The Chicken or the egg?

[JESII]

What came first, golf course rennovation or golf equipment technology improvements? In this I include the earliest forms of equipment innovation as well as golf course modification.

My perception has always been, and still is, that golf course architecture is supposed to challenge the golfer. Not always a severe test of shotmaking, but each hole should offer features that ask the player (whatever their ability) to consider them, devise a plan, and execute properly if they want to be successful on that hole. Success for some is a par or birdie, while for others it's a bogey(ie?), it makes no difference in this question IMO.

I think this idea is transferable to all caliber of players and I think the best architecture addresses a very wide range of abilities. Some architecture is more penal than others and would fittingly require different expectations from the player, while some is focused on the players enjoyment of their day and that suits a certain percentage of players best as well.

Through the course of time in which people have actually been creating golf courses (what, back to about 1850 or so? You tell me), what has been the objective of those designing and building those courses? I know of the Fownes family at Oakmont striving to make their course the most difficult in the world. One of the methods I have heard about is following along when a real good player was playing and noting where their real good drives finished (the ones that offered a distinct advantage for the hole). They would later build a bunker in just that spot so as to deter that advantage in the future. Pine Valley was built by George Crump to be a "championship" golf course, to be played by accomplished golfers and to this day fits that criteria.

At some point in time technological innovation became a driving force in the consideration of golf course design. I have heard of the massive distance increases gained from one of those old balls aroung the turn of the last century, and ball technology has been improving ever since. Steel shafts might have had some effect on how courses were prepared, fronting bunkers and forced carries to greens for example. Certainly the last 15 years of equipment innovations has had its effect on course developers and owners.

My question is two-fold:
1) Are golf course designers and equipment companies of the same opinion on how the game should be played, and what golf is really supposed to be?

I'll ask the second question after a few responses give me a feel for the sentiment of this discussion group.

I know the answer to this question might not be so clear as I see it but mabe it is, this group usually surprises me with it's intellect.

I look forward to any responses.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

"In every sport there is a definate point beyond which man can only proceed at the peril of destroying his pastime altogether.  He starts out to contest against an unknown quantity, and nature sets the task.  For this he must have instruments which, skillfully used, create a fair contest.  It is quite possible for him to devise, or use, instruments which would overwhelm nature-he can take a salmon rod to catch a minnow-but the all-absorbing interest of a true sportsman lies in that delicate adjustment of his instruments down to the point where they will just sustain his skill in order that upon it, and it alone, must depend the decision of the contest.  It is this fine point that is at the heart of the controversy over a standard ball and the form and make of golf clubs."

Attribution is not the issue so I will leave that out for now.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Great topic..but oh so many opinions and answers.
Personally in response to question number one...I do not think that architeects and manufacturers are even in the same book never mind on the same page.
Over the past 10 years or so , you cannot but feel as though the two sides have very little in common.

I think the good architect still has the love of the game at heart, and wants to develop something that is esthetic, playable and that people will be pleased to play.
The manufacturer wants to sell stuff..simple..no other objective, business is business...
This is not a slam on the manufacturers at all, that is thier objective and the architect has his/hers,but I do not see the two coming together very often.

The current architect has a problem, does he bow to the " new game" that the manufactures are producing, or does he remain loyal to his design principles...
A true dilema, how does he/she adapt his philosphies on what a golf course should be and make the course 7900 yard plus to accomodate the long hitters that the equipment has produced.

OR....does the architect even feel like he has to. After all that proportion of golfer who can realistically play the course at 7900,  is such a small percentage of the playing public that perhaps they should be ignored.

I think about the sharpest current breed of architects.... the likes of Doak,Devries and Coore/Crenshaw for example..they are all producing fine courses without shifting their design principles to the "dark side" of ridiculous length....so there is hope that design wins over technology.

[A_Clay_Man]

KBM-

While this is a fish story and it is true, it does imply that each individual has a different level of awareness, as to thier own ability. And what about those untrue sportsman?

Certainly a vast majority who lack the respect or desire to actually make it a challenge would be known as who? The pro who derives a living?

Most human be'ins want everything handed to them. They really are more like animals in that way. While the true sportsman has the sophistication to appreciate restraint inorder to quell unchecked greed.

the all-absorbing interest of a true sportsman lies in that delicate adjustment of his instruments down to the point where they will just sustain his skill in order that upon it, and it alone, must depend the decision of the contest.

