[Adam Clayman]

From Dictionary.com Guise;

6.   Scot. and North England. to appear or go in disguise.

Appropriate regional origin

And, From today's Geoff Shackelford quote, which touches on what I perceive as one of the weakest links in the counter-argument for us unconventionalists raging against the staus quo (American Style golf courses).

America has developed a more or less stereotyped shot to the green that is the high, all-carry shot. This has been brought about no doubt by the fact that fairways and particularly approaches have gone unwatered during the summer when the ground has become hard. It is much simpler to play a high carry shot to a soft green which gets water than to attempt a pitch and run to a green with a cement like approach.  WILLIAM FLYNN

[Marty Bonnar]

Adam,
bloody interesting that you should choose this time of the year to discuss the 'Guise'.

You see, 'Guising' and being a 'Guiser' is the original Scots way of celebrating Halloween.

Going out in disguise was the traditional way of celebrating this wonderfully Pagan celebration. Kids would dress up as all manner of things - not necessarily, always 'horrific' but often witty, political or anti-establishment in simple ways and always reflecting popular culture.

In this country, there was NEVER any history of 'trick-or-treating' as you guys know it. That, like much American 'culture', is only recently slowly seeping into ours like a benign slimy slug. We'd go around with our carved turnip lanterns - no pumpkins ever grew in Scotland! - and sing songs or tell jokes to our neighbours for small presents like chocolates, fruit or maybe small change.

For you see, Halloween - or more properly All Hallows Eve - was a celebration of Autumnal plenty and of Nature's re-seeding of the earth and of future harvests to be had.

I have no idea if this is even vaguely architectural, but I have the feeling it may be...

Now, roll on Xmas - or, should I say - the Winter Solstice celebrations....

FBD.

[Brian_Ewen]

Spot On , Sir !!!

[JESII]

Adam,

Pardon my idiocy this afternoon, but that post of yours had too many negatives for me unwind..."weakest - counter argument - unconventionalist - raging against" I'm sorry, I'm just not sure if you think the Flynn quote is accurate, inaccurate or anything else...but I do think it is interesting and wouldn't mind fighting about it a little bit...

[Adam Clayman]

Martin, You ought to take a page from the local Nebraskans and go Trick or Drink'in. Thanks.

Sully, Deep in the midst of this vast DG are sporatic references to making the sport easier, under the guise of making it harder.

I'll leave you with that, for now, and see if anything sticks.

[JESII]

Now them sounds like fightin' words...

I'm a simple man though...

?

[Paul_Turner]

As a boy I used to play a course calles Aspley Guise in Bedfordshire, England.  The original (back) 9 was pretty good.

http://www.aspleyguisegolfclub.co.uk/

[Adam Clayman]

The key word in the Flynn quote above is "Simpler".

Stereotypical American golf courses rely soley on aerial approach. Even Jack's desire to make the player carry a bunker inorder to test his skill fully is poopycock.

Soft receptive greens, week in week out, on the PGA tour (or at your local muni) does NOT test players ability fully. It is a repetitive test, the same test hole after hole. This is the antithesis of variety and is at the root cause for the mediocrity on too many courses nowadays.

There are other examples of the use of "the guise". I'll just start with one, faster greens. Are they really harder? Or, have people been conditioned to believe they are harder?

[Jim Nugent]

I don't understand Flynn, because seems like he contradicts himself.  He says hard, unwatered airways and approaches encourage the aerial approach on U.S. courses.  Isn't the exact opposite true?  

[Rich Goodale]

I agree, Jim.  Adam--are you sure you copied the quote properly?

What he should have said is something like "the practice of watering greens in the summer makes them soft and encourages the high approach shot."

All other things being equal, fast and firm approaches will encourage the ground game, regardless of what is being done with the green itself.

Maybe Flynn was taking writing lessons from Max Behr at the time.........

[TEPaul]

"I agree, Jim.  Adam--are you sure you copied the quote properly?

