The Stymie and the demise of chipping

[Patrick_Mucci]

When the stymie existed, the art of chipping was on a much higher level.

The creativity and skill of the golfer were put to a severe test.

Now that the Stymie has been eliminated, has architecture suffered by a lack of emphasis on chipping ?

Did the removal of the stymie bring about a demise in a facet of golf course architecture ?  And... the chipping skills of the average player  

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Did my short game inspire this question??  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Perhaps, subliminaly.

[TEPaul]

Patrick;

That's quite an amazing topic and question. I'm sitting here trying to think real hard how the existence of the stymie could have had any architectural meaning or how its evolutionary elimination could have brought about the demise of any facet of golf course architecture itself.

Do you mean that an architect might have actually designed something to take the stymie into consideration or could have had an effect on it? Maybe like a teeny little Maxwell "poof" on a green that a player could carom his ball off of in an attempt to get around his opponent's ball?

If you ever find that some architect from the golden or even the dark age did something like that design-wise, please tell me about it post haste because that's an architect I really want to study--he would definitely be one whose architectural and conceptual brain was working overtime!

I don't remember the actual stymie myself but I've been curious to watch the last vestiges of it slowly work their way out of the rules of golf. There is an excellent article about the stymie and the evolution of its elimination in this month's Golf  Journal by USGA Rules expert Donna Anderson that I would bet is what reminded you of the stymie.

During my five year Honor option proposal campaign with the USGA and R&A I happened to learn more about the stymie than I ever thought I would and may have ever wanted to. But actually it was fascinating and said much about the way the game of golf evolved in a rules context.

The stymie was not something that someone once thought up as a neat and unusual thing to do in golf, strategically or otherwise. It was the ancillary result of the overriding prohibition in one of the original and fundamental working principles of the rules of golf that a ball was not to be touched once put into play before removing it from the hole.

The startling thing I found out about the stymie is that although it probably was a strategic ploy that may even have been commonly used in golf, it was never really looked upon by the ruling bodies as a particularly kosher or sporting thing to do! It just sort of happened or at least they hoped it just sort of happened. Another way to whisper it was "laying a stymie" on your  opponent was not really supposed to be an intentional thing--it just was supposed to sort of happen. And there was also a complex six inch rule attached to it that interestingly is the length of some of the original scorecards (which could be used for measuring the six inch rule attached to the stymie).

Since it was not looked upon by the ruling bodies as the most admirable aspect of the rules of golf it was actually legislated out of the rules after it unfortunately was thought to have determined the outcome of the finals of the US Amateur in the late 1930s at none other than your own golf club, Garden City!

The fact that the stymie remained in effect and use as long as it did with the way the ruling bodies actually looked at it is another example of how the ruling bodies  let the cart drag the horse for sometimes a very long while!

But even when in its heyday and most commonly used, I really don't think it ever had any architectural ramifications and was also not really a reason to practice chipping or whatnot. In those days GIRs were mostly an unthought of STAT and missing greens and chipping to putt was probably about 1,000 times more prevalent than having to chip over your opponent's ball.

[peter_p]

Patrick,
  You have an able ally in Bobby Jones, who wrote in "Golf is My Game" that"alas, within a radius of two feet, a competent player can make, almost every time, any stymie that can be laid him". The player had to practice what became an art - being able to chip over or putt around the stymie.
  Architecture wise, the only thing that I can see having any effect is the lower mowing heights of todays greens, and the lessening of then influence of grain would make stymies more difficult. The putts would go straighter and the tighter lie would put a greater premium on the skill of chipping.
  Do you think that the decision banning a golfer putting chalk on the clubface happened when an inventive snooker player was stymied once to often? I've always though there was a correlation between billiards or snooker and golf, but that could be another thread.
   
   

[Mark_Huxford]

Patrick I think short grass, or lack thereof, around greens these days is what has killed chipping.

I only ever use one club around most greens these days - my sandwedge. Unless I have a bad lie in the grass I consider it a relatively easy shot. I think most people do this and have therefore perfected it.

Architects who use less rough around the greens add more shotmaking opportunities and relieve the boredom of using the same club and shot over and over again.

We sometimes play stymies in friendly matches at our club. I find the strategy of it adds another dimension to longer putts especially, as from shorter range I think you should still back yourself to hole out.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark and Peter,

You grasp and understand my point.

Over the last forty or so years I have seen more clubs plant thick bluegrass around the greens eliminating all clubs except for the sand and L-wedge.  This planting of bluegrass, or other grasses including fescue has eliminated chipping as an option.  

Even great Ross courses like Plainfield and Mountain Ridge had the architectually designed chipping areas filled in with long grass, preventing the shot that was intended from ever being attempted.

This caused chipping to be de-emphasized if not eliminated entirely, from a playability and architectual point of view.

Peter, as you point out, chipping was an art form.  It didn't matter what the ruling bodies thought about the stymie, the REALITY of the stymie was it forced golfers to learn how to get around it vis a vis, chipping.  
It required a deft touch, and variety in shot selection.  Clearly, chipping was a more important element in the game then it is today.