JesII- Your posts makes me think this is a modern phenomina. Since the professional architect, used to be all amateurs, weren't they?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

KBM-

Certainly a vast majority who lack the respect or desire to actually make it a challenge would be known as who? The pro who derives a living?

While the true sportsman has the sophistication to appreciate restraint inorder to quell unchecked greed.

I don't think it would be the pro.  They must take advantage of all they can within the rules.  I saw a study one time that said the player who is always getting the very latest in technology is also the one who is most likely to cheat.  I don't think that applies to the pros, however I think it is important to note that in any other sport the pro is actually expected to cheat.  A good example is the Astro who went to tag the Cardinal in the NLCS and clearly missed him but acted like he tagged him to convince the ump to make the call in his favor, same goes with the receiver who clearly traps the ball but puts on the act that he caught it, it is really remarkable we watch this and yet no one seems bothered by what basically amounts to cheating.

I very much like your last statement I copied above.  Very well said.

[Jim Franklin]

A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is leaning against the headboard smoking a cigarette, with a satisfied smile on its face. The egg, looking a bit pissed off, grabs the sheet, rolls over, and says, "Well, I guess we finally answered THAT question."

Sorry, I couldn't resist .

[JESII]

KBM,

I have seen that quote on here before and I think it is incredibly poignant, that being said...who determines (or how is it determined), when an instrument overwhelms nature?



MWP,

"I think the good architect still has the love of the game at heart, and wants to develop something that is esthetic, playable and that people will be pleased to play."

I do agree with the sentence of yours that follows the one quoted to an extent, but I think this quote of yours could hold true with manufacturers substituted for architects when talking to a large percentage of the golfing population. Would you agree?

"The current architect has a problem, does he bow to the " new game" that the manufactures are producing, or does he remain loyal to his design principles...
A true dilema, how does he/she adapt his philosphies on what a golf course should be and make the course 7900 yard plus to accomodate the long hitters that the equipment has produced."

As a general rule, what are an architects goals when thinking conceptually about their design strategy? Is it to "accomodate" the specific abilities of the golfers of the day? Or is it to present challenges that those golfers might have to work to overcome? Do they "bow to the game"?


Adam,

paraphrased...The pro who actually makes a living playing golf has not the respect or desire for golf to be a challenge.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in your post so please bear with me if make bad assumptions because I do want to dig a bit to see if I can get my hands around it.

Generally speaking, the best at each particular sport or pastime eventually derive their living from that skill. Are you saying these people are not true sprotsman? Is it only when they are "in uniform" that they are not true sportsmen?

What makes you say "most human be'ins want everything handed to them"? In golf, I would agree that expectations have changed with regards to results and how difficult the game really was and perhaps still should be. But does the fact that a beginner thinks he should be able to break 100, or make pars a couple times a round, mean he wants his skill in the game to be given to him?

[A_Clay_Man]

The point is the "pro" doesn't have the luxury of being, or trying to be, classified as a true sportsman (according to the quoted definition above) The pro in todays world has to keep up with the latest technology. Well, maybe he doesn't have to, but they all do. The perception is that they will not be as succesful, if they don't.

When i said "most humans want..." I seriously doubt any true sportsman, or what I call a real golfer, would ever want to or would take an undue advantage. Unlike the example of the Pro Ball game player who tries to act like he made a play he did not.

Golf reveals base human characteristics. It's easier to cheat, it's harder to golf by the rules. How many times has someone who isn't a real golfer, called out the wrong score for the hole because they had selective memory, or, due to a liberal mis-interpretation of the rules?

I suppose that's what I oppose most about hand-picking a venue for the Ryder cup inorder to give one dside or the other an advantage. It simply isn't cricket!

