The Time Between Shot And Result Is The Key

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Kirk,

Firm and fast is often a function of geography and weather patterns, rather than maintainance, hence those conditions may not be obtainable for all clubs.

One of the best walks in golf is from the lower fairway on the 3rd hole at NGLA, up to the crest of the "Alps" hill overlooking the green.  When you reach the crest you eagerly scan the green to see what fate the golf gods have in store for you.

Some don't like the blind and random nature of the hole.
I love it

NGLA is full of those experiences, which you crave.

But, there are those who don't like NGLA due to the blind and random nature of play.

There are those who don't like "chance" influencing their ball.

At most clubs that I'm familiar with, there's been an ongoing effort to eliminate blindness and randomness from those golf clubs.

I think one of the problems with your preference in play is the medal play mentality.

I think your desires are better served by match play golf.

[JESII]

Patrick,

Would you agree that club memberships and greens committees are the primary reason for a lack of firm and fast golf courses on the east coast, usa? Geography, weather and maintenance all certainly play a part and I'm not interested in arguing over proportions, I'd rather support an effort whose mission is the education of the people that feel green and lush is the only way.

When you refer to a "medal play mentality", would 'fairness' be the key element argued by those opposed to these characteristics John Kirk talks about?

[TEPaul]

I forgot this thread but I obviously saw it as I posted on it about a year ago.

The time between shot and result that John Kirk described so well as the KEY does come in two totally opposite forms---that which is blind and that which the golfer can see all of.

I feel almost all golfers will just fall in love with the latter if they are given it and that's precisely why so many of us have advocated firm and fast conditions for so long both on the green and "through the green". What John Kirk described in detail is what many of us have described in a general phrase like "turning the lights up full" on architecture. The "Light" rheostat is the degree to which a course can acheive firm and fast conditions.

In other words, the joy of watching a ball bounce and roll and skitter across the ground for 50 or more yards is more than five times more exciting to me than watching it roll ten yards. The joy of playing five or ten times more break on a complex or big swinging putt on fast greens is about five to ten times more enjoyable and gratifying to me than the same putt you don't need to do that on. To me most of it is just watching it move across the ground in such a non-straigtht-line fashion not to mention the time it takes because of the speed even if it is straight-line.

I wish I could say I think the return of blindness as a wonderful delayed reaction between shot and result could again enjoy the same popularity that I think visible delayed reaction between shot and result can.

As much as I personally love blindness in architecture and golf, and as much as it once was "prized" in architeture (19th century) I'm afraid it never will enjoy a return in popularity. I think most of the reason it won't is because unfortunately this awful formulaic expectation that most everything in golf and architecture should be visible is just going to be too hard to break. This phrase of praise of architecture that "everything is right in front of you" pretty much makes my skin crawl. I suspect it may be primarily driven by the ultra increased need for "instant gratification" in our modern world.

But this is such a wonderful thread by John Kirk I think I will take the time to post in its entirety Max Behr's article ("Blindness") on the beauties of blindness in golf and architecture.

It should blow you away how well and how totally he delved into the soul of that subject.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Would you agree that club memberships and greens committees are the primary reason for a lack of firm and fast golf courses on the east coast, usa?

NO, I wouldn't say primary, but I would say, " a significant factor"

One only has to look at the conditions at Pine Valley last year when they lost their greens and had to close play.

I don't believe that PV enjoys F&F on a constant or even on a consistent basis.

But, that doesn't mean that they don't want to have F&F conditions.

First, the culture of the club has to understand and endorse F&F, secondly, Mother Nature HAS to co-operate in order to achieve F&F.[/color]

It's difficult to maintain firm and fast conditions in July and August, the prime golfing months in the northeast.[/b][/color]


Geography, weather and maintenance all certainly play a part and I'm not interested in arguing over proportions, I'd rather support an effort whose mission is the education of the people that feel green and lush is the only way.

While I agree 100 % with that, we're in the great minority.

TV reinforces on a weekly basis, LUSH GREEN conditions.

Members who return home from wintering or vacationing in Florida also contribute to the "Lush Green" syndrome.

I've always felt that the "Great" courses hold the key, in a trickle down perspective.

If great Clubs, X, Y and Z have dry, fast and firm conditions, that mentality spreads faster and better than a lone individual standiing up at a board or green committee meeting as a proponent of dry, F&F conditions.