Richard the Quintuple Obtuse:

It doesn't surprise me you wrote the above post:


"What he should have said is something like "the practice of watering greens in the summer makes them soft and encourages the high approach shot."

That, is in fact essentially what Flynn did say!  

"All other things being equal, fast and firm approaches will encourage the ground game, regardless of what is being done with the green itself."

That remark only proves you have no understanding of the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" and what exactly it takes to produce it, particularly for the good player.

There's not much about Flynn's writing that's all that difficult to understand, or Behr's writing for that matter. The problem merely lies in the fact you don't know how to read particularly well.

[Eric Franzen]

The quote is lifted from Flynn's "Analysis of Layout" which was published in the USGA Green Section Bulletin, October 1927. The piece is also included in Shackelford's "Masters of the Links".

Adam's copy of the mentioned quote is the real thing - word by word.

After the last sentence Flynn continues:

"In the first case, when all greens are watered a constant condition prevails, but in the case of the run-up approach the ball hits and is liable to bounce anywhere.

In order to cultivate the pitch and run, the run-up shot or the long iron or wood with run, it is necessary to present a suitable playing condition on the approach and this can best be brought about by the architect insisting on a water system for fairways and by the greenkeeper making generous use of it."  

[Rich Goodale]

So, Tommy, does the IMM for a Flynn course involve:

"......the architect insisting on a water system for fairways and by the greenkeeper making generous use of it, "as Eric quotes below?  If so, I'd say that Flynn didn't have a clue about either maintenance or the beauty of chance and uncertainty in the game.

No wonder you have chosen to play very little golf on links courses--those laser like approaches of yours might just take a nasty bounce from time to time and miss the green.  What a (theoretical) pity.....

Cheersfully

Rich

[TEPaul]

"So, Tommy, does the IMM for a Flynn course involve:

"......the architect insisting on a water system for fairways and by the greenkeeper making generous use of it, "as Eric quotes below?  If so, I'd say that Flynn didn't have a clue about either maintenance or the beauty of chance and uncertainty in the game."


No Richard, I certainly don't believe that Flynn didn't have a clue about either maintenance or the beauty of chance and the uncertainty of the game. The fact is Flynn was considered to be one of the best and most knowledgeable greenkeepers in America and by 1927 a pretty fine golf architect too. He was also a very good player.

He wrote a couple of articles for the USGA Green Section in 1927 and this one is one of them. Another of those articles in 1927 contained that famous remark of his that if something wasn't done soon about the continued increase in distance of the golf ball architects would soon have to build 8,000 yard golf courses.

I realize when more than one or two somewhat problematic issues are extant in golf and architecture and maintenance and solutions are offered to overcome them it may tend to confuse you but in my opinion (and in Wayne's) the recommendation he made in this vein (watering fairways) happens to be one of them.

Flynn was simply suggesting that something else should be done about summer conditions of very hard (very firm) conditions on fairways (a "through the green" area) given the one dimensional playability of constantly soft greens.  As almost anyone can intuit he felt that combination of very firm fairways and soft greens simply promoted an aerial shot directly to greens.

His solution was to maintain approaches that allowed the golf ball to bounce and roll through them but with the rest of fairway areas that were watered and did not bounce and run.

Now ask yourself why he would suggest that fairways (obviously areas that could be considered tee shot fairway aqrea and such) be watered whereby the ball did not bounce and run. If you can't figure that out I'd be glad to fill you in later.

Also ask yourself why he might suggest that approaches might function whereby the ball DID bounce and run through them.

Also ask yourself why he apparently was implying that greens not be completely over-watered and soft all the time.  

The problem with people like you trying to understand all this is you get confused too easily and one way that happens is you probably assume when Flynn mentioned "fairways" being liberally watered he ALSO meant the approaches (which some rightly assume to also be "fairway". I say rightly assume to be fairway area because technically they are fairway area ).

But that is not what Flynn was suggesting.