[JESII]

The point is the "pro" doesn't have the luxury of being, or trying to be, classified as a true sportsman (according to the quoted definition above) The pro in todays world has to keep up with the latest technology. Well, maybe he doesn't have to, but they all do. The perception is that they will not be as succesful, if they don't. In your first post on this thread you seemed to say professionals lack both the respect and/or the desire to make the game a challenge. In this thread you seem to be rationalizing their use of the most up to date technology available. I agree with your explanation of why they use what they use and I disagree with the notion that they disrespect their game by using it.[/color]

When i said "most humans want..." I seriously doubt any true sportsman, or what I call a real golfer, would ever want to or would take an undue advantage. Unlike the example of the Pro Ball game player who tries to act like he made a play he did not. So the real golfer must play with inferior equipment??? Surely you're not saying it's only those that buy and play with the latest technology (in any sport/pastime etc..) say they made a 5 when, in reality, it was a 6? Again, when you say "most humans want everything handed to them", I really have no idea what you mean. Can you expand any further?[/color]

Golf reveals base human characteristics. It's easier to cheat, it's harder to golf by the rules. How many times has someone who isn't a real golfer, called out the wrong score for the hole because they had selective memory, or, due to a liberal mis-interpretation of the rules?

I suppose that's what I oppose most about hand-picking a venue for the Ryder cup inorder to give one dside or the other an advantage. It simply isn't cricket! It has nothing to do with advantage, it's all about the cash.[/color]

[JESII]

2) What method or course design and preparation addresses the current trend in equipment advancement most effectively?

Michael Wharton Palmer grazes this issue in his post.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

JES,

I don't think it is "who" makes that determination.  In this case if change such as a rollback happens you could not identify who made it happen because big change probably happens over a prolonged period with many episodes, big and small, that contribute to an overwhelming cause for change that can no longer be ignored and eventually no longer can be stopped.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Jes-
You asked

Again, when you say "most humans want everything handed to them", I really have no idea what you mean. Can you expand any further?

The most vivid example of that trait (as it relates to golf and what I meant) was Tiger Woods appearence on the Mike Douglas show back in the 70's. He was asked to putt the ball on artificial green with Mike D, Merv G and B. Hope. He picked the ball up and moved it closer to the hole. That's the type of wanting I referred to.

As for the first paragraph colored in green. I can only say you mis-understood. I never said I didnt respect their choice. I said they dont have the luxury of tweaking their equiptment down to that point where they have just enough to get the job done, in concurrence with their ability. UnLike the fisherman who catches 10 pounders with 5 lb. test. No one on tour is playing persimmons and balatas the way Pete Galea is.

[JESII]

Kelly,

I'm trying to dig out alternative means of putting different (re: shorter) equipment in players hands voluntarily. I would like to avoid the roll-back discussions for a number of reasons.

Would you say that today's golf "instruments" are overwhelming to nature?

If so, what characteristics of these instruments can be exploited as a means of leveling the balance?



Adam,

I think what you refer to is similar to what I see as different expectations of what the challenge of the game should be. People now thik that because they play golf a dozen times a year and never practice they should play well. Fine. About your fishing comparison, do any of the guys on the professional fishing tour fish with equipment specifically measured to minimize their advantage so as to test themselves against nature?

I think your view of a "true sportsman" leaves out anyone that actually competes at whatever activity referrenced. That may be fine, I have no real issue with that if it's the case, just relaying how your view strikes me.

[JESII]

2) What method or course design and preparation addresses the current trend in equipment advancement most effectively?

Michael Wharton Palmer grazes this issue in his post.

I think the longer, tighter, flatter golf enhances the specific attributes of todays long, high flying, less spinning equipment. Don't courses like Hidden Creek negate some of the benefits offered with today's equipment? If I were to play the majority of my golf at Hidden Creek I think I would want to use balls and clubs that flew shorter and spun more so that I could possibly work the ball in the manner the course asks for. Do any others feel that way ever?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

JES
Yes I think that the manufacturers want something that looks good, but I am not convinvced that they have the best interest of the game in mind..in fact I dont even know what that means anymore..
The manufacturers are damned if they do and damned if they dont..the new tech aids the everyday golfer but makes it too easy for the tour player..or so many on this site believe.

However, we do not really see any huge decrease, in the average tour stroke average, so I for one am not convinced the problem is as huge as many think.

Yes the ball goes too far in the hands of the long hitters, and is making some courses obsolete to that type of player...but they are a minority and I hope that as mentioned earlier, those architects we admire so much continue to provide us with sensible lenghted courses that still make us tingle..ie..Sand Hills..Banbougle..Pacific Dunes...etc without feeling the need for 7900 yards

[TEPaul]

"KBM,
I have seen that quote on here before and I think it is incredibly poignant, that being said...who determines (or how is it determined), when an instrument overwhelms nature?"

Sully:

You ask "who" makes the determination? That quotation above was written approximately 80 years ago and in another part of the same article the author said this;

"The fate of golf would seem to be in the hands of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club and the United States Golf Association. Can we expect that they will protect and reverence the spirit of golf? There are evident signs of an awakening in that direction. At least some limitation has been placed upon the ball, and the R&A has barred the ribbed faced club."

However, when that author mentioned that 'fine point' beyond which the sportsman's instruments (or the adjustment of them) must not go, he did not exactly say what he thought that 'fine point' was in golf. Obviously he thought that was for the two I&B regulatory bodies in golf to decide, and to continue to decide as golf evolved;

“….but the all-absorbing interest of a true sportsman lies in that delicate adjustment of his instruments down to the point where they will just sustain his skill in order that upon it, and it alone, must depend the decision of the contest.  It is this fine point that is at the heart of the controversy over a standard ball and the form and make of golf clubs."

He mentioned the ‘delicate adjustment’ of his instruments down to the point where they will just sustain “skill”, so upon that alone (skill) will depend the contest.  However, he did to some extent identify the essential components of golf, the sport, as “the proper balance of nature in architecture”, and that “delicate adjustment of instruments to that fine point that just sustains a golfer’s “skill””, but I don’t know how well or how completely he actually identified what-all is meant by “skill” in golf. That’s why I started a thread some days ago asking if the idea of what exactly “skill” means in golf should be better defined now.

In reviewing his articles on the entire subject he actually did define “skill” to a larger degree than I remembered but as usual his definition of "skill" as it pertained uniquely to the sport of golf was mind-bendingly labyrinthine!  

[JESII]

Tom,

Thank you for your input here, I thought, and hoped, you would jump in.

The idea of a “delicate adjustment of instruments to that fine point that just sustains a golfer’s “skill””, is interesting to me. You have told of a week in your past in Ireland or Scotland playing a course alone at first light every day. You talk of the course being the fastest (you probably have a better adjective) you've ever played, and mention the things you learned that week and because of that week learned in the future in regards to golf course architecture, or more precisely GOLF. Can you imagine if that were the setting for the vast majority of your golf ever purchasing a 460cc driver? Does anyone think they would seek the type of equipment being marketed and sold today if they played all of their golf on a course which demanded ball control so much more than it rewards length.

This is my point about playing Hidden Creek. I think (admittedly, after only one playing) that Hidden Creek is one of the best designs I've ever played. It forces the player to control his ball if he wants to score well, it very very rarely rewards distance over accuracy and control.

After about a year paying attention to this website I have seen too many complaints about the Tour pros hitting the ball "too far" from people who do not hit the ball "too far". For some reason, the fact that Tiger can carry the ball 310 or 320 yards is ruining the game for people that carry the ball 200 yards. I understand one aspect of this complaint, the effect these distance are having on golf course architecture. The tightening of fairways, the lengthening of holes/courses for the back tees, etc. With all of those complaints come the obvious USGA bashers, which is fine. I have no problem with peoples opinions, in fact I would agree for the most part with complaints about the "overpreparation" of US Open venues. That practice is certainly copied by many clubs throughout the world, and without the resources available those projects at individual clubs rarely improve a course.

I am trying to develop a method of golf course design and preparation that would encourage the use of more control oriented equipment from players that do in fact hit the ball "too far", and I think Michael Wharton Palmer is right in his comment about a group of modern architects that do value accuracy, control and options in their design over length. That is why I have mentioned a few times on here recently that I place as much blame on course developers (owners, memberships, ect...) as I do on the USGA for any issue involving excessive distance golf balls are now hit.

[JESII]

The changes in equipment, mental game, balls all dictate changes in architecture.

Bill,

Didn't you just answer the question?

[JESII]

Golf is of a challenge that the golfer will always be looking for a magic potion rather than improving his own skills, so it is a convoluted moibus strip of relationships, not even jsut a chicken and egg.

I disagree.

Do you remember the story Tom tells of being on that little course by himself every day for a week and experimenting all sorts of different ways to play the course? I think competition with others is what creates ones search for this "magic potion" you describe. I certainly am not going into a tournament with persimmons and balatas on a 7200 yard course with narrow fairways and soft green but I might downshift if I never played tournament golf and the course I played most often showed a real benefit to having more ball control (especially around the greens) instead of length.