Don't forget that water is also a great agent for camoflaging a golf courses ills.[/color]

When you refer to a "medal play mentality", would 'fairness' be the key element argued by those opposed to these characteristics John Kirk talks about ?

I think you can incorporate "fairness" within within the medal play mentality.

"Fairness" has a tendency to be more noticeable in medal play rounds then it does in match play rounds because one horrific break can result in a scoring abberation, whereas in match play, a golfer can lose but one hole at a time, irrespective of the score on that hole.

If your opponent birdies a hole, it doesn't matter if you made a par or a quintuple bogie, the result is the same.
But, in medal play, that horrific break, that quintuple bogie manifests itself with far more dire results[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Remember, every shot makes either the golfer or their opponent happy.

The joy you speak of comes when the shot is exeucted by the golfer as the architect intended, when the features are used to their maximum effectiveness.

Conversely, the golfer who ignores the features or the golfer that fails to execute the required shot will be horrified as he watches his shot hurdling toward a dire fate, to the joy of his opponent.

So John's premise works well, exceptionally well, in the context of competition, irrespective of whether it's match or medal play.

However, there are exceptions, or extra-competitive perspectives.

I recall one such, disturbing example.

I was playing in the Singles at NGLA.
I was standing on the 2nd tee waiting due to a back up.
The hole on the 1st green was cut in that impossible position, the back left bowl.
I watched in awe and horror as some idiot, playing the 1st hole hit this horrible looking shot that took all kinds of bounces and rolls and ended up about 3 feet from the hole.
The fellows I was playing with were shocked that an approach shot could actually get to, and stay in that bowl.
One fellow said, "that has to be the luckiest shot I've ever seen, that guy just picked up two shots on the field, what a lucky A**H***.  

As the golfer came up onto the green, I turned to my fellow competitor and said, " I know that lucky A**H***, it's TEPaul.  

So, sometimes joy, sorrow and disbelief extend beyond your immediate group, and perhaps, that's the appeal of TV.

[TEPaul]

"First, the culture of the club has to understand and endorse F&F,"

Patrick:

The culture of PVGC and the present administration does endorse firm and fast conditions. They've been topdressing their fairways to achieve that among other things.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Regarding that approach to the 1st at NGLA story, you know that isn't true but frankly it could be. For some reason all the luck I've ever had in golf has been good luck. I don't recall ever having any bad luck. In retrospect I guess I've been very fortunate to have come to know so many people in golf and some of those I've always been most friendly with are "The Good Golf Gods". And one of the interesting by-products of that unusual friendship is it has always inordinately bothered most all of my opponents to the decided detriment of their own games.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm aware of that and effectively stated same in "green" paragraph 4.

But, as you know, you can't mess with Mother Nature.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Regarding that approach to the 1st at NGLA story, you know that isn't true but frankly it could be. For some reason all the luck I've ever had in golf has been good luck. I don't recall ever having any bad luck. In retrospect I guess I've been very fortunate to have come to know so many people in golf and some of those I've always been most friendly with are "The Good Golf Gods".

Are you denying that you hit your approach shots close to the hole when the pin was in the back left bowl at the NGLA Singles ?

And, you're right, it is lucky you met me, otherwise you'd still be wandering around the Denver Airport searching for your tickets.

And, that gorgeous flight atttendent wouldn't have fortuitously mistaken you for Bill Coore

She was the best looking attendent I've seen in at least five years, and personable too.  We bonded immediately when we found out we both loved dogs.
 
No, not you, the four legged kind.

She lives in NJ, not far from me.

And, I told her that the Sand Hills logo you were wearing stood for S*** Head. [/color]

[TEPaul]

"But, as you know, you can't mess with Mother Nature."

Bullshit. I realize that you can't mess with Mother Nature and I don't think I've ever met anyone else who can mess with her but I've pretty much been messing with wives and mothers all my life and that very much includes Mother Nature.

The only thing I never liked is playing in the rain but obviously Mother Nature knows that because the sun follows me pretty much whenever and wherever I go to play golf.

But I know why you can't mess with Mother Nature. It's because Mother Nature has never liked "know it all" smart asses.
 
