[Peter Pallotta]

I've been going through old newspaper archives. There's a bit of a pattern emerging that surprised me (though maybe it won't come as a surprise to many others here). It's the kind of high numbers being shot by some of the better players of the day, i.e. the 1910s and 1920s -- and how those numbers didn't seem to reflect badly on the design, even in the players' eyes.  

Here's an example, from a 1915 article on the first day of competition at the then-new Greenbriar Links in White Sulphur Springs W. Virginia. The players included "Charles Blair Macdonald, who designed the course". (That's interesting in itself; I don't find many "designers" being credited that early on.)   Max H. Behr of Baltusrol and Louis Livingston of the National Links were the only two players to get into the 70s (they both shot 79).

The article, in what seems like a real understatement, notes that "The course is more difficult than its Par 72 would indicate". Then the scores:e.g. CB Macdonald, National, 80; Martin W Littletown, Garden City, 106; Malcolm Stevenson, Piping Rock, 96; Jay Cooke, Huntingdon Valley, 92; Edward T. Wilson, Plainfield, 97; George I. Scott, Newport, 105; Henry Whigham, National, 86. And it goes on and on like that, with the bulk of the scores in the high 80s to mid 90s range.

I assume that "par" wasn't so precious a thing back then, and that there are a lot of other factors when it comes to scoring. But what surprised me is that article (and others like it) doesn't make a very big deal of it at all. It's as if "new course opens, par 72, most shoot in the 90s, next." No one is suggesting that CB had designed too hard a course. The article simply says "Many excellent plays marked the first round, but only two [players] were able to break into the coveted seventies".

Did they really 'judge' a course so differently in those days? (if that's a conclusion I can draw).  Was the relationship between "scoring" and "quality design" that non-existent back then?  Why'd they build them so hard?

Peter
 

[Pat Brockwell]

Why is the hole 4.25"?  Why is the playing ground varied, and not codified like a tennis court or football field?  Why is it so far from tee to green? Why are there hazards intentionally placed in the way?  It is because that's what raises our game, it's the whole reason that sport and competition exist.  We make our sports and competitions challenging so that we don't have to play survival of the fittest where fitness literally means survival.  If it was all about "easy", we'd just stay on the couch.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Your thread's questions are excellent ones---and historically pertinent ones. I think there are many more obvious answers than may at first appear, and I want to take a stab at those answers but I have to go to bed. See you manana.

[Phil_the_Author]

"Par" as the goal concept of what to score on a hole and in a round was not the same then as now. In fact in 1915, the year that you refer to, many players and writers, Tillinghast as an example, wrote of playing to a course's BOGEY.

You'll find this concept of Bogey golf holding true through 1905ish and began to gradually give way as that dreaded evil of technology, in this case steel shafts, aloud for longer and more accurate shots being hit.

A careful examination of scores in the U.S. Open clearly show this trend and are easily looked up. In 1910, Tilly finished as the second low amateur, in 25th place overall, his score of 316 being some 18 shots behind the winning score of 298 at the Philadelphia Cricket Club.

[Peter Pallotta]

Philip
thanks. Yes, I was aware of the "bogey" score concept, and the kind of (higher) numbers that tended to be shot back then. In fact, given all that, it seems even more striking that there's the line "the course plays harder than its Par 72 would indicate" -- implying that this "par" number was still meant to be in some way indicative of the scores that could be expected. But then 90% of the field doesn't even get close to that number.  

This is all just to clarify what struck me about this, i.e. it's not the scores themselves as much as the relationship in the 1910s and 20s between design/design philosophy and those scores. This particular article was chosen because of the designer involved, Macdonald, and because he also happened to be a champion golfer.  

Peter

[JESII]

I think expectations are the primary explanation for this outlook on scoring. Par was what supposed to be what the very best players might do if they played their best golf.

Proliferation of the sport, equipment technology and agronomic expertise are three things that have contributed to making the new "PAR" about 65...

[George Pazin]

This isn't really related to your initial question in your post, more the topic question, but I have come to change my feelings somewhat on hard golf courses.

I used to think any idiot could build a hard golf course. I still kind of believe that, but what I've come to appreciate more is how a hard course can be interesting and fun. I came to this belief following the 03 Open Championship at Sandwich, the 03 US Am at Oakmont and the 04 US Open at Shinney. (I have a feeling I'd say the same about the 04 US Am at Merion, but I didn't get to see much of that one.)

