[JakaB]

Tom H....I never met so many solid 5/6 handicaps until I came to GCA....you, Gib, Shivas, Duran on and on...I think in an Urban setting with so many college graduates it is easier and more necessary to float above scratch just a touch...Citydwellers also have more true scratch players to kick you ever aging asses than found down here on the farm.  In the 34 years I have played golf I have never had a use for a handicap...when I was young my pro told me get good enough to enter championship flight and you can play....so I said I was and wrote the check...no big deal.  This leads me to a life thought that I have been kicking around for a couple of months and don't really have an answer for....

Why do all of my friends play golf at the same level as me....have I spent my whole life hanging out with guys who golf their balls in the same way I do because I enjoy their company or because it makes the gambling more efficient...we just throw up balls and play teams however they land...and I like the guys I play with as much as anyone I might have known of lesser ability...just lucky I guess.   I find this common among many of the groups I observe at the various places I play....and how is it all these friends just happen to play at the same level....could it be that the fragile nature of male friendship in the face of competition can not stand up against the failure of our handicapping system...could it be that all we really want is to be played straight up in all aspects of our life...in our jobs...in our relationships.....are handicaps just affirmitive action for the lazy...sure I get beat all the time playing straight up...but its not because I didn't ask for help...its simply because I didn't prepare hard enough for the event...I would rather be a fool than the harvester of pity.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul writes:
After this, on this subject, I'll certainly have no more to say to you. All you are, as far as I'm concerned, is one big massive complainer--almost totally negative."

Cool, that means I'll get the last word.

"Most everything you said in your last post to me is just garbage, in my book--a whinner's litany!"

Wow. Pull the claws back in Tom.

Dan:

No way, you deserve it.

Dan King says:

"I love getting the last word."

I know you do--and I'm sure you will and I'm even sure you should--that's about all you're good for, in my book!

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

CBM,

I would think that the trend away from penal golf is related to the increase in the emphasis on medal play.

One only has to turn on their TV set every saturday and sunday to see the best players in the world playing medal play.  Rare is the weekend when match play is televised.
TV influences developers who retain architects to build their vision or version of a golf course for them, be it resort, residential, municipal or private.

I don't see the bunkers of Steamshovel Banks, or the bunkers of NGLA, GCGC and PV systemically designed and constructed on new courses.

With respect to opening a green to one side, that usually allows for strategy, choices of play.  Most greens aren't duplicates of # 6 at NGLA requiring an aerial assualt.

My limited view is that stroke play in combination with "fairness" have had an influence on golf course design in the last 30 years, especially away from penal golf.

Dan King,

It doesn't matter if the prize for winning is money, a trophy, your name on a plaque, or just being declared the winner, people will manipulate their handicap to accomplish same.

Having a structured system helps create equitable competitions, a level playing field.  The reference to equity you quoted seems related to rub of the green, not cheating.
Without a clearly defined, structured system chaos would reign and one of the elements that makes golf such a great game, the opportunity for two people of differing abilities to compete on an equal footing would be lost, and golf would become like tennis, elitist, where only those of equal abilities would agree to play with one another in order to have an enjoyable game or competition.

The handicap system allows two people who don't know each other, with differing abilities, to compete favorably, while at the same time competing with the golf course.

The handicap system seems to have served millions of golfers more than adequately for some time, and until someone comes up with a better system, this is the one I'm committed to.

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
I know you do--and I'm sure you will and I'm even sure you should

Word.

Dan King

Hamlet: "Words, words, words."
 --William Shakespeare

[C.B. MacDonald]

Pat,

Can you outline for me how all golf courses were designed in the past and how all golf courses are designed today so that we can have an accurate comparison? I am sure that outside of several courses scattered across the country such as the Sand Hills, there are not a lot of Pine Valleys out there where if you miss the fairway, you are in deep sand/grass/whatever. But I doubt that there were a lot of Pine Valleys built in yesteryear either. But rather than making broad statements about courses of past and present, can you or anyone else actually make thorough comparisons of the eras? Can you even define the eras? Where is the cutoff? It is easy to say that courses today are not as penal, but Donald Ross built a lot of courses that judging by his book don't look particularly different from today's courses to me. Maybe Ross is this side of the cutoff?

Why did Donald Ross want Number Two to be more a pleasure than a penance? Why are the courses of today by and large more penal when it comes to normal rough? Now that wall to wall irrigation is becoming more common, growing thick rough is not that difficult. That seems more penal to me, especially for the average golfer. MacKenzie didn't, it seems, even like rough all that much. That seems less penal. How about green speeds? For the average golfer, fast greens can lead to more three putts or worse. That seems more penal for the average golfer. Would a course like Harbor Town be considered penal with all the trees limiting wayward shots?

