Why'd They Build Them So Hard?

[JESII]

Are you trying to pick a fight with me?

Seriously, I'm not quite sure where our signals are getting crossed, but they must be.

I think the expectation of fairness was not a consideration 90 years ago.

To build a green complex with the consideration that a guy/girl might have to approach it from a poor turf lie can only comprimise the challenge presented when he/she has a good lie, and so I do not think they did then, and I hope they do not now.

I'm no expert, but my instinct is that Jones and MacKenzie may well have had a wholly different philosophy behind their wide corridor/ open in front approach. After all (and remember I've only seen Augusta on TV), the approaches to their greens at Augusta look pretty challenging to negotiate a run-up shot too. #5, #9, #11, #14 and #18 seem like tough bounce-in approach shots.

[Ken Moum]

How about the equipment factor? And effect did the total number of participants have?

First big change -- The Haskell ball was first generally available between 1900 and 1905.


In 1903, Willie Anderson shot 82 to win a playoff for the U.S. Open after shooting 307 for 72 holes.

In 1913, Ouimet shot 304, but followed it with a 72 in the playoff. Vardon and Ray shot 77 and 78 respectively.

Then steel shafts came along, but they weren't permitted under the rules until 1924.

In 1927 Armour shot 301 to win the U.S. Open

Jones won the Grand Slam in 1930 with hickory shooting 287 at the Open.

In 1932, Sarazen shot 66 to close the U.S.Open with a winning score of 286

Augusta National opened in 1933.

Horton Smith, the first winner of the Masters (1934), shot 284.

Johnny Fisher was the last to win a National Championship (the Amateur) with hickory in 1936

Perhaps the period your talking about from the early teens to the mid-30s was simply a time of massive change in the game here in the U.S. both in terms of technology and and the popularity of the game (thanks to Jones' exploits).

Given that, maybe it's natural that you'd see a big shift in how golf courses were designed and in what constituted "competitive" scores.

Disclaimer -- I admit to cherry picking some of those scores, but they reflect the general trends.

Ken

[Peter Pallotta]

JES, Cassandra, Ken M - thanks.

Yes, in many ways a period of massive change, and as Bob C points out, of differing (and changing?) perceptions of difficulty. And all the while the Macdonalds of the world designing golf courses....that mirrored? led? followed these changes?

Peter

[JESII]

And all the while the Macdonalds of the world designing golf courses....that mirrored? led? followed these changes?

Peter

Believe it or not, I think design almost evolves on a different plane than advancements in the other things relating to golf...

[Peter Pallotta]

That might well be, JES, that might well be....especially in general terms.  

If there are specific examples of courses/writing that support or refute that idea, I wouldn't know them...

The only nuance I'd suggest is that maybe that isn't the case in terms of one particular architect over the span of his one particular career, i.e. his general ideas might develop on another plane, but the details/specifics of a given design might be influenced by the turf and equipment changes happening all around him

Peter    

[Jeff Doerr]

Peter,

Do you think we might be coming back to that idea? I bring this up as I think about the additional tees that are available around Bandon. It seems that a number of the holes have a back tee (tees) that are not on the card. I think creativity was allowed to find additional tees.

Does anyone know what the true "tips" would be at those three courses? What would the ratings be? I think from the absolute tips those courses would be very hard.

[Jeff Doerr]

Additional questions...

Are we seeing a renaissance in design where strict par is not adhered to (3.5 & 4.5 holes) and holes are not required to have just red (5200), white (6000), blue (6600), and black tees (7000)?

[JESII]

The only nuance I'd suggest is that maybe that isn't the case in terms of one particular architect over the span of his one particular career, i.e. his general ideas might develop on another plane, but the details/specifics of a given design might be influenced by the turf and equipment changes happening all around him

Peter    

Can't disagree Peter...

guess I'd say then suggest the GCA follows the changes occuring on the golf course, as opposed to vice versa...much to our chagrin...


Can we dig up an example of an architect dictating an evolutionary step in the golfers expectations from a round of golf?

First nomination...How about the gigantic D-4 (?) earth movers?

[Tags:]

Tags: