that shot. The two couldn't have landed more than a couple yards apart. But would we say that the 14th at pebble doesn't reward good shots? of course not. Quirk is a part of the game of golf.
With that said, any player who tried to land their ball right next to the flag on the 14th at Pebble that day would not have been able to hold the green. The player in question might find that unfair, but only if he's playing completely ignorant of the hole as it exists. It sounds like that may have been the case for his round at OM.
-
links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.
Anthony
Anthony that does not make sense to me.
Liks courses play fast and firm usually.So you can take high or take it low ect.More than one way to play the shots thus putting a premium on shot making.
Anthony
Anthony I still dont know if premium is the right word, just because of the options. Thinking outside the square if you take a punchbowl green, does that reward good shotmaking because here are options? No. In all honesty a punchbowl green does not reward a good shot at all it is the total opposite, it rewards slighty errant one. I think kick backs, back stops are great for the higher handicapper, not sure the scratchman gets the same juice though.
Adrian,
I agree with the punch bowl and love punch bowls because of my high handy cap.Because shot selection on links courses is more varied in puts a prium on pulling off the shot you selected.When you missed the direct shot you say you should have bumped it in.
Anthony
-
I don't have a problem with someone keeping score. I don't think anyone is saying that here. My argument is that it has become too much of the focus. I think the singular focus of par is a bad way to gauge the game for 95% of the golfing population. For the 5% that are legitimate sub-5 handicap golfers, that can play well in tournaments, or post a number at their member-guest, I'm fine with it.
The problem that develops when stroke count is such an integral part of the game, is that those that have no business worrying about score, start worrying about their score. It leads to market overload of any number of products promised to lower your score, slow play, over-expectation in regards to conditioning, etc. I believe that for a majority of the golfing population, focus on medal scoring muddies the water.
What this has to do with John's friend is long connection, but I'll try to make it. My overlying problem with his assessment of Old Mac is, "who gives a flip?" I feel that so many good to great players look down on a course that allows poorer players to have fun and score decent for no good reason. Is he just mad that he can't self gratify himself for his abilities against other golfers? Where is it written that great architecture stratifies the abilities of golfers? I thought the US Open was made to identify the best player, not a resort course in Oregon.
Great quote on "scoring"... former tour pro Harry Toscano to a buddy of mine who can hit virtually any shot imagnable though cannot score at all.
Buddy is playing his typical round, hitting it well but scoring poorly and heads to the par 5, 14th a few over par. Perfect drive provides a chance to get to a relatively unreachable par 5 in 2... he lays up. Harry looks at him in disgust and says... "What the ?%&$ are you worried about, breaking 80?"
One of many great on course comments from Harry.
-
John,
Is this something as simple as links golf and playing the ground game? Example: the first hole (or second)at BALLYNEAL, if you fly the ball to the green --- you will wind up over the green especially with a tailwind. A shot maker will then choose not to land on the green.
Brad
-
links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.
Anthony
Anthony that does not make sense to me.
Liks courses play fast and firm usually.So you can take high or take it low ect.More than one way to play the shots thus putting a premium on shot making.
Anthony
Anthony I still dont know if premium is the right word, just because of the options. Thinking outside the square if you take a punchbowl green, does that reward good shotmaking because here are options? No. In all honesty a punchbowl green does not reward a good shot at all it is the total opposite, it rewards slighty errant one. I think kick backs, back stops are great for the higher handicapper, not sure the scratchman gets the same juice though.
Adrian,
I agree with the punch bowl and love punch bowls because of my high handy cap.Because shot selection on links courses is more varied in puts a prium on pulling off the shot you selected.When you missed the direct shot you say you should have bumped it in.
Anthony
So our favorite courses are those that allow a hooribly struck shot to end as good or better than a nearly perfect strike? Is that good architecture or just marketing?
-
links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.
Anthony
Anthony that does not make sense to me.
Liks courses play fast and firm usually.So you can take high or take it low ect.More than one way to play the shots thus putting a premium on shot making.
Anthony
Anthony I still dont know if premium is the right word, just because of the options. Thinking outside the square if you take a punchbowl green, does that reward good shotmaking because here are options? No. In all honesty a punchbowl green does not reward a good shot at all it is the total opposite, it rewards slighty errant one. I think kick backs, back stops are great for the higher handicapper, not sure the scratchman gets the same juice though.
Adrian,
I agree with the punch bowl and love punch bowls because of my high handy cap.Because shot selection on links courses is more varied in puts a prium on pulling off the shot you selected.When you missed the direct shot you say you should have bumped it in.
Anthony
So our favorite courses are those that allow a hooribly struck shot to end as good or better than a nearly perfect strike? Is that good architecture or just marketing?
Depends on how long the player can keep taking advantage of the good breaks.
Shots don't exist in a vacuum and even over the short-run very few lucky bounces ever actually skew the results.
-
A couple comments, and thanks for a lively debate.
I contacted the friend who made the remark. He will respond and chime in if he has a chance.
Let's say two players are 150 yards away from a green like the 8th green at Pacific Dunes, with a big gathering ridge on the right side. The first player, a scratch player, flies an 8-iron 10 feet short of the hole and it spins to a stop 3 feet away. Birdie. The second player, an 18 handicap female player, takes 7-wood and aims well rightto avoid the pot bunker. She strikes the ball solidly, and employs the gathering slope. The ball trickles down to the green, 20 feet away, and she easily two putts for par.