My example of opening a green on one side was meant to show that an older architect seemed interested in providing some fairness to the average golfer--not just difficulty designed to provide drama for a match play event.

I think we it all then and we have it all now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

CBM,

Ross's comments should be examined in the context of his era.

I would imagine that penal design was the design that he grew up with, the design that was pervasive in the golfing world of his day.  As golf's popularity in America grew, and knowing that Pinehurst was a RESORT golf course, I can understand the desire to move from penal to pleasurable.
It's even possible that Mr. Tufts had a conversation or two with him, on that subject.

Looking at many old photos, from many golf courses, it appears that the features, especially the bunkers have been softened over time.  Not that a particular issue makes a general statement, but even the Redan photos that Dan King posted give evidence to that movement, as do the photos of the bunkers at GCGC.

With respect to roughs and irrigation, there is a picture of the 4th hole at Baltusrol from one of the early Opens.  
The grass behind the green is knee deep.
At clubs that I'm familiar with, the constant complaints are the roughs, and the need to lower them and thin them, especially around the green.  I think the growth of women's golf, and couples golf have had a major influence on softening features and conditions.  If you don't see this over the last 50 years or so, you and I just have a major difference of opinion on this issue.

My single and limited observations are that features have been either removed or softened over the last 50 years in an attempt to make the courses easier for a broader band of golfers, mostly in the name of fairness.  One only has to look at almost every COUNTRY CLUB or RESIDENTIAL GOLF CLUB to see these changes, and the current designs.

PENAL GOLF is dead in America, or at best hiding in a few remote locations, and strangely enough, those seem to be the courses we love the most.  But, as many say, like New York City, they're nice places to visit, but most wouldn't want to live there.  As a steady diet, they're overwhelming to most golfers.

But, that's just my opinion.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, the posts of C.B. MacDonald on this thread (even if he is an anonymous poster) are some of the best and most fundamentally thoughtful of any posts posted on Golfclubatlas!

He asks some really important questions of the sort of "party line" general opinion and stance of Golfclubatlas's basic stance. He asks them in a very reasonable way too (probably unlike me sometimes).

If we, or any one of us, are going to be true to the accurate analysis of golf and golf architecture, particularly in a comparative way of historically compared to today his fundamental questions are ones we all should start to consider more carefully, more thoughtfully and more accurately.

[TEPaul]

C.B. Macdonald:

Tried to email you at your email address on your posts but it was a "no go". I guess you really are anonymous. That's too bad!

[C.B. MacDonald]

Pat,

You have rightfully used the words "limited" and "imagined" in your last posts. It is easy to say that courses have been softened and then to dismiss the fact that most courses today have rough when architects like MacKenzie spoke out against rough. I don't know whether or not you think Ross belongs in the penal camp or not. His words suggest one thing in his book. A quick look through the courses listed on this website from World War II onward shows most with hazards to rival those of the Golden Age. I suppose one could dismiss those as exceptions, and you may and probably will choose to do that. But take a look at the work of one of the most influential modern designers, Pete Dye, and then the work of those who worked for him and then "imagine" the effect he has had on designers of this day, since his courses often show up on tv. And then for your own enlightenment take a look at all the modern designers listed just on this website alone that produce golf holes with plenty of penalty, more I would venture to say than even Donald Ross or George Thomas at times. Rustic Canyon or Wild Horse would be good to study, at least from the photos. There are many others too.

The argument being made on this thread that courses today are less penal has about as much definition as the criteria for Tradition on the GD ranking thread. I think Rich Goodale got it right above. But I don't think we will agree on this. Such is golf.

[TEPaul]

If you ask me this discussion going on (the degree of penality of yesteryear's course vs today's) within a slightly different thread topic (stroke play's negative influence on design) is a great topic. This discussion should be separated from this thread and really developed.

It's probably an enormous subject and a really fascinating one and I'd be willing to bet that the whole thing is basically an evolutionary process that may not have any real rhyme or reason.

Some things and some features about architecture back in the 1920s were more penal than those same things and same features today and vice versa. These things happen,  sometimes for the oddest and most unusual reasons. I just couldn't agree more with C.B. MacDonald (the poster) that you just can't generalize about these things as we too often tend to do.

It would be just great to look at these things individually and specifically, not always generally. That to me is the only real way to see what it all means.

[Doug Siebert]

Pat,

Can you outline for me how all golf courses were designed in the past and how all golf courses are designed today so that we can have an accurate comparison? I am sure that outside of several courses scattered across the country such as the Sand Hills, there are not a lot of Pine Valleys out there where if you miss the fairway, you are in deep sand/grass/whatever [...]

