[Jeff Brauer said:
I suspect that in general, the courses didn't consider the women up front as much as today. In many cases, ladies/forward tees were added over the years. . .
Whether they considered women or not, the courses were more playable for women because they did not focus so much on do-or-die shots.
and most courses had the top shot and other bunkers taken out after years of experience to make the course play better for women and poorer players. Here, I am thinking of the removal of most tee shot carry bunkers that were so popular in the golden age in favor of lateral hazards.
It is just factually incorrect to state that cop bunkers were popular in the golden age. In fact, one of the defining characteristics of the golden age is a movement away from design features which only served to further punish the horrible golfer.
For the most part, GA designers did leave a green frontal opening, probably because it was required under the firm and fast conditions of the day, not so much as a bailout for poorer players, as we use it today.
Jeff, I know I have said this before, but your take on the history of golf design is continues to astound me. Maybe you should consider reading what some of these "GA designers" had to say about their reasons for doing things, as opposed to just making up what suits you.
________________________________
David,
While I do understand your points, and was going to post that it is hard to generalize accurately I am not "making up what suits me."
My golf design library includes every book and more that is discussed here, plus articles and other things. I have re-read them constantly. I have read each of them a dozen times, if not more. I have also played 67 of the top courses in the world, and toured others, including many from the golden age, and in some cases, with plans and field notes etc.
I have to ask, while we may disagree (or be arguing semantics) how does your reading and study of gca throughout the ages compare? If it is more, and includes some redesigns of ga courses, I will say you are more learned than I. Even so, I don't think its fair to say I make things up and needless to say, I don't appreciate your characterization.
The first thing that every golden age golf designer does in their books is rail against greens chairmen making changes against the better advice of a trained architect.
Not far behind is a treatise on strategy. Most of them favored angled carry bunkers off the tee. Yes, they did remove the forced cross bunkers popular earlier, which was a major step forward. Yet, later, most gca's including Tillie and Mac in the depression, as well as others after WWII, removed a large number of fw bunkers, including those that were short bunkers not affecting good play, and even for the most part, optional carry bunkers in favor of lateral bunkers in the landing area for the big studs. All to accomodate the average player better than carry bunkers, which are inadvertantly in play for them.
I think I know this in part, having prepared master plans back in the 70's for many Chicago area courses, when the process was still ongoing, if not at the end of the cycle.
I also understand that women played more than is generally given credit for. But I do know that luminaries such as Alice Dye, not to mention other knowledgeable females I know think that design for forward tee player was - and for the most part - continues to be abysmal.
And as a point of reference, what do you think the reason the golden agers generally had a portion of the green open from one side of the fw? I think it is to provide a frontal opening to make the shot easier, both from the minds eye, and mostly because greens didn't always hold as well when firmer (they were more seasonal than today w/o irrigation) an getting close was easier if you could land a bit short and roll on. Also, in those days, many thought it was preferred (or perhaps just necessary) to play long irons for bit of roll. For most, only short irons attained a lot of spin in most conditions.
please feel free to add to that list, it is by no means comprehensive, and like many of my other observations, I admit that any generalization we make about what it was like in the old days may be way off base, at least for many courses much of the time.
For that matter, while RTJ did seemingly create (or at least expand the use of) heroic carries when earthmoving technolgy evolved, we could each probably point to modern courses that do have too many do or die shots, but many more that have no more than the old day. In other words, the "modern do or die emphasis" is also a broad, often innaccurate generalization.
That raises another interesting point. One of my beliefs - admittedly also a broad generalization - from reading all the GA books is that philosophically, the top gca's of the day were very consistent with the angle bunkers and fw landing areas and other things, even if they were stylistically different. Oddly, while modern desigers are lumped together, in my view, because of styling (cross styling if you will because so many of us work with the same contractors) I think we have a much broader take on design philosophy.