Both are examples of good shotmaking.
80 replies, and not a single example of a golf hole which does not reward good shotmaking. The statement is invalid.
However, the converse may be true, that some courses will reward poor shotmaking, which tends to favor the weaker player. I'd suggest a great golf course provides a happy medium between the two extremes. I'd also suggest, after playing Old Macdonald a few times, that the new course is an outstanding test, one that requires creativity and great shotmaking. So I think my mystery friend is wrong, either way you look at it. But you could get lucky over the course of a round, at a place like OM.
-
John:
A weaker or less-skilled player taking advantage of a lucky bounce demonstrates a skill. Furthermore, that player's opponent overcoming that player's luck demonstrates a skill. If one accepts the opponent as another challenge to overcome, why not just consider that opponent's good fortune as similar to your own misfortune? These are aspects of the game, that while seemingly unfair in the context of one shot, one hole and in rarer instances, one match, are almost certainly negated over subsequent shots, holes or matches by well-conceived golf holes.
As for why nobody has presented an example of a hole that does not reward good shotmaking; building such a hole is actually very difficult. The one I can remember is at a local family-owned/designed golf course. It's a 180 yard island green one-shot hole that is very narrow with rocks surrounding the island for stability in flooding. Shots are often at risk of hitting a rock and bounding into an unpredictable oblivion or merciful lie on the putting green. While a sufficiently large green or shorter length would mitigate the issue, the green simply does not contain enough wiggle room for the yardage required and laying up short of the creek too often represents the prudent play. Temptation cannot exist when luck reigns supreme.
-
links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.
Anthony
Anthony that does not make sense to me.
Liks courses play fast and firm usually.So you can take high or take it low ect.More than one way to play the shots thus putting a premium on shot making.
Anthony
Anthony I still dont know if premium is the right word, just because of the options. Thinking outside the square if you take a punchbowl green, does that reward good shotmaking because here are options? No. In all honesty a punchbowl green does not reward a good shot at all it is the total opposite, it rewards slighty errant one. I think kick backs, back stops are great for the higher handicapper, not sure the scratchman gets the same juice though.
Adrian,
I agree with the punch bowl and love punch bowls because of my high handy cap.Because shot selection on links courses is more varied in puts a prium on pulling off the shot you selected.When you missed the direct shot you say you should have bumped it in.
Anthony
So our favorite courses are those that allow a hooribly struck shot to end as good or better than a nearly perfect strike? Is that good architecture or just marketing?
Depends on how long the player can keep taking advantage of the good breaks.
Shots don't exist in a vacuum and even over the short-run very few lucky bounces ever actually skew the results.
Well stated...
damn it
-
A few months ago an acquaintance of mine played Old Macdonald. He's a great player, a multiple club champion at Pumpkin Ridge who made it to the round of 16 at the U.S. Mid-Am a few years ago. I asked if he liked Old Macdonald. He replied, "No. The course doesn't reward good shotmaking." I can't remember whether he shot a good score on a bad ball striking day, or a poor score though he was swinging well. I believe it was the former.
If it was the former ("...shot a good score on a bad ball striking day..."), then what he was really saying was the course doesn't punish bad shots. He wouldn't have been talking about the course not rewarding good shots if he scored okay while hitting poor shots.
Inn my experience good players having an off day will have poor shots wind up on the edge of a green where they can still make pars. If I hit a really poor shot, double bogey is now an option.
-
JMEvensky writes:
I don't think many people would play to their handicaps on courses set up for the PGA Tour--even those really strategic thinking 15 handicaps.
Is there someone arguing the opposite? I never said they weren't difficult, just they don't require much thought.
The presumption that Tour players don't think themselves around a golf course is just wrong.
Every course is setup identically. The width of the fairways are essentially the same. The length of the courses is close to the same. The bunker sand is identical in every bunker. The speed of the greens, exactly the same. Put a little inconsistency on the PGA Tour golf course and listen to the complaining. It used to be every week was the same except for the majors. Now, even the majors aren't terribly different than the regular tour stop. In general the PGA Tour player can hit the exact same shots at Pebble Beach as he hits at Harbor Town. No need for course knowledge or preparing any different week to week.
Why the bias against against guys who are really good at playing golf?They're not all bad people.
I think my bias is more against guys who are really good at PGA Tour golf. I don't ever think I said they were bad people. My issue is the PGA Tour has allowed the players to become too comfortable, making the game deadly dull and causing harm to the game because of the imitation factor.
I think golf would be better with more bifurcation between the Tour players and everyone else, but that doesn't make them bad.
Cheers,
Dan King
Make them tee it up in the Open left-handed. Put 40,000 people out there watching them play from the other side. Let Nicklaus, Kite, Watson and Floyd get in a bunker and try to get out left-handed. Everybody would be giggling and laughing.
--Mac O'Grady (on what he would do to spice up the game)
-
80 replies, and not a single example of a golf hole which does not reward good shotmaking. The statement is invalid.
Wrong, I gave examples and know of many more. I dare say you do as well if you give it some thought.
Ciao
-
Ben, again, i believe you are misreading his concern. Based on what John has posted, his friend thought his score was better than his shotmaking deserved and felt the failure to punish his mistakes was a strike against the course.