These 3 events opened my eyes to how a course can be very hard for the top players, yet not in a boring sense, ala water everywhere or mega rough everywhere. A truly firm and fast course really does highlight the architecture, as Tom P always says, without simply resorting to penalty stroke difficulties.

Water and hay don't really substantially change the "What's my yardage?" approach (unless coupled with IMM).

Sorry about the semi-threadjack, I just thought it was an appropriate place for these thoughts.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think expectations are the primary explanation for this outlook on scoring. Par was what supposed to be what the very best players might do if they played their best golf.

Proliferation of the sport, equipment technology and agronomic expertise are three things that have contributed to making the new "PAR" about 65...

JES - yes, but that still leaves me a little stumped. If today the new "par" is about 65, what would the reaction be to a course (designed by a top architect) that had the best players in the world all scoring in the high 70s and mid 80s their first time out on it? That's about what seemed to have happened in 1915, on Greebriar - but without any critcism of the course following.  (I would've thought we'd at least have gotten something akin to the reactions to Dye's TPC when it first opened.)

I grant that par was a more relative term back then, but they still chose to use it, so it must've meant something to them.   I also grant that maybe that day, not a single one of the best players played their best.  But a whole bunch of 90s and 100s? What kind of course did Macdonald build? It sure doesn't seem to be one at which par was "the result of standard good play".

Peter

[Gary Slatter]

Peter, if you took a similar group of CGA people to the opening of say, Sebonac, would their scores not be high?  From the 1915 list it looks like a social group and scores today would be very similar for an opening.  The average modern golfer hits it further, has better equipment, but still shoots in the high 80s.  
Or am I wrong and the list comprised the top players of 1915.

[JESII]

When I speak of expectations changing the outlook, and tieing it too the three examples I did it should mean that...because of a number of things (including my three items) peolpe now expect (or worse, feel entitled) to break par. There are so many people playing (by comparison to 1915), the holes all play so much shorter than what written expectations from architects suggest, and the built in maintenance excuse being eliminated have dramatically changed the way the top players think about the game...although, 10 over "PAR" was not the worst score out there last summer at Winged Foot...

[JESII]

Peter, if you took a similar group of CGA people to the opening of say, Sebonac, would their scores not be high?  From the 1915 list it looks like a social group and scores today would be very similar for an opening.  The average modern golfer hits it further, has better equipment, but still shoots in the high 80s.  
Or am I wrong and the list comprised the top players of 1915.

Gary,

That list from 1915 is pretty strong.

[Peter Pallotta]

JES
thanks - I don't mean to keep beating a dead horse, and as I mentioned, I know this whole thing might not come as much of a surprise to most others here, but maybe I can put it this way:

While today there is a much greater (and wider spread) expectation about breaking par, it took me by surprise that there seems to have been so little of that expectation back then. Whigham, Behr, Macdonald averaged about 83. The article says the new course "is more difficult than its PAR 72 would indicate" -- which suggests that a "par 72" DID indicate/imply something to these players back then. And yet nowhere have I seen anyone "questioning" a design (these types of scores were seen at other courses too) because it didn't give them a hope in hell of meeting that expectation.  

I hope I undertood your points correctly, and that I'm not just flogging away here...

Peter

[TEPaul]

Peter, let me ask you something;

If a club took a par 5 hole and did nothing at all to it other than to reduce its par to 4, do you think the hole has been made harder?

This is precisely what NGLA just did with #5, by the way.

[JESII]

Peter,

Maybe to answer a small part of the question...when I said "built in excuse" is taken away by todays maintenance practices, I mean to imply that in those days a certain number of strokes would be lost to maintenance issues that have been eliminated today, for a variety of reasons. Better grooming devices for the areas we groom, as well as those we do not (ie; bunkers, rough etc...).

If we were to put the genie back in the bottle and send todays best players out on a course maintained as they were in 1915 (especially on opening day), that "PAR" figure we have talked about would go up by a number of strokes. Let them use todays balls and clubs, and play todays length courses, but the entire maintenance portfolio goes back 90 years and scores would go up...and because of what we see today, the bitching would go up as well...this is where expectations come in.

[Ken Moum]

Peter, let me ask you something;

If a club took a par 5 hole and did nothing at all to it other than to reduce its par to 4, do you think the hole has been made harder?