More than several.  A lot of the GCA readership seems to live in well developed areas on the coasts, where land is so expensive that devoting 300-400 acres for a course is unthinkable today, unless the excess is all for residential lots.  In the areas of the country where houses don't start at a half million for a one bedroom hovel, there are plenty of courses to be found that are carved out of forest, desert, swampland, etc.  Is it less penal to miss the fairway and see your ball disappear into a forest where its a guaranteed lost ball, or into some not quite water hazard muck of a swamp?

One can argue whether such a course constitutes good design or not, but the results seen on my scorecards versus my handicap show me such courses certainly qualify as penal.  I won't argue that many golfers find such courses "unfair", and I will even agree at times, though often it is because of other issues than being "too penal".

[THuckaby2]

JakaB - that is an enlightening post, thanks.  We've touched on this before as you've ribbed me about why I care so much about handicaps and don't just play straight up.  Well...

Believe me, I'd love to.  But my experience seems to be the polar opposite of yours... I grew up playing competitive golf, starting tournaments at age 11, and doing nothing but through age 19.  During that time, hell yes, handicaps were only used to get me into events or flights within events.  I never took nor gave strokes, didn't see the point.  I lost WAY more than I won, but I didn't care, that's the way the game was played.

Then at a certain point the whole competitive golf thing got quite tiresome for me, and when I realized golf was becoming work rather than play, I gave it up.  Actually quit playing the game completely for a little while, if you can believe it.

Then in college I discovered a) beer and b) a great group of friends who all loved the game, but none of whom were under 15 hdcp. skill.  Playing the game with them, for nothing but fun, in extremely low pressure matches if we even bothered to keep score at all... well... the joy of the game came back.  These are the vast majority of my golf partners to this day.  Even in the clubs I belong to, the low 'cappers are few and far between... I tell ya, if I could magically transform my friends into 5 of less 'cappers and keep the same spirit, that would be golf heaven to me.  Our matches always do have that "taint" of the many strokes I give them... when I lose, I have an excuse, when I win, it's expected.  Same thing in reverse for them.  It's not perfect, but no, I'm not looking for new golf friends.

Thus handicaps are necessary for me.  I wish they weren't.

But I also believe my situation is quite commonplace.

Handicaps surely are a crutch... but if they allow people to have more fun with the game, I can't see what the problem is.

TH

ps to Dave - no can do tonight, I am on kid duty.  But I'll try to locate you anyway....

[C.B. MacDonald]

TEPaul,

I wholeheartedly agree about generalizing here. And as much as I love architecture from the golden era, I don't think we do ourselves any favors by broadly dismissing modern courses. From the looks of the photos of the Sand Hills and Pine Barrens, there's plenty of "modern" trouble underfoot.

Doug,

I have no problem with "More than several". I was trying not to exaggerate something that covers in part a grey area--that grey area being where "penal" falls/is scattered along/within the continuum of golf course architecture. But a quick review of courses profiled on this website alone reveals, as you say, more than several.

[TEPaul]

JakaB:

That's a pretty cool post of yours--pretty honest.

Sure golfers probably tend to gravitate towards others of similar abilities if they play regularly. Why? Just because, as you seem to be saying, it's a lot easier to understand! And in your case, it seems it's easier for you to deal with psychologically.

But you seem to be saying two different things. You say you've gravitated to a group of regulars (and you also observe that others do the same) that're of similar ability to you but then you say you get beaten by them all the time-more than you think you should or more than the law of averages would tell you that you should. If you get beaten by them a lot more than 75% (if you're basically playing three other guys regularly, for instance) than you're not of similar ability to someone or all of them.

But I don't know why you then call the handicap system a failure. The handicap system isn't the failure--you are--at least you are in your own eyes and in your own mind and maybe in the tally at the end of the year. When you look in the mirror (psychologically) instead of seeing the reality of yourself you see the handicap system for some reason!

Is the handicap system some form of affirmative action? Of course it is--it's always been that and that's the original concept of it!

I don't really like affirmative action in life other than sports/golf (handicapping). I think some people are going to be consigned to digging ditches in life and should be because that's all they're capable of doing and that's the way it should be.

But in a game, a sport, such as golf, inherent differing abilities can be "equalized" quite well for the enjoyment of all (provided of course that some or all of those differing abilities don't have psychological problems about the "equalizing" system, as you appear to have).

In life, if the chairman of General Motors felt for some reason that he'd like to spent the weekend at a real expensive resort hanging out with the ditch digger and the feeling was mutual the chairman just might figure out some way of "equalizing" things for the ditch digger who likely couldn't afford it.