Don't have time to read all 75 posts here, but Ed's take on it is my first reaction.
Some very good players believe that holes should call for a fade or a draw, and that anything less should be punished. They hate it if you hit a poor tee shot and sometimes still can have an easy-ish approach, and if that's a flaw, then Old Macdonald is flawed. I have a harder time believing that shotmaking is not rewarded on the approach shots there, unless he is just one of those players who counts Greens in Regulation and thinks that figure should relate precisely to the total score.
However, you also have to take the wind into account. The majority of the time, all of the courses in Bandon give plenty of advantage to the shotmaker because they allow you to use the wind to your benefit.
-
Sean,
Have to disagree about Deal's 4th. Of course long is a bad place downwind (it isn't good in any circumstances I can imagine) to be but there is the option of playing a shot so that your miss is short right, which gives a chance of getting up and down. There's no miss short at Rye on the 7th. It's an impossible hole downwind.
I agree.
Next time you guys visit Deal, have a look on the 4th at just how much short grass there is short left of the green (blocked from view at the tee by the dune) that kicks the ball onto the green and to the right - ie. towards safety.
Sean is right that the hole would be improved were more of the hill at the back maintained as fairway though, the slope of the hill and speed of the ground coupled with how they maintain the area generally means a shot that runs long picks up just enough speed to roll just into the rough, leaving you with a downhill chip to a target above you out of 4-6 inch rough, which isn't really in keeping with the general nature of the course (this problem also exists to a lesser extent at the 2nd).
-
Is it fair if a course consistently allows a very poorly struck shot to end up alongside a rather well played shot that is just short of perfect?
To be perfectly honest this is where I take some exception to today's en vogue design concepts.
Kyle refutes that rather well but there are some designs that could allow that to happen more ofetn than not. Take it from a rather loose iron player... I seek those courses out!!!!
-
Sean,
Have to disagree about Deal's 4th. Of course long is a bad place downwind (it isn't good in any circumstances I can imagine) to be but there is the option of playing a shot so that your miss is short right, which gives a chance of getting up and down. There's no miss short at Rye on the 7th. It's an impossible hole downwind.
I agree.
Next time you guys visit Deal, have a look on the 4th at just how much short grass there is short left of the green (blocked from view at the tee by the dune) that kicks the ball onto the green and to the right - ie. towards safety.
Sean is right that the hole would be improved were more of the hill at the back maintained as fairway though, the slope of the hill and speed of the ground coupled with how they maintain the area generally means a shot that runs long picks up just enough speed to roll just into the rough, leaving you with a downhill chip to a target above you out of 4-6 inch rough, which isn't really in keeping with the general nature of the course (this problem also exists to a lesser extent at the 2nd).
Hang on Scott, so you are saying its good architecture to have as the primary(?) landing area on a par 3 when downwind a bit of blind land beyond serious rough which one hopes to then use as a kicker right to the green? I know the shot is possible because the area in question is more or less on line with the footpath. This is an excellent shot to pull off; the area is downhill and runs to a green moving away from the tee.
Canary - so you want to hit a tee shot short right and hope it kicks up the slope? From memory, this is quite a small landing area as it is somewhat shelved above softer, marshy land. I spose a hooking shot which is then very controlled once it climbs onto the green does the job, but I would call that a great and low percentage shot.
As Mark stated, the hole would be much better served if the rough to the rear were eliminated quite a way up the dune. This at least creates a safe play in windy weather which doesn't require mucking with rough front right, left or to the rear. Those bounce up shots can be left for the brave with the bail out long. I don't think the 4th is an onerous example of the type we are talking about, but I mentioned it because the fix to make it more reasonable is very simple. In the case of Rye's 7th I am not sure there is a way to make it that much more playable without seriously altering the hole.
Ciao
-
Sean:
Hang on Scott, so you are saying its good architecture to have as the primary(?) landing area on a par 3 when downwind a bit of blind land beyond serious rough which one hopes to then use as a kicker right to the green? I know the shot is possible because the area in question is more or less on line with the footpath. This is an excellent shot to pull off; the area is downhill and runs to a green moving away from the tee.
The green doesn't move away from the tee at all. It's nigh on flat, and the back few feet will encourage a trickling ball to continue on its merry way as does the front in reverse, but the middle 90% of the green is effectively flat, tending towards tilting at the tee.
Downwind you have good room right of the green where a saucer will gather the ball about 10ft off the putting surface.
Or you can aim to land in the generous area over the path (see below) and bounce on.
Or you can land it at the front of the green and hope it hops up. The major rough ends about 25ft short of the front of the green.
That is a lot of options for a shot that, downwind, most golfers are unlikely to be tackling with anything more than an 8 or 9iron.
Ran's pic is from 2004, but not a lot has changed:
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/RCP4.jpg)
EDIT - What's interesting is that the GoogleMaps aerial seems to show much more room at the left and back being maintained as fairway whenever it was that this was taken:
(http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/6690/52845030.jpg)
-
Scott
From memory, I think the entire green moves frontish right to rearish left - very subtlely, but enough to make a difference. The land short of the green has a quickish rise to the front. Your pic seems to show this - no? I think this one does as well.
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/ROYAL%20CINQUE%20PORTS%20GC/013.jpg?t=1283763842)
However, its neither here nor there as to my point. I think the hole would be more accomodating with more room to the rear. We can debate forever if that means the hole is better, but that isn't really what this exercise is about. I raised this hole as questionable design when there is a decent tail wind. In fact, the 8th too has its problems with a tail wind or a cross wind. Suffice it say that I don't think the one-shotters are Deal's strength.
Ciao
-
Fair enough, Sean. I agree wholeheartedly about 7 at Rye, I just don't think 4 at Deal belongs in the same discussion (though I agree more room to the rear would improve it). The green does photograph as though it runs to the back, but from putting on it over the course of two years I can assure you that the green in general does not break in that direction.
8 is much less forgiving downwind than 4, but there is still an area, hidden by the shortest trap, where you can land one if that's the wind, and as with 4, in that wind (the rarest on the course) you're going in with an 8 ir 9i, even a wedge, so precision should be rewarded.
But it still isn't a great hole, just like 8 at St E and if you're tarring them, 10 at Dornoch is much the same.
-
Scott
I shall have to bow to your intimate knowledge of the course because my memory is as faulty as they come. I also agree that Deal's holes are not as severe as Rye's 7th, but both could use more room to accomodate wind. That may mean they are less challenging, but thats okay in my book.
Ciao
-
links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.
Anthony
Anthony that does not make sense to me.
Liks courses play fast and firm usually.So you can take high or take it low ect.More than one way to play the shots thus putting a premium on shot making.
Anthony
Anthony I still dont know if premium is the right word, just because of the options. Thinking outside the square if you take a punchbowl green, does that reward good shotmaking because here are options? No. In all honesty a punchbowl green does not reward a good shot at all it is the total opposite, it rewards slighty errant one. I think kick backs, back stops are great for the higher handicapper, not sure the scratchman gets the same juice though.
Adrian,
I agree with the punch bowl and love punch bowls because of my high handy cap.Because shot selection on links courses is more varied in puts a prium on pulling off the shot you selected.When you missed the direct shot you say you should have bumped it in.
Anthony
So our favorite courses are those that allow a hooribly struck shot to end as good or better than a nearly perfect strike? Is that good architecture or just marketing?
Its how I roll.When I skull one I want it to roll all the way to the green than getting stoped by a soft fairway or some bunker fronting the green
-
both could use more room to accomodate wind. That may mean they are less challenging, but thats okay in my book.
That I can agree completely with. 8 has been softened somewhat - back bunkers were taken out a few years back.
I'm not sure some extra landing room would make either hole "less challenging", but it would open up more options, which is what it's all about.
A narrow run-up area short of the 8th green through which to bounce your approach would allow better players to identify themselves, while poorer strikers would have some hope and, in finding themselves bunkered, would be less aggrieved, I imagine.
And on the 4th, those with a great short game who ventured long would be able to use those skills to save par, while others struggled to a 4 or 5. As it is it's a crapshoot with not much to do with skill.
-
Is it fair if a course consistently allows a very poorly struck shot to end up alongside a rather well played shot that is just short of perfect?
To be perfectly honest this is where I take some exception to today's en vogue design concepts.
Kyle refutes that rather well but there are some designs that could allow that to happen more ofetn than not. Take it from a rather loose iron player... I seek those courses out!!!!
Greg,
Did you really ask if it's fair?
It sounds like you have a solitary definition of what a perfectly struck shot is, and/or what it's result should be, if one achieves, this definition.
The course is the medium for the sport, a sport that is much more multi-faceted than can, or should be, defined by only one narrow aspect, ball striking. For the most of us, it's a game of misses.
Dr. Mackenzie's philosophy comes to mind as what I infer as the "en vogue" concepts you are taking issues with. Is that right? A person should not be able to get around a golf course with only a putter?
-
Is it fair if a course consistently allows a very poorly struck shot to end up alongside a rather well played shot that is just short of perfect?
To be perfectly honest this is where I take some exception to today's en vogue design concepts.
Kyle refutes that rather well but there are some designs that could allow that to happen more ofetn than not. Take it from a rather loose iron player... I seek those courses out!!!!
Greg,
Did you really ask if it's fair?
It sounds like you have a solitary definition of what a perfectly struck shot is, and/or what it's result should be, if one achieves, this definition.
The course is the medium for the sport, a sport that is much more multi-faceted than can, or should be, defined by only one narrow aspect, ball striking. For the most of us, it's a game of misses.
Dr. Mackenzie's philosophy comes to mind as what I infer as the "en vogue" concepts you are taking issues with. Is that right? A person should not be able to get around a golf course with only a putter?
Another key point in Greg's idea is that of "consistency."
For the golf course to consistently allow a bad shot to have the opportunity to score as well as a good one, a manner of consistency is required on the part of the golfer.
Consistency IS a skill. A golfer able to consistently strike a ball in the same manner while getting the ball to the necessary area or into the hole is demonstrating a significant amount of skill and should be a worthy opponent for many, regardless of the design.
-
I agree with John's statement in his opening post...it's an invalid statement. At some level it must reward shotmaking...did the ball ever go in the hole?
But your objection to keeping score unless you're a 5 or lower is mindblowing...how else would someone know if they've improved a shot or two on average? Or how about the addictive nature of trying break 100 or 90 for the first time?
Jim,
The mindset has so permeated the psyche of the American golfer that we have special sections--in every issue--of Golf Digest that are dedicated to breaking 100, 90, 80. I understand the appeal. Doesn't mean I agree with or eve like it.