He was suggesting that fairway landing areas (obviously those areas that could be considered things like tee shot landing areas) be liberally watered and obviously that was to slow down golf balls and make courses play longer due to the exessive distance increase of the golf ball.

But on approaches he was suggesting that they function via the bounce and roll of the ball (the ground game approach shot).

And he also appears to suggest that all greens should not be overwatered all the time (always soft and super receptive) because that merely creates a super soft condition conducive to the use of aerial shots all the time.

In fact his suggestions, minus the suggestion of the liberally watered fairway "landing areas", IS the IMM but I would never expect you to understand something like that at first blush.  

Again, the fact that he was suggesting that areas that could be considered tee shot landing areas be liberally watered is an interesting and somewhat curious suggestion but the fact is that would be a maintenance practice that would serve the purpose of slowing down the ball in tee shot landing areas and making a golf course play longer which was merely ANOTHER problem Flynn was concerned about at that time (again, hence the need for 8,000 yard courses unless something was done about excessive distance increase and/or the problem of super firm summer fairway conditions of unirrigated fairways combined with soft greens that promoted not much more than aerial shots to greens).

I know it's tough for you to understand, Rihc, but it ain't exactly rocket science.  

[Rich Goodale]

Tom, Tom, Tom.....

Please re-read the initial quote on this thread, specifically the places where Flynn uses the words:

--"particularly approaches" and
--"cement like approach"

If he's not arguing for a Doral-type "maintenance meld" where the approaches are watered, rather than fast and firm, then what exactly is he arguing for?  Just to argue (not unlike some of us on this board )....

Rich

[wsmorrison]

Rich,

If one keeps in mind that back in the 1920s most of the watering was done on the greens (and too much at that) and very little watering was done to the fairways (most courses only had snap valves that hoses were connected to) so there was a disconnect between how the fairways played and how the greens played.  Significantly more watering would be needed on the approaches to alter their concrete like condition IN THE SUMMER to the integrated fairway/approach/green maintenance meld we see today with firm and fast fairways and approaches. Today's seemingly dry, firm and fast fairways and approaches are watered A LOT more than they were in the early days.  It is simply a matter of relativity.

I too read the quote many years ago and my initial reaction was much like yours.  The more I thought about it and the more aware I became of the conditions at the time he wrote the series, the more it became clearer that 1) we have to be careful how we look back in time given our backwards bias and 2) he was advocating the ideal MM we all crave for today.

His idea to over-water the landing areas to make courses that were not designed for the lengths the balls were traveling in the mid-1920s still enjoyable was a rather unique reaction to what was happening to golf courses.  They were becoming obsolete and he being the outstanding greenkeeper he once was, thought of the most cost-efficient means to control the issue so the cost of golf and the redesigning of golf courses could be controlled.

It all makes sense if you don't rush to judgment and consider the time he wrote without 2007 lenses.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, Tom, Tom.....  

Please re-read the initial quote on this thread, specifically the places where Flynn uses the words:

--"particularly approaches" and
--"cement like approach"

If he's not arguing for a Doral-type "maintenance meld" where the approaches are watered, rather than fast and firm, then what exactly is he arguing for?"

Richard:

Regarding the approaches, what does this sound like Flynn was saying?

“In order to cultivate the pitch and run, the run-up shot or the long iron or wood with run, it is necessary to present a suitable playing condition on the approach…”

If you can't even understand the point of that Flynn remark I doubt there's much more even I can do for you. It may be a good idea for you to go to the USGA's Green Section and read Flynn's articles in their entirety instead of making some dumb assumptions via one quotation from one of those articles.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

I understand what Flynn wrote, I just believe he is mistaken.  Generously watering the approaches is what Doral did to its 18th a few years ago, and a number of people, including you, rightly chastised them for the practice.  Maybe you can tell me how watering the approaches to a green facilitates the bump and run shot?  I think it stifles it.

