[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

While the intent is to provide a balanced, disinterested test that favored no particular group, have today's architects become biased in that they now cater to and protect the mediocre to weaker player ?

Terrain used to be shaped to feed errant shots into trouble.
Today's theme seems to be to deflect errant shots from entering bunkers.

Fairways used to be mown to the edge of the trouble, be it bunker or stream.  Today, buffers of rough act as safety nets to catch errant shots and stop them from entering the hazards.

Greens used to funnel marginal shot into the surrounding areas, be it bunker or chipping areas.  Todays greens seem to act like catcher's mitts, preventing errant shots from running into adjacent trouble.

Is the culture of architecture different today, versus, the first 30 or so years of the 20th Century ?

Is today's culture the culture of protection wherein safety nets are systemically inserted, architecturally, to protect the marginal golfer, be it a junior, woman, senior, beginer or marginal golfer ?

Has modern day architecture lost its penal teeth ?  

[Gary Slatter]

Would the fact that golf balls cost more than two gallons of gas influence course design?

[Doug Ralston]

Patrick;

That sounds incorrect to me. I have seen sources, which i hope to find though I misremember where, claiming that today's courses are harder. The average CR and slope where given as higher than any time previous.

Being the weak & mediocre golfer, I would rather not lose more golf balls than I already do, I admit. Being also poor, my balls come from the $.50 pile or are found on the course.

Still, the average slope pf the courses that i have played in the past year is well over 130 from the tips, 120 from my teeing area. My favorite course slopes 144, 153 front, and i lose an average of 9 balls a round there ...... and still consider IT to be worth the extra cost.

All that is to say I am uncertain which courses are giving me 'a break'. Hopefully Friday at Trophy Club, I will have so many caught by the mid-fairway bunkers that i will find them ......

Doug

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Doug Ralston,

Slope and course ratings are length related.

I'm referencing the line between protecting and thwarting the golfer through the use of a feature.

Gary Slatter,

NO

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I think Doug's point has merit.  Modern courses are, on the whole, more difficult, and as you well know, older courses feel pressure to keep up by adding more length to make them more difficult, too.

At the same time, there are a lot of architects who feel that BECAUSE they are already making their course very long, the hazards should not be as severe as they might, the fairways should be wider and the greens bigger, and so forth.  I remember vividly Perry Dye saying twenty years ago that we had made the course so hard from tee to green (waste areas and undulation and length) that we should make the greens pretty flat to compensate, and I immediately thought that he had it all backwards.

I tend toward making my hazards tougher and my courses not so long, because I am always trying to be different.

[TEPaul]

"Is the culture of architecture different today, versus, the first 30 or so years of the 20th Century?"

Pat:

Although it's a good question, I'm not so sure the biggest difference is not the culture of architecture specifically, but other things relating to golf. Things such as very different expectations in maintenance practices and presentation, standardizations such as far more consistency, a constant drive to minimize perceived unfairness, unpredictablity etc. Probably the biggest difference between now and back then is sand surfaces. The expectation of green playability is far different today. Most of the real difference in golf today vs way back then is in maintenance, not necessarily in architecture per se.

Way back then there used to be an old saying "it's just the way the ball bounces.". That remark was an explanation of randomness in playability and results.

Well, America, at least, figured out an effective way of overcoming that niggling problem. Create standardized maintenance practices where the ball practically didn't even bounce anymore.  

[JESII]

I think golfers expectations have changed more than architects abilities and intentions. We want to keep our members happy seems to be a prevalent mindset.

[Forrest Richardson]

Pat — Half of what you describe is course conditioning and set-up. Mowing habits, for example, are — as I have repeated many times — "temporary inflictions" on our courses. These conditions can be easily erased or changed. Tomorrow, or 25 years from now. Bunkers edges, sand consistency, hazard edges, etc...all the same.

Where I think you are correct is the containment aspect of balls away from hazards. While not an "always" trait, it is something we see many times more in modern designs.

Reasons? Perhaps our ability to move earth. Certainly the nature of adjacent development. Certainly drainage — especially on sites where we are not using natural drainage patterns. None of these are excuses. Rather, they are sources of the traits.

But "sides"...? Not knowingly.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Partially correct.  Yes, we try to help golfers more.  The typical course operator reports that players like to play courses where they can shoot their average score.  A few times a year, playing a real challenge is desired, but for most courses, not being too hard is considered good business.  

In the big picture, I think courses are getting easier because our lives are getting easier, and we desire recreation to be generally less strenuous than our work. (yes there are skiers and xtreme sports guys, but generally)

Besides, I always thought the "architecture should help us" mentality came straight from Nicklaus and other good players entering architecture.  I hear more good players who think the course should help them than I do average players.

[Doug Ralston]

Pat;

I love tough courses, even though I do not score well on them. When I keep score, that is. I am likely the least competitive 'American male' you have met. For me golf is about beauty, fun, challenge, and nature. Joy, is what I mean. Great golf courses make my heart race. I could pretty much care less about my score. Yes, the miraculous shot gets me excited. But if I win or lose just hasn't much to do with why I play golf.

I was a chess master in my younger days. I became so competitve that chess became work rather than a hobby. I quit for quite a few years before beginning play again, with the resolution never to be 'serious' about it evermore. I insist on learning that lesson with golf.

But a great course, as I said, makes me feel good for a long time after that play, just with reminissence (sp?). I love it if it makes me try thing I know I cannot do consistently. But each shot is now, and maybe I can do it once .......

All this again to say I am glad courses are more demanding. I will remember them longer and better thus.

Doug

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick:

I tend toward making my hazards tougher and my courses not so long, because I am always trying to be different.

Tom Doak,

That's what I was alluding to, creating and maintaining features that thwart rather than protect the golfer.

Length is rather one dimensional in that it rarely affects the vast majority of golfers, it typically affects only those who play from the back tees, whereas, insidious features in the fairways, around and on the greens affect virtually every golfer.

One might look at the new Wynn golf course as the ultimate protector of errant and/or marginal shots.  The directing of the ball away from trouble as opposed to directing the ball toward trouble, which seems to be a tribute to the game's Scottish origins.

Why aren't more fairways mown right up to the bunker, stream or pond ?  Why are there yards of intervening rough, meant to prevent an errant ball from finding its deserving punishment ?

The concept of fairness is partially the culprit in terms of the insertion and maintainance of these buffers, but, clearly, it's the architect who chooses to deflect the wayward ball away from trouble rather than into it.

Given the choice between a devilishly challenging NGLA or Seminole, or the challenge presented by length, vis a vis Trump Bedminster and others, the choice is easy, if I'm going to be challenged, or even tortured, I"d rather have fun while doing so.  And, LENGHTH ain't fun, interesting architectural features and the interplay between them is.

[cary lichtenstein]

One thing I have become very observant about in playing new course is to play from the correct set of tees. For me 6600 is correct, depending on the terrain, conditions.

I played one course for about 2 weeks from 7250 because everyone in my group was playing from the back tees, and I can tell you, it was stupid.

Hitting 3 woods into par 4's over water from thin lies, I starting laying up.

Especially with greens that reject shots unless placed nearly perfectly, unless you are comming in with an 8 iron, your going to miss at least 50% of the time.

I like to hit the whole variety pack around the greens, not just one shot and I love course that give you that option.

I don't like courses that are overly penal, take the Medalist in Hobe Sound for example. A little containment would go a long way there.

I see nothing wrong with some rough between the green and the hazard to spot slightly errant shots. I don't need every missed shot to roll endlessly in a hazard or some collection area with 100 divots marks.

[TEPaul]

"Why aren't more fairways mown right up to the bunker, stream or pond ?  Why are there yards of intervening rough, meant to prevent an errant ball from finding its deserving punishment?"

Achh, Patrick, must I tell you absolutely everything? Can't you figure anything out for yourself? I bet you've never been on a mower in your entire life, have you?

You obviously have no idea the damage tires can do around those features and areas.

That's one thing and the other thing is that over here the grass grows about ten times faster than it does over there. Do you need to ask why that is too?

[Tom_Doak]

Why aren't more fairways mown right up to the bunker, stream or pond ?  Why are there yards of intervening rough, meant to prevent an errant ball from finding its deserving punishment ?

Patrick:  Do you really not know the answer to that question?