When's the last time you read an article on, "how to beat the guy that drives it longer than you" or, "how to play against a good putter"? I am not saying that we should never keep score, heavens no. But making it the focus of the game to the extent that it drives slow play, straight forward architecture, expectations of perfect conditioning? I think that's the Golf Channel syndrome and part of golf's problem moving forward.
Golf needs to be more fun, less penal, less about a number and more about getting outside and spending time with friends. Play against friends, not par.
Its because those articles you suggest would be boring. If you want to beat someone who has a specific advantage over you, you must have a specific advantage over them. If your opponent outdrives you by 50 yards, you better hit it a lot straighter, putt a lot better, or hit your irons a lot more accurately. Or be a little bit better than him at all those things. Ditto for someone who is a much better putter, much more accurate than you (or to put it differently, you are much more wild than he is) and so on.
The articles for breaking 80/90/100 are kind of silly, but if you generalize about the kind of guys who shoot in the 80s but can't overcome that mental barrier into the 70s, you know most of the time it is because of shortcomings when they are on or around the green. For guys who can't break 100, you can pretty much assume it has to do with lack of consistency of contact. So at least you have a starting point for suggestions....though doing them as monthly articles is kind of silly, especially if they are still doing them. I swear I remember those from when my dad was getting the mag back in the 80s! I think all topics would have been covered by now!
-
As for why nobody has presented an example of a hole that does not reward good shotmaking; building such a hole is actually very difficult. The one I can remember is at a local family-owned/designed golf course. It's a 180 yard island green one-shot hole that is very narrow with rocks surrounding the island for stability in flooding. Shots are often at risk of hitting a rock and bounding into an unpredictable oblivion or merciful lie on the putting green. While a sufficiently large green or shorter length would mitigate the issue, the green simply does not contain enough wiggle room for the yardage required and laying up short of the creek too often represents the prudent play. Temptation cannot exist when luck reigns supreme.
It doesn't sound to me like luck reigns supreme on that hole, it just demands a higher level of consistency of contact, accuracy and distance control than would be reasonably expected from golfers above a single digit handicap. Such holes are bad because they don't offer a way around the difficulty. If you have a creek or small pond in front of a green its a reasonable challenge, and golfers who think its too tough can layup short or perhaps use some bailout pin high or beyond to one side or the other.
An island green isn't much different than having a really tight hole with OB down the right and water left (which is all too typical as the finishing hole these days, though usually it is wide enough taking the rough into account) Or a hole that's tree lined on both sides to the extent where hitting your ball in the trees will result in a lost ball. Sure, there is the occasional ball that hits a tree and kicks back into the fairway, but just like the bounce off those rocks onto the green, that luck is from a shot that was almost good enough but not quite. So while its luck its not really undeserved luck except in the very very rare case where you'd hit a rock and bounce it a few inches from the cup It'd be different if the lake had rocks jutting out all over so you could hit an absolutely terrible shot and miss the green by 20-30 yards and hit a rock that might ping you back onto the green. But I've never seen that, just like I've never seen a ball hit a tree 20 yards deep in a stand of thick trees and carom all the way back to the fairway.
-
Ben, again, i believe you are misreading his concern. Based on what John has posted, his friend thought his score was better than his shotmaking deserved and felt the failure to punish his mistakes was a strike against the course.
Ed
So how do we get around this divide without resorting to different courses for different class players? I have always felt the option and power of recovery are marks of a distinguished course. One of the few of this type we see used for the big boy and hacker alike is TOC. Its a given that par is an easy score (like on virtually all courses the pros play on) to achieve on a great many days. Wind, firmness, TOUGH hole locations and a bit more rough than many would like to see here and there are the great equalizers. Unfortunately (and as I suspect at Old Mac), two of these features can't be produced by flipping a switch. Does this mean TOC is no longer a viable championship venue or that Old Mac can't properly challenge good amateurs? That is a question I can't answer because I am not good enough, it does seem to me that if its just a numbers game, we can change the numbers.
Ciao
-
Sean - I have said for years now I am not sure it is possible to build a course today that the pro's will like and the average guy can play. We can have forward tees, but we can't roll back oceans or flatten greens or create run offs at a flick. Perhaps we should just accept it like a bald head.
The Old Course kind of fits this 'good for everyone' but many other links courses fit better I think. What a lot of good players dont like about TOC are things like the 12th green because it is beyond the realms of great shot making, the if and the but of the ridges make it impossible to properly judge, good shots can end up so so.
Personally I hated some of Chambers Bay and IMO that is a fad that will die quickly, I hate seeing the golf ball bounce around from cushion to cushion.....bring back the windmill!
-
As for why nobody has presented an example of a hole that does not reward good shotmaking; building such a hole is actually very difficult. The one I can remember is at a local family-owned/designed golf course. It's a 180 yard island green one-shot hole that is very narrow with rocks surrounding the island for stability in flooding. Shots are often at risk of hitting a rock and bounding into an unpredictable oblivion or merciful lie on the putting green. While a sufficiently large green or shorter length would mitigate the issue, the green simply does not contain enough wiggle room for the yardage required and laying up short of the creek too often represents the prudent play. Temptation cannot exist when luck reigns supreme.