Architects, such as Ross and others, designed greens with run-off and chipping areas for the errant shot.  That design feature went into hibernation until recently.
Perhaps the USOPEN at Pinehurst and the popularity of RESTORATION has led to the rediscovery of the element of chipping, which is also manifesting itself through the rediscovery of this element through architectural design.

TEPaul,

This is what happens when you walk a golf course rather than play it, you lose your FEEL for, and of the GAME.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Can you believe that I used to be a good chipper?  Damn...that was before I had to try to start gouging the ball out of thick stuff, and went to my sand and L-wedge primarily.

I started developing this cut shot, ala Mickelson, that worked when I had the nerves of a 25-year old and lots of time to practice.  

Sadly, that has evolved over time into the long-backswing, de-accelerated forward swing, flip-twitch of a chipping and pitching method that it was your distinct displeasure to witness last week.  

I agree; let's chop down the thick stuff so I can at least putt within 50 yards!  

[T_MacWood]

The stymie has been eliminated?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

The back of your right hand must hit through the ball at an accelerated pace.

This will stop the scooping motion you learned from Tom Paul.

Tom MacWood,

Only outside of Ohio.

[Tom_Egan]

Pat --

To blame the repeal of the stymie rule for an adverse impact on the quality of chipping skills is to credit the rooster and his early morning "voice" for the rising of the sun.  In each case the facts and sequence of events is correct, but as to cause and effect?  Very hard to support!

I am ancient enough to have played with some regularity for a couple of years while the stymie rule was still in effect.  Nevertheless, most of my knowledge of it is from listening to experienced and/or competitive players of that day discuss it pro and con.

It was pretty clear that: 1) Match play stymies were fairly uncommon, although not rare, 2) There were partial stymies where a ball could be putted with the expectation that it might catch some part of the hole, and full stymies where the only possibility of holing was via a chip or pitch, 3)Very few stymies were intentional due to the limitations inherent in the "6-inch rules" and the fact that they were useful only where the relative scores of the two players were properly in sync.  

The net of all this is that full stymies, which would demand chips or pitches, were encountered infrequently -- although they were usually memorable when they did happen.  I've heard more than one or two old-timers say that more than a couple of full stymies in a dozen rounds would be unusual.

If the above is true, I can't believe that the existance or demise of the stymie rule had much, or any, impact on general chipping quality.  As an example, if a quality player misses 4-5 greens per round for a dozen rounds -- most of them close misses -- this represents 30-40 chipping/pitching opportunities in those dozen rounds plus maybe an addition of only 2 or 3 due to full stymies.

Of course I could be wrong; this is only my opinion.

Tom

[ian]

Isn't it the addition "irrigated" rough around the greens that has caused the one dimensional lob wedge approach to everything.

The last course I worked on has short tight bentgrass approns surrounding all sides of the greens (Pinehurst is the inspiration). People tell me there having to learn new types of shots. Since when did a bump and run become a new shot? Chippings not dead, the golfers immagination might be.

[ForkaB]

There are some interesting issues regarding the demise of chipping, but none of them relate at all to the Stymie.  Let's euthanize this thrad.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Talk about changing the subject! I thought the subject of this topic was the demise of chipping due to the elimination of the stymie.

Mark and Peter are awful clairvoyant to grasp your point about the elimination or creative chipping due to the increase of bluegrass around greens when you never remotely mentioned a thing about bluegrass around greens being the reason for the elimination of creative chipping!

Although bluegrass and the stymie have the most remote connection imaginable, I do agree with your new and different point that the increase in bluegrass around greens certainly has cut down on creative chipping.

But again, the elimination of the stymie being the reason for the lack of creative chipping is about as accurate as the King losing his Kingdom because a nail fell out of his horse's shoe.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Egan,

I think you have to differentiate chipping from pitching.

My dad and his peers were forced to learn how to chip, precisely, because of the stymie.  They learned how to  use their wrists to create a great number of finesse shots, that most players today couldn't come close to executing.

Go back to before Sarazen invented the Sand Wedge.  Take the sand Wedge and L-wedge out of your bag, play a couple of rounds, and play stymies while you're at it.  You will find it very difficult to get around that little 1.68 inch spheroid. why ?  
Because you have probably lost your chipping skills due to the lack of opportunities to play chips, and the lack of experience in playing around stymies.

TEPaul,

I'm sending you a crystal ball so that you may become in touch with your clairvoyant side.

Why have the areas around the green, areas that were always the haven for chipping disappeared ?

Why were long grasses planted in the foot pads and around the green ?

To eliminate chipping !

Is it entirely impossible that the trend toward the elimination of chipping had its genisis in the elimination of the stymie ?

P.S.  when I bust your chops a little bit, try not to take it so seriously !  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I love it! Now you're telling me I take what you say about the stymie and the demise of chipping too seriously? Come on, I think it's hilarious!