In the case of water hazards, the answer is that having fertilized areas right next to open water is environmentally unsound.  There are only about two states in America today (Montana happens to be one of them) where you could build the 13th green at Augusta within 25 feet of Rae's Creek, unless you created Rae's Creek yourself.

As for rough between fairways and bunkers, it's mostly to keep the maintenance costs down.  Hanging the reels of the mowers over the edges of the bunkers takes time, which costs money; it also increases the number of mower accidents, which cost money, too.  (Insurance companies tend to notice those things.)  Clubs would be able to afford such luxuries if they weren't too busy blowing pine needles off the cart paths, but we both know which is a higher priority nowadays.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Achh, Patrick, must I tell you absolutely everything? Can't you figure anything out for yourself? I bet you've never been on a mower in your entire life, have you?

You obviously have no idea the damage tires can do around those features and areas.

Tom, I was refering to clubs whose maintainance equipment isn't from the late 19th century, like GMCC..

The triplex fairway mowers have balloon like tires that do little if any damage.

If GMCC would spend some money on modern day equipment, you'd know what I was talking about.[/color]

That's one thing and the other thing is that over here the grass grows about ten times faster than it does over there. Do you need to ask why that is too?

SO ?

What has the mowing pattern on fairways got to do with growth rates ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick:  Do you really not know the answer to that question?

I think my understanding of the answer differs from yours[/color]

In the case of water hazards, the answer is that having fertilized areas right next to open water is environmentally unsound.  

How often are fairways fertilized ?
And, if a fairway comes within a yard or two of the water feature, I don't think the fertilizer issue is substantively altered by a three to six foot buffer.

And, I don't think minimum wage workers are precise in their application of any agents.[/color]

There are only about two states in America today (Montana happens to be one of them) where you could build the 13th green at Augusta within 25 feet of Rae's Creek, unless you created Rae's Creek yourself.

Is it then safe to say that greens like # 11 at Merion, # 12, 13, 15 and 16 at ANGC, the 4th at Baltusrol, could never be replicated ?

And, if that's the case, it would mean that no green could have a fronting or flanking creek/stream/pond.

This would mark a dramatic change for architecture in America.[/color]

As for rough between fairways and bunkers, it's mostly to keep the maintenance costs down.  Hanging the reels of the mowers over the edges of the bunkers takes time, which costs money; it also increases the number of mower accidents, which cost money, too.  (Insurance companies tend to notice those things.)  

The new riding fairway mowers seem fairly maneuverable.
If they could do it in the past, I don't see why, with better equipment, they can't do it today.

It would seem to be more of a cultural, rather than a maintainance issue.

The sense of fairness as expressed through protective maintainance practices (buffers of rough).

I know clubs that didn't have these 25-50 years ago, yet, they're in abundance today.

However, this doesn't address the design issue, the tendency to feed balls into bunkers as opposed to away from them, vis a vis, the surrounding land form in the fairway and near and on the green.[/color]

Clubs would be able to afford such luxuries if they weren't too busy blowing pine needles off the cart paths, but we both know which is a higher priority nowadays.

Tom, the money I see misdirected, and mispent, on flower beds, beautification features and programs is clearly a signal that clubs have lost their way and are emphasizing the wrong issues.   But, I don't see the trend reversing itself anytime soon.  The feminization of golf courses is in full swing.[/color]

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

The "environmental buffer" around ponds and streams and wetlands has been happening for years.  Can you think of a new course where you've seen a stream used like Rae's Creek, other than Shadow Creek where the stream was created?  It already HAS marked a dramatic change for architecture in America.

However, I think you are wrong to blame the changes in the culture of maintenance at American golf clubs on "feminization".  I think it's just perfectionism on the part of superintendents who are trying to please nit-picky members.

[TEPaul]

"SO ?
What has the mowing pattern on fairways got to do with growth rates?"

Patrick:

Oh, nothing much other than they have to mow it about ten times more often over here but obviously you don't understand what that means either.

What you need to do is just go sit down with a few superintendents and have a discussion. This is the problem with clubs and committees, they just demand things like you seem to be doing with no real understanding of what it takes maintenance to do something and/or some of the problems involved or that will be created.