It doesn't sound to me like luck reigns supreme on that hole, it just demands a higher level of consistency of contact, accuracy and distance control than would be reasonably expected from golfers above a single digit handicap. Such holes are bad because they don't offer a way around the difficulty. If you have a creek or small pond in front of a green its a reasonable challenge, and golfers who think its too tough can layup short or perhaps use some bailout pin high or beyond to one side or the other.
An island green isn't much different than having a really tight hole with OB down the right and water left (which is all too typical as the finishing hole these days, though usually it is wide enough taking the rough into account) Or a hole that's tree lined on both sides to the extent where hitting your ball in the trees will result in a lost ball. Sure, there is the occasional ball that hits a tree and kicks back into the fairway, but just like the bounce off those rocks onto the green, that luck is from a shot that was almost good enough but not quite. So while its luck its not really undeserved luck except in the very very rare case where you'd hit a rock and bounce it a few inches from the cup It'd be different if the lake had rocks jutting out all over so you could hit an absolutely terrible shot and miss the green by 20-30 yards and hit a rock that might ping you back onto the green. But I've never seen that, just like I've never seen a ball hit a tree 20 yards deep in a stand of thick trees and carom all the way back to the fairway.
I didn't do a terribly good job of explaining the hole. Even the dead center of the putting green is no more than 10 steps away from the boulders and rocks on either side. Demanding that even the best players consider an alternate strategy before attempting the green. It's a case of the shot demand not matching the yardage.
-
Another key point in Greg's idea is that of "consistency."
For the golf course to consistently allow a bad shot to have the opportunity to score as well as a good one, a manner of consistency is required on the part of the golfer.
Consistency IS a skill. A golfer able to consistently strike a ball in the same manner while getting the ball to the necessary area or into the hole is demonstrating a significant amount of skill and should be a worthy opponent for many, regardless of the design.
Kyle, You are still pre-determing what a good or bad shot is. I'm not so stupid to think that the more skilled player will not win out almost every time.
A great example of this was at this years AM at CB. Quotes coming from officials were interesting, in that, they were seeing perfectly struck shots have poor results. Well, I say that wasn't a perfectly struck shot, if it's conception failed to account for the reaction once it returns to earth. Now, if perfectly struck shots can have bad results, golf's equilibrium (as I know it) would mean that poorly struck shots can have positive results on occasion.
That's what apparently happened to John Kirk's friend at Bandon. His execution was flawed but so was his thinking, pre-shot.
The consistent design elements that don't dictate the perfect shot, and encourage creativity, are better courses than the designs where the majority of shots are pre determined. Allowing the player who knows their own abilities, and/or lack there of, to use that knowledge to their advantage in achieving the score in the fewest strokes possible.
Two years ago we took our team down state. In the practice round, I had 100 yards uphill to a wide open green. I pulled a 5 iron and hit what I thought was almost exactly like what I wanted. It never got a foot off the ground. Our Freshman stick, turned to me and said "you didn't mean to do that". I showed him what club I hit, and he still couldn't believe I intended to have my ball approach in this manner. I asked him, " Do you think I hit 5 iron every time from 100 yards?" He still couldn't wrap his head around it, because all he knows is one shot pattern, one way to attack the hole. BTW, my ball ended up almost kick in distance.
-
Another key point in Greg's idea is that of "consistency."
For the golf course to consistently allow a bad shot to have the opportunity to score as well as a good one, a manner of consistency is required on the part of the golfer.
Consistency IS a skill. A golfer able to consistently strike a ball in the same manner while getting the ball to the necessary area or into the hole is demonstrating a significant amount of skill and should be a worthy opponent for many, regardless of the design.
Kyle, You are still pre-determing what a good or bad shot is. I'm not so stupid to think that the more skilled player will not win out almost every time.
A great example of this was at this years AM at CB. Quotes coming from officials were interesting, in that, they were seeing perfectly struck shots have poor results. Well, I say that wasn't a perfectly struck shot, if it's conception failed to account for the reaction once it returns to earth. Now, if perfectly struck shots can have bad results, golf's equilibrium (as I know it) would mean that poorly struck shots can have positive results on occasion.
That's what apparently happened to John Kirk's friend at Bandon. His execution was flawed but so was his thinking, pre-shot.
The consistent design elements that don't dictate the perfect shot, and encourage creativity, are better courses than the designs where the majority of shots are pre determined. Allowing the player who knows their own abilities, and/or lack there of, to use that knowledge to their advantage in achieving the score in the fewest strokes possible.
Two years ago we took our team down state. In the practice round, I had 100 yards uphill to a wide open green. I pulled a 5 iron and hit what I thought was almost exactly like what I wanted. It never got a foot off the ground. Our Freshman stick, turned to me and said "you didn't mean to do that". I showed him what club I hit, and he still couldn't believe I intended to have my ball approach in this manner. I asked him, " Do you think I hit 5 iron every time from 100 yards?" He still couldn't wrap his head around it, because all he knows is one shot pattern, one way to attack the hole. BTW, my ball ended up almost kick in distance.
Adam:
By your explanations we are in 100% agreement? I'm not quite sure I follow but am all ears to figure out why. Where exactly is the discord?
-
Kyle, I was reacting to Greg's question of fairness and to his doubts about en vouge designs. I assumed he was referring to the Doak, C&C etc, mediums that allow players to have fun, either through getting lucky, on occasion, or by designing a canvas that allows the player to determine what shot to play.