That's about what the handicap system provides for all of us in the game of golf if we want to use it and have a good time, a nice more equitable game together given our differing abilities.

[TEPaul]

C.B.Macdonald:

I'm the one agreeing with you regarding generalizations. You're the one who made that point.

Making generalizations about architecture on this site is very common, always has been, and unfortunately it's done sometimes to make points about architecture that probably aren't true and never have been.

For a better and more accurate undestanding about architecture it's better to be more specific in one's analyses. Facts crop up, however, that some just don't want to acknowledge, so they stick to generalizing.

[C.B MacDonald]

TEPaul,

I am agreeing with you agreeing with me on generalizations.  

You seem like a very reasonable fellow.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

CBM,

Dr Mac, may have spoken out against rough, but Travis strongly supported difficult/penal rough along side his wide fairways.

Pete Dye's early work was penal and he was generally criticized for it by the average golfer and the pros.  He may have been the only designer in the 60's 70's and 80's to embrace penal elements in design.

In the late 60's, when playing against Pete in the North-South Amateur, we spoke at length about penal designs,
Harbour Town, the use of sleepers and mounds, Crooked Stick and other issues.  Later, during the Mid-80's, at Crooked Stick during the Mid-Amateur I spoke to him about penal designs, the fact that PGA Tour pros were hitting fewer and fewer long irons, green quadrants and/or tiers, Old Marsh etc., etc..  
I would consider Pete the exception rather than the rule.

I think you can make generalizations on this issue.

If you look at ALL of the golf courses built from 1960 to current date, the overwhelming majority are far from penal.

If you want to further break this down into categories like
RESORT and RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY courses, the number of PENAL courses designed for this use is almost non-existant.
If you want to add PUBLIC courses and COUNTRY CLUB courses, I think you'll find the same overwhelming ratio of Penal to benign courses.

If you also want to look at the work done to all of the golf courses that underwent revisions/renovations/modernizations, from 1950 to 1990, again, the overwhelming majority have been softened, not hardened.

I submit that the trend in new designs from 1960 to 1990 and renovation work from 1950 to 1990 have clearly been away from penal design, to a softening of features, especially bunkers.

You may feel otherwise, but I don't see it, and we'll just have to continue to disgree.

P.S.  If TEPaul agrees with you, you know you must be wrong

[C.B. MacDonald]

Pat,

You wrote that penal golf in America is dead with some exceptions but then just sort of make general statements about things. I don't know if you want to dismiss Ross and Pete Dye as exceptions to what you said above, but if so, they are huge exceptions. So I will in fact have to continue to disagree. If penal golf is dead today, then it was dead in yesteryear, since I don't see any big differences when I look at courses today from yesterday. I read architects from yesteryear saying the same things about new golf balls as they say today. I read some calling for wider fairways in yesteryear and then see narrowness all over the place today. I look at photos of golden age courses and then photos of today and see plenty of hazards of penal quality. Pete Dye is a good example of someone who has sent out a generation of designers not afraid to throw up a few obstacles here and there to the golfer. Arizona is littered with courses covered in waste areas. The environmental restrictions on amount of irrigated turf alone make for penal conditions in that state. So I don't see it the way you do. I see it the way Doug sees it.

There were some penal courses in yesteryear and some not so penal courses. The same is true today.

Stroke play cannot be the "ruination of golf architecture" as Dan King says unless something is actually ruined. I look at the courses listed on this website alone and I don't see what is ruined myself. Either something is ruined and dead or it is not, right? Sort of dead doesn't make sense, right?

Man: Doctor, what can you tell me about my son?

Doctor: Well, your son is dead with the exceptions of the times he is up walking around and talking on the phone. Otherwise, he's dead. We don't really count those exceptions.

Maybe you meant to say the penal golf is terminally ill? But then I ask, is Rustic Canyon terminally ill?

At any rate, as you say, we will continue to disagree on the subject of penal golf being dead. And as for whether or not modern designers are different than the golden guys, Rich Goodale said it better than I can. Fair enough?

[TEPaul]

C.B. Macdonald:

Still a fascinating thread but I'm too tired to respond to anything except to ask you where Rich Goodale said anything better than you did?

[C.B. MacDonald]

TEPaul,

See post #26, January 7th at 3:38 am (yikes! that's too late or too early to be writing about golf. At that time, just typing must be PENAL).

[Patrick_Mucci]

CBM,

Is Rustic Canyon the norm, or the exception.
If it's the norm, why the fuss ?
For every Rustic Canyon there are dozens of Woodfields.

The number of new penal courses are minimal when compared with the total number of new courses designed each year.