[JESII]

What I'm saying is, when competing (formally or informally) you will rightly use the very best equipment you can find for the situation. The guys on Tour adjust their wedge specifications all the time depending on the turf and sand conditions that week. If you play a course that best rewards a certain style of play aren't you going to try and tailor your equipment to that style. What if that adjustment ends up being to balls that spin more than the ProV1X, and drivers that let you work the ball better?

I asked, "the chicken or the egg?" because I agree with you, equipment changes have driven golf course changes for one hundred years. In most every instance the change has been focused on length. I'm recommending changes towards benefiting control because I see that as the only characteristic able to be exploited in the new equipment. When I say control I mean the ability to work the ball in order to take advantage of a hole. Are there holes out there that value accuracy and control over length?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I've always liked the point you've made many times on here that although you don't hold it against some of these people who only bash the USGA for distance increases and all the problems it seems to create you also recognize that others should share the responsibilities for those problems---eg developers, clients, clubs etc.

The sad fact is that so many on here and elsewhere are basically just looking for someone to BLAME, and with their lack of over-all understanding about all the reasons for this over-all problem they simply find the USGA a very convenient target to blame. I say forget about the blame and just try to get to the root of the reasons these things happen.

Should the USGA, for instance, take sole responsibility for the fact that US Open set-ups are aped by so many courses that will never have anything remotely like a US Open? And that trying to mimic the USGA's Open courses that way becomes costly and corrupting of architecture in various ways?

I think, as I think you do, that the USGA should probably at least recognize this problem far more than they seem to be and having done that attempt to get to the bottom of it and make very public ALL the reasons these things happen and continue to happen.

The USGA and the Tech Center (Dick Rugge) in response to these questions and accusations against the USGA like this basically says; "Do what we say not what we do."

And in a real way they have a very good point there! They set up courses for no more than thirteen touraments, certainly most noticeably including the US OPEN for the best players in the world and the other of their championships for the best players in certain categories.

They should do a better and more vocal job of saying to the rest of golfing America; "Why do you insist on mimicing these things we do only for National Championships at your own courses day and day out? Are you holding National Championships day in and day out? Do you think your courses should be prepared as if they are when clearly they are not?"

If the USGA could get this message across far more comprehensively then perhaps there would be far less people like a David Moriarty who blamethe USGA for all this as if the sky is falling when only a small group of players hit the ball that far as people like him continue to hit it only about 200 yards, as you say!

But obviously, it's just not that simple for us to say. Why do clubs take this so seriously and change their courses as they do when those types of championships will never come there?

That's a tricky question but one you and I can see the answers to every day in lockerrooms and barrooms within golf clubs all over America. Basically it's all about pride, even if it really isn't happening at most clubs. And it happens in the oddest and most trivial ways but unfortunately it can result in change and unnecessary change to golf courses.

It goes like this, and it can be this ridiculous (this is a real life example):

On our 7th hole that was reworked to up effective options (even with some added tee length) a most significant member mentioned in horror that one of the best players in this area still hit an 6-iron approach at this par 5 green and that we therefore had to do something to this hole (he mentioned adding a good deal more length). So I asked him if he knew what that player made on the hole and he said he didn't. So I asked the player and he said he made a bogie six!!  

See what I mean Sully? While it's easy to just lay the blame for all this at the doorstep of the USGA it surely is a far more complex problem than just one they may've created. The reasons why these deleterious things happen to too many golf courses are certainly not just the fault of the USGA although, in my opininon, they both could and should do a much better job of explaining that to golfing America. Unfortunately when they try to do that some people they say that to just accuse them of shifting the blame and failing to take responsibility for the entire problem. In my opinion, this is not intelligent and it won't really solve the problem because it isn't recognizing all the reasons behind the problem.

And then you have others like this redanman@ aka BillV who discuss this problem in totally unintelligible riddles aka jibberish@.  

 

[TEPaul]

SullY:

Let me ask you a far more necessary question at this point in this thread. That would be:

If someone responded to you with the nonsensical jibberish@ that redanman@ aka BillV has on this thread, can you think of a single good reason to continue to discuss anything with him?? How many times do we have to hear this garbage "Tone-a-mint" and "majuh tone-a-mint"? It is my belief and hope that if redanman@ aka BillV ventures below the Mason-Dixon line our southern brethern will just go ahead and string him up!!