You pointed out that "consistently" or consistency was key to Greg's point and I responded that having pre determined shots dictated consistently was NOT Better. Sure, once in awhile throughout the round a player of less skill will be faced with a shot he/she cannot pull off, but, on a thoughtful design, they have an option to play it a different way, in two and still have a chance to keep the match or score close.
-
Adam:
I think I understand now.
In defining consistency as a skill, I'm saying that a golfer that can repeat a shot is demonstrating skill - even if it is a thirty yard slice (or a five-iron from 100 yards!), for example. If the golfer is then able to place that shot where it needs to be to attack the hole and score, the skillful golfer will likely do so. To some I can see how this could be misconstrued for a golf course allowing poor shots to succeed consistently.
That's why your example with your Freshman golfer confused me - I think I'm describing the same situation. You can consistently execute a shot that some may consider to be "bad."
-
I'm jumping into the 4th at Deal discussion a little late, but here goes:
The 4th at Deal can be very precarious, especially when a Northeaster forces players to hit mid-irons into the green. However, I see the hole as being eminently fair. The golfer just needs to understand where to miss around that green. If you stand on that tee without full confidence in your club selection, the best choice is to favor the right side. I find that a tee shot that ends up just right of that green leaves a fairly straightforward up and down from the short grass. There is plenty of fairway over there, and the golfer will make a four at worst. The aggressive play to the left-center of the green brings the back-left hollow into play, which is much more treacherous than the front-right miss and can lead to big numbers.
4 at Deal is an excellent hole because it forces a golfer to know his limitations. If a golfer has full confidence in his swing and club choice, he can be aggressive while accepting some risk. For the rest, the best play is to take the medicine and steer away from the left side. If a golfer has a reasonable amount of control, he will always get away from the 4th with no worse than 4.
It's a tough short three--much tougher than the 8th, I believe, and it's a great example of how short grass can create strategy and terror.
-
John
All holes are eminently fair - that isn't the issue.
If a guy is good enough to hit a ball right of the green and keep it on short grass, why can he not hit the green - a much larger target? To me, a true bailout area is one which a player favours; meaning he is aiming for a soft side of the target, not aiming to miss the target. I am not sure Deal's 4th provides a true bailout when the wind is blowing, but I could be wrong. To me, its a flawed hole and nowhere near the status of great simply because there is too little room in conditions which aren't uncommon. Yesterday, I identified the 8th having essentially the same problem although because of an over-abundance of sand rather than rough. This theme is not particular to Deal. Many courses have holes which are too restrictive to be considered ideal.
Ciao
-
So much of it sounds like perception based on a small sample size. If you see one lesser golfer get away with something one time, then it sticks in your mind, when in reality, as Kyle says, those things tend to even out over the long haul - you just don't end up remembering that.
-
John
All holes are eminently fair - that isn't the issue.
If a guy is good enough to hit a ball right of the green and keep it on short grass, why can he not hit the green - a much larger target? To me, a true bailout area is one which a player favours; meaning he is aiming for a soft side of the target, not aiming to miss the target. I am not sure Deal's 4th provides a true bailout when the wind is blowing, but I could be wrong. To me, its a flawed hole and nowhere near the status of great simply because there is too little room in conditions which aren't uncommon. Yesterday, I identified the 8th having essentially the same problem although because of an over-abundance of sand rather than rough. This theme is not particular to Deal. Many courses have holes which are too restrictive to be considered ideal.
Ciao
Sean,
I should have used a different word than "fair." Perhaps "forgiving" is a better word choice.
It's much easier to find the area to the right of the green than it is to find the green itself. The land feeds away from the green gently into that right side area. Furthermore, the area to the right of the green provides a much great margin for error: there is plenty of room for a miss to the right, and a left miss will probably find the green. Having played that hole in several different winds, the right side is a very viable bailout. If you miss it right there, you'll make a three or kick yourself for making a four. That's not unreasonable, is it?
The right side of the 4th is a large bailout area with considerable room for error on windy days. On calm days, the green will be much easier to hit, so players will have only themselves to blame for finding themselves in a poor spot. I think 4 is a very good par three that defends itself consistently with only wind and gravity.
The 8th is tightly guarded by sand in the front, left and right. However, there is plenty of room long-left of the green. Moreover, the 8th green is a huge target, and it should be a straightforward task to hit it in all but the stiffest breezes.
-
Ben, again, i believe you are misreading his concern. Based on what John has posted, his friend thought his score was better than his shotmaking deserved and felt the failure to punish his mistakes was a strike against the course.
Ed
So how do we get around this divide without resorting to different courses for different class players? I have always felt the option and power of recovery are marks of a distinguished course. One of the few of this type we see used for the big boy and hacker alike is TOC. Its a given that par is an easy score (like on virtually all courses the pros play on) to achieve on a great many days. Wind, firmness, TOUGH hole locations and a bit more rough than many would like to see here and there are the great equalizers. Unfortunately (and as I suspect at Old Mac), two of these features can't be produced by flipping a switch. Does this mean TOC is no longer a viable championship venue or that Old Mac can't properly challenge good amateurs? That is a question I can't answer because I am not good enough, it does seem to me that if its just a numbers game, we can change the numbers.
Ciao
Sean, sorry I missed your post. Not sure I can answer your questions directly, although I do have a few tangential thoughts.