This is precisely what NGLA just did with #5, by the way.

I'm obvioiusly not Peter, but one heck of a lot of golfers seem to think that it does make the hole harder. They're wrong, but try to tell them that.

Payne Stewart's famous exchange with Tom Meeks is typical:


Tom Meeks, who set up U.S. Open courses for 10 years, once told of a confrontation he had with the late Payne Stewart over changing the 16th hole at Pinehurst No. 2 into a par 4. Stewart argued that the green was not designed for a long iron.

"Tell you what, Payne," Meeks told him. "We'll move the tee back and make it 530 yards if you promise you and everyone else won't go for the green in two."

FWIW, that's from this recent AP Story: http://www.mytelus.com/sports/article.do?pageID=golf/home&articleID=2577810&

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah, geez, Tom, don't be asking ME questions...it's not in the natural order of things.

But my tentative answer is "No, the hole would not have been made any harder" by the conversion -- and certainly not "any harder" in an architectural sense.

It would score differently, but it would not play any differently or any easier (most of the time, for most players, in most conditions.)  

That's a big part of what I was asking about, and "asking" is the right word.  Some of those "high" 1915 scores and the reaction to them are explained by many other things, as people have rightly pointed out already.  

But the "architectural features and design philosophy" of a new CB Macdonald course -- and ITS relationship to scoring --is what I was most curious about. I was curious about whether there was something inherent in the designs/design philosophy of the time that made the pursuit of "par", however relative to today, a very different concept indeed.  

Btw, I was also struck by this particular example because Max Behr was one of only 2 players to break into the 70s. That was also interesting, and makes me even more impressed with Behr, i.e. his theories about freedom golf and naturalism and design obviously did not spring from "sour grapes" -- he proved that he could play the then-current courses pretty darn well, which means that his pursuit of something different was not based on his own personal motives/advantage.

Don't know if I've addressed the heart of your question, Tom  

Peter

[BCrosby]

Tom Meeks, who set up U.S. Open courses for 10 years, once told of a confrontation he had with the late Payne Stewart over changing the 16th hole at Pinehurst No. 2 into a par 4. Stewart argued that the green was not designed for a long iron.

"Tell you what, Payne," Meeks told him. "We'll move the tee back and make it 530 yards if you promise you and everyone else won't go for the green in two."

Tom Meeks' response is as silly as Stewart's question.

I think Peter is getting at a different issue here.

Transposed to modern times, the question is how would we react to a new course on which a former US Amateur champ (MacD) and a former NCAA champ (Behr) both shot 79's?

My guess is that there would be a lot of beefing about the course being too hard, no fun, over the top, a grind, a monster and other bad things.

But the players in 1915 loved the course. So why the different perceptions of difficulty?

Good question.

Bob

[RJ_Daley]

Well Peter, if you are wondering why no one pissed and moaned that all the players couldn't come close to the expected or accepted concept of par, and that they didn't cry about the design.... I think it is more of a question of their sporting character, in those by-gone days.  

I suspect that if the expectation and concept of par were dropped to about 65 on the typical top tournament course today (let's say Riviera), and no one in the field shot better than 69-70, then cry babies would be complaining about the design, IMHO.  Would the design be any less brilliant?  No, it would be a matter of the sporting character of the times, I think.  Of course that is totally hypothetical and won't become a matter that we could see in reality anytime (dropping par to as low as 65- which might be commeasurate to the expectations to technology and skill level ratio of today)

[Peter Pallotta]

Peter,

Maybe to answer a small part of the question...when I said "built in excuse" is taken away by todays maintenance practices, I mean to imply that in those days a certain number of strokes would be lost to maintenance issues that have been eliminated today, for a variety of reasons. Better grooming devices for the areas we groom, as well as those we do not (ie; bunkers, rough etc...).

JES - but wouldn't CB Macdonald of all people have known all about the nature/quality of the then-current maintenance practices (and equipment etc), and their affects on scoring? If so -- and I think the answer is yes -- he does not seem to have made any allowances for it in his design, at least not then. Did that change later on?

Peter

edit:

RJ - thanks. That aspect of it is something that escaped me.

Bob C - thanks. I wish I had your way with words.

[JESII]

Peter,

When did people begin making allowances for 12 feet stimp readings in their designs? Was it before or after the 12 foot stimp reading became a real potential achievement?