Wayne

I understand your point too, which effectively is that Flynn thought that soften up an existing course would help deal with the distance problem.  I disagree with that philosophy, too, as it is a short term fix to a longer term problem, and one which in the interim makes the game far less interesting to play (i.e. an aerial game).

[Sean_A]

The quote is lifted from Flynn's "Analysis of Layout" which was published in the USGA Green Section Bulletin, October 1927. The piece is also included in Shackelford's "Masters of the Links".

Adam's copy of the mentioned quote is the real thing - word by word.

After the last sentence Flynn continues:

"In the first case, when all greens are watered a constant condition prevails, but in the case of the run-up approach the ball hits and is liable to bounce anywhere.

In order to cultivate the pitch and run, the run-up shot or the long iron or wood with run, it is necessary to present a suitable playing condition on the approach and this can best be brought about by the architect insisting on a water system for fairways and by the greenkeeper making generous use of it."  

I understand the quote, but like Rich, I disagree completely.  The way to solve the problem of greens being too receptive (this was the original problem, no?) is to encourage the growth of grass which can take less water to stay healthy.  In addition, perhaps some more considered thought should be given to the height of the grass on the greens!  Rich is right, watering the approach to match an already (presumably soggy if it is no decision to make between the aerial and bump and run shot) green is no proper solution at all.  Of course, Flynn doesn't qualify what "generous use" of water is.  So in truth, none of us really knows exactly what the man meant because the quote doesn't provide enough info.  

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Richard Farnsworth Goodale said:.

“Tom
I understand what Flynn wrote, I just believe he is mistaken.  Generously watering the approaches is what Doral did to its 18th a few years ago, and a number of people, including you, rightly chastised them for the practice.  Maybe you can tell me how watering the approaches to a green facilitates the bump and run shot?  I think it stifles it.”

Rich:

It’s pretty hard to try to imagine why you make the assumptions you do and consequently say some of the things you do. Where did Flynn say in any of those articles that he recommended “generously watering” approaches???

This is what he said in that article about approaches and their playability:

“In order to cultivate the pitch and run, the run-up shot or the long iron or wood with run, it is necessary to present a suitable playing condition on the approach…”

Does presenting a suitable playing condition on the approach to cultivate the pitch and run, the run-up shot or the long iron or wood with run sound to you like he was suggesting the approaches be ‘generously watered’ which would serve to stifle those types of approach shots?

[Rich Goodale]

Richard Farnsworth Goodale said:.

“Tom
I understand what Flynn wrote, I just believe he is mistaken.  Generously watering the approaches is what Doral did to its 18th a few years ago, and a number of people, including you, rightly chastised them for the practice.  Maybe you can tell me how watering the approaches to a green facilitates the bump and run shot?  I think it stifles it.”

Rich:

It’s pretty hard to try to imagine why you make the assumptions you do and consequently say some of the things you do. Where did Flynn say in any of those articles that he recommended “generously watering” approaches???

This is what he said in that article about approaches and their playability:

“In order to cultivate the pitch and run, the run-up shot or the long iron or wood with run, it is necessary to present a suitable playing condition on the approach…”

Does presenting a suitable playing condition on the approach to cultivate the pitch and run, the run-up shot or the long iron or wood with run sound to you like he was suggesting the approaches be ‘generously watered’ which would serve to stifle those types of approach shots?

Tom

Read Eric Franzen's post copied for your convenience below.  I accept your gracious apology in advance.

Rich

(Eric writes)

The quote is lifted from Flynn's "Analysis of Layout" which was published in the USGA Green Section Bulletin, October 1927. The piece is also included in Shackelford's "Masters of the Links".

Adam's copy of the mentioned quote is the real thing - word by word.

After the last sentence Flynn continues:

"In the first case, when all greens are watered a constant condition prevails, but in the case of the run-up approach the ball hits and is liable to bounce anywhere.

In order to cultivate the pitch and run, the run-up shot or the long iron or wood with run, it is necessary to present a suitable playing condition on the approach and this can best be brought about by the architect insisting on a water system for fairways and by the greenkeeper making generous use of it."  