To only cite Pete Dye, one architect in the last 50 years, who was/is known for penal architecture would seem to prove my point.

More importantly, in the last 50 years I haven't seen any golf club, country club, resort course or residential community course go through a renovation/modernization and ask the architect to make the course more penal for every level of golfer.  Invariably the courses are softened.

If you go back to 1920-1930 and view the percentage of golf courses deemed to be penal amongst all of the golf courses in existance at those times, and perform the same exercise today, I think you'll see that the percentage of penal golf courses has been greatly reduced.

I think one could therefore conclude that the trend is away from penal golf.

Do you know of any COUNTRY CLUBS with mixed play, RESORT CLUBS, or RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CLUBS designed in the last 20-40 years that are PENAL ?  How about the last
10 years ?

As in the "Princess Bride" Penal Golf is "Mostly Dead"

[C.B. MacDonald]

Pat,

One club off the top of my head is East Hampton, by Coore and Crenshaw. One nine very tight with huge hazards and lots of trees. Another nine with some width but still lots of bunkering and native grass. That golf course was built in the last ten years. But won't you just dismiss that as an exception? Won't you just dismiss any course I mention in either camp as exceptions?

You reduce my example of Pete Dye down to just Pete Dye even though I mentioned those who came after/along with him. That is sort of disingenuous on your part, don't you think? You are also ignoring my question about where the penal/not penal cutoff is in the timeline. And what about Ross? Is he or is he not an exception? Who was the first architect to "ruin" golf architecture?

Without specific criteria for your position, we end up right where Rich Goodale said we would. How would you respond to the points Rich made on the 7th at 3:38am?

You have made lots of statements, but I don't think it gets us anywhere to make general statements without proof. My point is simple: There were penal and not so penal courses back then and there are penal and not so penal courses today.

[Dan King]

C.B. Macdonald,

Is there any sort of reason you are hiding behind Mr. Macdonald's name? You've written a lot of things lately, some that I love to respond to, but I  try not to ever respond to people posting anonymously. There are people here using a variety of pseudonym for a variety of reason who I have gotten to know, but it took a while.

Obviously, on the Internet, nobody knows if you are a dog: You have no way of knowing if I am Dan King just like I have no way of knowing you are C.B. Macdonald. So it ends up being a judgment thing. But if I get in a debate with someone, I'd like some idea there is someone on the other end. To put in a fake email address and use a pseudonym seriously delays that trust issue.

There are numerous reasons to want to stay anonymous on such a group, some ethical, some not so. It would help to know that you are using Mr. Macdonald for an ethical reason.

Dan King

"No Groucho is not my real name. I'm breaking it in for a friend."
 --Julius (Groucho) Marx

[C.B. MacDonald]

Dan,

Just using it because I was looking through his book at the time I stumbled upon this thread. I thought some of what I was reading was relavent. I mentioned some of it.

What would be the unethical reason for advocating a position that golf architecture is not ruined? Is this site here in hopes of studying golf architecture? I am just a guy who likes to celebrate golf across the board and I really wanted Matthew to read something here that did not too readily dismiss modern architecture. Honestly, if I didn't feel that there is penal and not so penal golf in both eras (however you define those) I wouldn't bother. I used to blindly think that the golden age guys were all minimalists and would not doing anything that did not strictly further their art. But I think I was naive. I have looked through/read a lot of the older books and the newer books. There are architects today who are just as much concerned for the strategy and art of golf holes and there were architects in the past who built what they could with more or less strategy and art depending on a lot of things-- budget, time constraints, artistic inspiration, etc.

Matthew started this thread saying (asking?) that it seems like modern golf course architects are less concerned for shot swinging holes. But I don't really see any actual evidence of that. Nor do I see golf architecture as "ruined". You and I disagree on that point. And you are welcome to your opinion. (I may not vote for you for king of the world, but you are welcome to your opinion.   )

It just doesn't seem right to broadly generalize about aspects of the game in a negative way without some exact methodolgy for determining judgements. Pat himself isn't willing to do that on the Tradition thread. He continues to ask for a methodoloy to be explained. I actually prefer the way he is approaching that thread over the way he is approaching this thread. Broad subjective generalizations don't do a lot for me. I just wanted Matthew to read some of that stuff too. That is why I tried to add a few quotes from the old guys to show that their thoughts varied too. Like I said, Rich put it best above.

At any rate, I am off to something else more productive. I think this is all speculation and Matthew can take and leave what he likes as best it suits him. Fair enough?

[TEPaul]

C.B. MacDonald:

Would you mind emailing me? You can do that off one of my posts or in the internal email on this site. Thanks

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()