It's interesting that you bring up TOC. Comparisons between Old Mac and NGLA are inevitable because of the CBM genealogy. But, from my perch, Old Mac shares far more in common and is a kindred spirit with TOC more so than NGLA. The characteristics you describe and admire at TOC are what I see at Old Mac. I suspect Old Mac would yield similar results to TOC in tournament play by world class players.
Personally, I don't get the generalizations people on this site make about good v. bad golfers. While skilled golfers (taken as a whole) may gravitate more toward the fair side and high handicappers (again, taken as a whole) may be more inclined to accept quirk, we are talking degrees and not absolutes on both ends of the spectum as well as everywhere in between. In my opinion, it is a huge mistake to take those general inclinations and assume they apply in any meaningful way on either a micro or macro level. For example, my rounds at Old Mac included a group of 8 golfers ranging in skill from scratch to high teens. As far as I can tell, their response to the course had nothing to do with ability and everything to do with personality.
Finally, I don't subscribe to the "one size must fit all" mentality. Isn't that a recipe for compromise? The fact that Jack in the box has added teriyaki and tacos to their menu doesn't make me any more likely to go there for dinner. I am ok if different courses find different niches. In fact, I think that is a good thing since it fosters variety.
I probably didn't address your questions. Best wishes nonetheless.
-
Ben, again, i believe you are misreading his concern. Based on what John has posted, his friend thought his score was better than his shotmaking deserved and felt the failure to punish his mistakes was a strike against the course.
Ed
So how do we get around this divide without resorting to different courses for different class players? I have always felt the option and power of recovery are marks of a distinguished course. One of the few of this type we see used for the big boy and hacker alike is TOC. Its a given that par is an easy score (like on virtually all courses the pros play on) to achieve on a great many days. Wind, firmness, TOUGH hole locations and a bit more rough than many would like to see here and there are the great equalizers. Unfortunately (and as I suspect at Old Mac), two of these features can't be produced by flipping a switch. Does this mean TOC is no longer a viable championship venue or that Old Mac can't properly challenge good amateurs? That is a question I can't answer because I am not good enough, it does seem to me that if its just a numbers game, we can change the numbers.
Ciao
Sean, sorry I missed your post. Not sure I can answer your questions directly, although I do have a few tangential thoughts.
It's interesting that you bring up TOC. Comparisons between Old Mac and NGLA are inevitable because of the CBM genealogy. But, from my perch, Old Mac shares far more in common and is a kindred spirit with TOC more so than NGLA. The characteristics you describe and admire at TOC are what I see at Old Mac. I suspect Old Mac would yield similar results to TOC in tournament play by world class players.
Personally, I don't get the generalizations people on this site make about good v. bad golfers. While skilled golfers (taken as a whole) may gravitate more toward the fair side and high handicappers (again, taken as a whole) may be more inclined to accept quirk, we are talking degrees and not absolutes on both ends of the spectum as well as everywhere in between. In my opinion, it is a huge mistake to take those general inclinations and assume they apply in any meaningful way on either a micro or macro level. For example, my rounds at Old Mac included a group of 8 golfers ranging in skill from scratch to high teens. As far as I can tell, their response to the course had nothing to do with ability and everything to do with personality.
Finally, I don't subscribe to the "one size must fit all" mentality. Isn't that a recipe for compromise? The fact that Jack in the box has added teriyaki and tacos to their menu doesn't make me any more likely to go there for dinner. I am ok if different courses find different niches. In fact, I think that is a good thing since it fosters variety.
I probably didn't address your questions. Best wishes nonetheless.
Ed
In a very real sense TOC is a major thread running through the geneology of CBM. In my mind's eye I see Old Mac as a common ground course for NGLA and TOC. Maybe one day I will get to see it - it sure is high on my list of Doak's to see along with Ballyneal and Apache Stronghold.
You are right of course about the continuum of golfers' skill and about golf architecture. Rarely is anything black or white in golf.
Perhaps you are right that the one size fits all mentality is an impossible realization - just as Adrian (and many other knowledgable folks) stated a few posts back. However, I can't help but to think that this is a noble goal for all archies. Why else have one set of rules and the concept of any man playing a championship course? Additionally, we do have an epic narrative of one such successful venue in its rich history of providing fun for the high marker and a challenge which retains elements of fun for the touring pro. If TOC is anything it is the embodiment of bringing all classes (meaning levels of golfers) of golfers together under one roof and providing much the same experience with the history acting as the common bond. It is certainly an ideal worth striving for even if modern golfers have slowly turned their backs on this history of classless golfers enjoying the same golfing ground. I know there has been many side line conversations about how this state of affairs has come about, but I am still not quite sure I understand it. Just as I am not sure why golfers visit the UK, applaud the conditions and how clubs are run, then go home and advocate for something on the other end of the continuum. Its all Greek to me my friend.
John
We shall have to agree to disagree. Everybody has a right to blind love. In many ways golf is like wine. In the right circumstances some wine is wonderful and yet when tried on another occassion it disappoints.
Ciao
-
links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.
Anthony
Anthony, What percetage of shots within 30 yards of the green are played with one club? Not saying there are not options but what percentage do you take one particular club?
Is this any differnet than those that complain about just grabbing a sand wedge from the rough around a green?
Just food for thought.