[TEPaul]

William Flynn said in 1927:

"In order to cultivate the pitch and run, the run-up shot or the long iron or wood with run, it is necessary to present a suitable playing condition on the approach and this can best be brought about by the architect insisting on a water system for fairways and by the greenkeeper making generous use of it."  

Apparenlty some of you guys are not understanding the drift of what Flynn was saying and recommending in that remark above.

Back in the 1920s many to most courses were irrigated by snap values and hoses. Automated irrigation systems were rare in those days (Cypress had an interesting and rudimentary one around 1930 with apparently permanent above ground circular sprinklers in the fairways that appeared to be about two feet high ).

Another example of irrigation methods back in that day is the interesting story from 50 year Pine Valley super Eb Steineger (who began at PV around 1925) about why the alternate fairway on PV's #17 went out of existence ("because the hoses didn't reach it") is another example of fairway irrigation methods of that early time (localized snap valve and hose irrigation).

Flynn wrote those articles in 1927.

What he was recommending is generous watering of the localized tee shot landing zones with hoses. And why did he recommend that? Apparently to slow down tee shots from excessive bounce and roll so that the golf ball which many at that time thought was going too far wouldn't go so far off the tee shot.

Obviously Flynn was not suggesting that the approaches should be so generously watered for the simple reason he was suggesting that the ball should bounce and run through them as can be seen in what he said in that remark above.

Flynn's recommendations are pretty clever and designed to basically achieve two purposes---eg to make courses longer by generously watering tee shot landing zones and such but also promoting ground game shots through the approaches.

The fact is the first solution serves to make the approach shot longer and the second serves to offer another option other than just aerial shots to soft greens----hence the pitch and run, run-up shots and long irons and woods with run through the approaches as he said in that remark above.

Even though it was a pretty clever and perhaps novel prescription on his part it's not THAT complicated to understand. So the question is, why are you guys having such a hard time understanding it?

In fairness to you, you may be having a hard time understanding it because you haven't considered some of the maintenance methods used for particularly irrigation back in that day----eg localized snap valve and hoses.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

Either Flynn couldn't write or you can't read, but if you really believe what you wrote above, good luck to you, Buckaroo!

Rich

[TEPaul]

"After the last sentence Flynn continues:

"In the first case, when all greens are watered a constant condition prevails, but in the case of the run-up approach the ball hits and is liable to bounce anywhere.

In order to cultivate the pitch and run, the run-up shot or the long iron or wood with run, it is necessary to present a suitable playing condition on the approach and this can best be brought about by the architect insisting on a water system for fairways and by the greenkeeper making generous use of it."  


Richard:

Is it at all possible that you can contemplate an irrigation and playability mix that promotes a pitch and run shot, a run-up shot with a long iron or wood that is somewhere between a totally unirrigated cement hard approach where the ball will go practically anywhere and an approach that is generously irrigated to such an extent that it completely stifles those types of bounce and roll and run-in approach shots???

Perhaps you can't contemplate such maintenance mix but William Flynn certainly did.

I guess that's precisely why he was considered to be such a first class greenkeeper (and designer and player) and I guess that's also why you are still such a dunce on these issues.

You can offer your apology any time you want but I'm not going to be holding my breath waiting for it.

Come on Richard, give it up on the automatic intransigence and arguing and just admit to the obvious. Again, this stuff is not exactly rocket science.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom
Either Flynn couldn't write or you can't read, but if you really believe what you wrote above, good luck to you, Buckaroo!"

Rich:

That remark---that someone can't write and/or someone else can't read always seems to be your last line of defense and argumentation. It's complete bullshit and I'm certain you're smart enough to know that.

What I've written on this thread about what Flynn was proposing in this vein is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  The fact that you can't understand it or are too defensive to admit it is just something else altogether and it's become a complete waste of time.

What I just can't understand is why you are unable to see the logic and functionality of it. It's just not all that hard to understand.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()