 

[TEPaul]

"Are you denying that you hit your approach shots close to the hole when the pin was in the back left bowl at the NGLA Singles?"

No I'm not denying that. The one great match I had when the pin was in that back left bowl, I recall hitting my approach shot into that back bowl twice (regular match and overtime) and within about one foot of the same place as earlier. How that ball of mine actually got there is no concern of mine, particularly since I wasn't able to see it from where I hit it from anyway. I let my opponents and other shocked observers worry about stuff like how it actually got there.  

You and that stewardess sure did trick me. I think I said to her it was just incredible that she thought I was Bill Coore and I actually know the guy. She said something like:  "Right, more incredible than you know."

[Garland Bayley]

Not only is this a good theory on enjoyment in golf, to me it is a good argument for rolling back the ball. It has always bothered me some that I couldn't see the result of my shots. If the ball goes so far that I can't see it, how can I enjoy the time between the shot and the result. Maybe the theory says these are blind shots and I get more enjoyment out of them. Also, I don't get to see my ball go OB or in the water. My fun doesn't get cut short so quickly. Wait a minute! Maybe this is an argument for making the ball go further.

[Garland Bayley]

Nothing is better than a putt that rolls for 10 seconds and goes in.  That's why most here like fast greens with sloped surfaces.

But wouldn't the putt take even longer if the greens were maintained at a slower speed?

First, it is very hard to get a putt to roll for 10 seconds. It has to be a very large green or it has to be trickling downhill. Second, on slow greens, it is impossible to strike a long putt hard enough to have it roll for 10 seconds and it is very difficult to get a put to trickle on a slow green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think everyone in the field was aware of how impossible it was to get to the back left bowl.

As you drove in that imisplaced road, through those improperly located gates, you could see where the pin was.

We discussed two strategies.

# 1  Long hitters should probably go for the green with their
      drives.

# 2  Approach shots might be better off if hit into the back
       left greenside bunker, leaving the golfer with a better
       chance of recovering from that bunker to the back left
       bowl and getting his par, rather then attempt to putt
       the ball from anywhere on that green.

I shall miss that bowl.

It sure is fun to stand on the 2nd tee and watch approaches to that green.

That flight attendant was the type you'd like to take home to meet your mother, provided that you could trust your brothers.  You can throw in your dad too.  She was awesome.

[TEPaul]

I'm sad to see that back left bowl go too. Obviously it wasn't original--Karl Olsen did it but it was wonderful. I always thought hitting an approach in there was a piece of cake. All you have to do is land the ball right about 6/16th of the way into the green and on the left 1/3 of that two foot wide spine and let it just filter left and gently back in there. But guys who let strategies roll around in their heads like hitting the bunker as the best way to play the hole could never play it like I do though.

[Garland Bayley]

Well I finally got far enough to see that this is an old thread, and that Doug bumped it up to the top again. For that Doug, I thank you very much. The original post has to be one of the most interesting I have read on this site. There was a thread the last couple of days saying this website was like a think tank. I was sceptical about that until I read this thread. Since is was something completely original from all I had read about golf up until now, it convinced me there is some very good thinking going on here.

My hall of fame of GCA posters now contains two people.

2005 inductee - Tom Paul (even though he got quite nasty towards me recently)
2006 inductee John Kirk

At the top of next year's ballot.
Tom Doak
Ian Andrew

[John Kirk]

Thanks for bringing this thread back to the top.  In two plus years I've made one significant contribution, and used the other 400 posts to offer opinions about golf courses.

Garland, I'm also in Portland, by the way.

10 seconds is a very long time for a putt to roll out.  I've probably made five or ten putts in my career that rolled that long.  I'd guess Tiger's chip on #16 at the Masters last year was in motion 10-15 seconds, making it a highlight film type play.

Patrick, I look forward to playing NGLA someday, perhaps as early as this June.  As previously discussed, blind shots offer a different and long lasting anticipation.  In addition, blind shots require the golfer to use landmarks to aim and faith to execute the shot.  These days I consider blind shots to be part of a complete examination of one's skills.

As Tom D. pointed out, firm and fast isn't mandatory, but helpful.  Slope achieves part of the goal.  Add Pine Valley to my wish list.

Thanks again, guys.