I think, as you can see from the posts on this thread from those who really understand the use and the prevalence (or lack of it) of having to chip a ball over another when the stymie was part of the game that that was about 1% of the use of chipping in the game at that time. So the elimination of the stymie could hardly be the reason for the demise of creative chipping.

And I agree with you that back then there was far more opportunitiy to creatively chip because there was more short grass around greens to chip from and less bluegrass rough and such which has sort of created a one dimensional chipping style these days with clubs like L-wedges and such. I couldn't agree with you more about that.

But to even try to make some connection between bluegrass rough around greens and the elimination of the stymie is just as hilarious. It seems you might be implying that when the USGA was considering the elimination of the Stymie a bunch of USGA board members might have extrapolated; "Now that we ridded the game of that odd little occurence of creative chipping (the stymie) let's go on a campaign to rid golf of creative chipping in a really big way!" Let's recommend to architects, clubs, supers and such that they plant bluegrass rough all around greens; that might just do the trick."

John Winters (USGA Rules chairman) to Board Members Ward Foshay, Richard Tufts and Joe Dey (Executive Director); "I have an even  better idea; let's recommend the invention and use of a really lofted wedge, we can call it the Lob wedge, so almost all players will one dimensionally chip out of this new  bluegrass rough and we can really bring about the demise of creative chipping. What do you think fellows, it's brilliant, don't you think?"

As you asked, Pat; "Is it entirely impossible that the trend toward the elimination of chipping had its genesis in the elimination of the stymie?" No, of course it's not IMPOSSIBLE, anything is POSSIBLE, I guess, but for the obvious reasons cited on plenty of the posts on this thread it appears to be HIGHLY UNLIKELY!

The thing with you Pat, is if somebody challenges or disgrees with you, you often tend to shift the subject, change the subject or claim that that somebody misread what you wrote or misunderstood you. Well, I carefully read your topic post and didn't see the slightest mention or implication about bluegrass rough!

You often end some of your posts with the qualifier; "That's my opinion, but I could be wrong." Maybe now would be the perfect opportunity to admit that as far as the stymie being the real reason for the demise of chipping, that you are wrong.

Don't worry, I don't take you too seriously at all! I think the pin pricking banter between the two of us as long as we've been on this site is wonderful. If we agreed with each other all the time or thought we had to, it wouldn't be half as much fun.

[Dr._Katz]

Mr. Muchi

Game, set, match!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul and Dr. Katz,

Hold on now, there is a connection between the elimination of the stymie and the planting of bluegrass around the collars of the green.

The stymie was not a rare shot, and in fact it was an integral part of the strategy in match play for many years.  It forced golfers to learn to chip much more proficiently, and to create a variety of  chip shots, much more so than the golfers of today.

The stymie elevated chipping to higher level, its demise clearly deemphasized chipping.  

Those areas around the collars is where chipping was a must, but, something led to the elimination of those areas, the deemphasis of chipping.  If chipping wasn't deemphasized, why have most areas around the green been allowed to go to heavy rough were only L-wedges can be used.  A shift occured.

I'm not changing the subject, never did, you just didn't make the connection.  Do I have to explain everything step by painful step ?

[Howard Cossell]

Mucci's Down!  Mucci's Down!   ...5..6...7..8..

He's up again!  This man is amazing!
Paul is circling around him.  He hits him with a verbal jab.  Then a logical combination.  Then a double entendre.  And Mucci is down again!  He can never get up now, surely...But he does, and stumbles into the ropes as the bell rings!!

Dr. Katz is examining him in the corner, and he's waving his hands.  It's over! It's over!  Paul is rasing his arms and running around the ring!

But what's that?  Mucci is going after him again!  That man just doesn't know when he is beaten.

...and I just can't believe it!  Mucci has laid Paul a stymie in the middle of the ring and the lanky Philadephian doesn't know what to do!  He doesn't know what to do!

Its chaos ladies and gentlemen!  Its pandemonium.!  It's GCA!

[Sports Wrapup]

Way to go Howard!!

Amidst the pandemonium Paul steps to the middle of the ring and with a slightly wristy stroke (possibly recalled somehow from his father) chips his ball over Mucci's stymie and into the hole.

Ref waves off Mucci who is still mumbling; "The elimination of the stymie has eliminated creative chipping and caused all this bluegrass rough to appear everywhere-I know it has, I know somehow it has to be the reason for the total elimination of creative chipping....nobody has any creative chipping skill anymore, all this damn bluegrass rough...

As Paul lifts his ball from the hole and turns to Mucci: "Really?"

Mucci circles from the cheapseats and attempts to attack Paul on the way to the lockeroom but slips and falls on what??..what is that???...a patch of bluegrass rough??? Jeeesus, what's that doing here? It must be due to the elimination of the stymie...somehow it has tot be that!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

THAT'S MY THEORY, AND I'M STICKING TO IT !