Most of these committees have no understanding of the problems they create for maintenance with some of their demands and if a super begins to tell them they don't want to hear it or they just try to rationalize it away as you are.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Anything can get done in this vein if a club wants to pay for it. With riding mowers in some areas the problem is they are just too heavy and they do damage to the turf with their tires when they turn at all. Forget about balloon tires, the problem is basically a matter of weight. If a club wants to pay for the man hours something really light could be used anywhere but it takes time and man-hours. This equipment doesn't run itself, you know, not yet anyway.  

Obviously you don't want to take my word for it or Doak's, so why don't you go sit down with some supers, have a discussion about this and see what they have to say. If they happen to tell you what we have, however, I have little doubt you'll probably even tell them you know a better way than they do.  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Did you know, for instance, that the old triplex mowers originally used to mow some greens is probably the biggest single reason some putting greens got completely rounded out into generic circles? The Creek Club's were a good example.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

The "environmental buffer" around ponds and streams and wetlands has been happening for years.  

Can you think of a new course where you've seen a stream used like Rae's Creek, other than Shadow Creek where the stream was created?  

That's an interesting question.

The ones that came to mind immediately were Trump's courses.  I know that all the waterways at the West Palm Beach course were created.  I believe that the streams have concrete foundations.  

The NY course was an old course he redesigned and the NJ course was one in which the routing was basically inherited from a prior developer.  In terms of the water features, I couldn't tell you what was created, expanded or indigenous to the property.

I'll have to reflect on the newer courses I've played.[/color]


It already HAS marked a dramatic change for architecture in America.

However, I think you are wrong to blame the changes in the culture of maintenance at American golf clubs on "feminization".  I think it's just perfectionism on the part of superintendents who are trying to please nit-picky members.

Tom, none of the guys I know are advocating the planting of petunias and impatience's all over the golf course.

Every tee box, every place a cart can park seems to be abundant with plantings

Perhaps it's those guys who represent the younger generation that are trying to get in touch with their feminine side.

Many golf courses are having more of their budgets devoted to plantings and beautification programs.

If I want to visit a formal or English Garden I know where to go.  When I play golf, I don't want to see "color" sprinkled throughout the golf course, especially when they spend maintainance dollars that could be better spent by improving conditions of play.

End of rant  [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick:

Did you know, for instance, that the old triplex mowers originally used to mow some greens is probably the biggest single reason some putting greens got completely rounded out into generic circles? The Creek Club's were a good example.

Yes, I knew that.

At a club I'm very familiar with, we've fought using riding mowers for decades and the putting surfaces have retained their basic shape with very little loss from the foot pad.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Anything can get done in this vein if a club wants to pay for it. With riding mowers in some areas the problem is they are just too heavy and they do damage to the turf with their tires when they turn at all. Forget about balloon tires, the problem is basically a matter of weight. If a club wants to pay for the man hours something really light could be used anywhere but it takes time and man-hours. This equipment doesn't run itself, you know, not yet anyway.  


With GPS systems, that may change shortly.
You'll just need a cow catcher for some members who get in the way.[/color]

Obviously you don't want to take my word for it or Doak's, so why don't you go sit down with some supers, have a discussion about this and see what they have to say. If they happen to tell you what we have, however, I have little doubt you'll probably even tell them you know a better way than they do.  

Tom, it's got NOTHING to do with the superintendents.

It's the membership who wants these features.

They want them because they increase the margin for error and because of the need for "fairness"

If NGLA can mow their fairway up to the bunkers, so can other clubs.  

Buffers of rough are nothing more than an accomodation to the concept of "fairness"[/color]

[Jim Thompson]

Pat,

Stop it!  You're scaring me.  I find myself agreeing with you again.  John Deere does make a couple of reels mowers that try to accomodate the wheel issue by ofsetting the gang units on the frame so that when they mow clockwise the wheels are 8 & 36 inches from the edge but 20 and 48 inches when mowing counterclockwise.  It's just to bad they make the heaviest equipment in the industry.  I hope TORO starts using this approach.  I thinkthen you'd see a lot of that wear go away.

Cheers!

JT

[Joe Hancock]

I hope TORO starts using this approach.  I thinkthen you'd see a lot of that wear go away.

I mow with Toro's, and I have no issue with wear rings. Of course, I have a reputation of under-applying water to my greens as well. They wouldn't have anything to do with each other, would they?

Joe

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()