[Doug Siebert]

I really don't think 10 seconds is all that long for a putt to roll out.  On a downhill slope, it isn't unusual at all, though those putts rarely go in.  I had one putt on my home course's 14th last summer of about 20 feet which I hit hard enough to move the ball perhaps 1/2" if it was on level ground and it trickled down for what must have been at least 20 seconds.  I watched it for 5 or 6 seconds after hitting it, then walked up to it to urge it on, then walked down behind the hole to start telling it which direction to move.  Ended up about 3" to the right of the hole.

The guys I was playing with, who were playing the course for the first time, were astounded I was able to judge the speed of that speed so well.  I didn't have the heart to tell them it was dumb luck it stopped there and didn't trickle another 10 seconds to the bottom of the green, so I pleaded local knowledge

Lots more fun than hitting that putt on a stimp 6 green that I have to pound and is done rolling in two seconds flat!

[Garland Bayley]

That's what I figured for a 10 second putt. It almost has to be a trickler. I bladed my approach to our most severely sloped green today, ended up on the back with the pin near the front. I stroked the putt and walked to the bottom of the green where I stood over it as it trickled to a stop 14 seconds later.

Dave Pelz holed a 100 plus foot putt on the Open telecast last summer. It is about the only nontrickler that I think would approach 10 seconds.

[Garland Bayley]

Corollary: Blind shots only exhibit this property the second time around. On our GCA outing to the north course at the Reserve Vineyards yesterday, I hit my blind approach to the 13th green where Peter Pittock told me to hit it. Since it was a short wedge shot, I had very little time to experience the travels of the ball. Since I did not know the hole, I had no excitement waiting to determine the result. Turns out it was the best approach of the group and resulted in birdie.

[Scott Ramsay]

I have a favorite article by Geoff S about blind shots ,that I keep posted on my wall ,that contains a Max Behr quote,
     
” Should the golfer, in all cases, become immediately aware of what his fate is? Is golf to be robbed of all illusion? Is the walk between shots to be, only, either a tragic or dull affair? Does not the very essence of a sport lie in that suspense between the commencement of an action and the knowledge of its result? Is it not the suspense in hunting, shooting, fishing and in all sports sublimates the mind and heart into a region of no knowledge, a region where for a moment we are permitted to dream impossible things and become heroes?”

[Scott Witter]

Scott R.

Thanks for posting the Behr quote...I suspect this is a partial from the total discussion that Tom Paul was referring to and was going to post, but never did.

I still find myself enjoying the imaginative thoughts behind the original post by John Kirk...it really does get to the heart of the game.  Thanks again John K.

[peter_p]

     A corollary to John's unified theory is the long wait hopefully vaidates your decision making and vision. My responses to an earlier thread about your greatest shots were mostly in tune with John's eureka.
     When athletes are in 'the zone' some say they see everything in slow-motion. Watching a shot for a long time brings the essence of the same emotion.

    Garland,
         My directions at 13 were to help avoid an 'other', but great execution on the two shots.
     

[Doug Siebert]

Interesting idea about the "slo mo" thing Peter, but if golf shots move in slow motion when one is 'in the zone' I guess I've never been in the zone in a round of golf, EVER!  When I've been in the zone my mind is very calm, I can't remember what I was thinking about before or during a swing, and didn't really feel much incentive to pay attention to my ball during its flight because I knew it would go where I desired.

I've certainly enjoyed the slo mo time thing in things as diverse as swinging at a baseball, tripping over a root and doing a full (unintentional) somersault when running full speed downhill in an apple orchard after the last day of school in 6th grade, and when hitting a telephone pole in my car once.  Its adrenaline related, and it is pretty short lived -- not even long enough for the hang time on a full drive.  To me, the zone is almost the opposite of the adrenaline-induced slow motion movement of time.

Both are really cool though, every golfer would love to enter the zone at will, but given a choice I'd take being able to slow down time subjectively for myself at will instead of just when I'm super pumped up or scared that I'm about to feel serious pain.  With slo mo time on your side you could bat 1.000 and kick Jackie Chan's ass or at least avoid having one's ass kicked

[Dan Kelly]

A great thread, this -- one that I never saw before today ... as I'm sure is the case with many good threads.

I wish the Discussion Group had an editor who would somehow mark the really good threads, so that it didn't take daily vigilance not to miss them.