[Ken Moum]

Tom Meeks, who set up U.S. Open courses for 10 years, once told of a confrontation he had with the late Payne Stewart over changing the 16th hole at Pinehurst No. 2 into a par 4. Stewart argued that the green was not designed for a long iron.

"Tell you what, Payne," Meeks told him. "We'll move the tee back and make it 530 yards if you promise you and everyone else won't go for the green in two."

Tom Meeks' response is as silly as Stewart's question.

I think Peter is getting at a different issue here.

Transposed to modern times, the question is how would we react to a new course on which a former US Amateur champ (MacD) and a former NCAA champ (Behr) both shot 79's?

My guess is that there would be a lot of beefing about the course being too hard, no fun, over the top, a grind, a monster and other bad things.

But the players in 1915 loved the course. So why the different perceptions of difficulty?

Good question.

Bob

I know my note wasn't responsive to Peter's original question, but the interesting thing about Meek's comment was that it apparently caused Payne S. to totally change his mind about such issues.

Re. Peter's question, I have held a theory for some time that golfers used to think the game was supposed to be hard, and that difficulty attracted them to it.

I came to it by trying to figure out why modern implements-- folks say is making the game easier and more accessible--haven't resulted in beginners sticking around in significantly greater numbers.

When I learned to play, EVERYONE from pros to the worst hackers on my home course used wooden woods and tiny forged blades with balata balls and they seemed to enjoy themselves.

I believe that today's equipment has created a mindset for all levels of golfers that it's supposed to be easier. This has resulted in a sea change in golfer expectations, which is manifested in frustration and unhappiness.

FWIW, some of the happiest rounds of my golfing year have been played with either 1950s - 60s classics or with my hickory set. The scores I shoot with the classic stuff are virtually the same as my modern equipment, and the hickories are only a handful of shots worse.

[Peter Pallotta]

Peter,

When did people begin making allowances for 12 feet stimp readings in their designs? Was it before or after the 12 foot stimp reading became a real potential achievement?

JES - that's a good point, but I'm not sure it's applicable... because while Macdonald couldn't dictate or singlehandledly improve maintenance practices, he would've been well aware of how bad lies/bad turf affected play, and that's something  could have factored into his design, no?

Peter
 

[JESII]

No!

For the same reasons they didn't factor in future green speeds.

Those bad lies you discuss are part of the "expectation" of the game. I would bet CBM would crings at the consistency of surface preparation today.

If a great player played really well they might shoot par.

How difficult would a course have to be today for Ryan Moore to go out and play really well to shoot par?

[Cassandra Burns]

I thought the article reflected how much more difficult the game was to play back then.  It refers to the seventies as "coveted", while today's pros covet the sixties.  I wonder if the "meaning" of par was different back then.  Maybe it represented what they thought of as the theoretical pinnacle of golf performance, a degree of consistent skill not well known back then.  Yeesh, it was only twenty years previously that Freddie Tait broke the Old Course record by shooting 72.  In 1914, Vardon won the Open at Prestwick with a scoring average of 75.5 strokes, and only in 1910 did an Open winner at St Andrews average less than 75 strokes per round.  Scoring was much higher back then.

Nowadays players train with the idea of getting birdie on every hole, shooting for 54.  The game has definitely changed, and so has the "meaning" of par.

[Peter Pallotta]

But JES, that's part of my point; I've already agreed that "changing expectations" are part of it, and I'm not asking/expecting Macdonald to have factored-in future green speeds or better maintenance practices, or even to like or understand the standards that we have today.  

But at Greenbriar, Macdonald (and others, at other places) could have, for example, designed wider playing corriders throughout, or have every green with big openings that allowed for run-up shots all the time etc...ways that still demanded shot making but that allowed, a little, for the conditions he would've expected to find.

Later on, didn't others do something like that? Jones and Mackenzie at Augusta, for example, or the early version of Pebble Beach? (though I don't know enough to speculate on why they did, if they did). Did Macdonald start doing something like that a little later on too?

All I'm saying is that SOMETHING seems to have changed from the courses/philosophies of the 1910s and 1920s to those a designed and played on while later -- and it struck me that one of the ways this change was "reflected" was in scores; that's why the 1915 example was used.  And, any confusion about all that is my fault.

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()