News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


David_Tepper

Re: Has golf's broadened popularty been at the expense of the architecture ?
« Reply #50 on: February 14, 2008, 09:55:45 PM »
Patrick -

I doubt anyone is finding this thread more comical than I am!

DT

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Has golf's broadened popularty been at the expense of the architecture ?
« Reply #51 on: February 14, 2008, 10:07:26 PM »
David,

That's great.

It's good to laugh at yourself.

They say laughter is the best medicine.

Sean_A

Re: Has golf's broadened popularty been at the expense of the architecture ?
« Reply #52 on: February 15, 2008, 04:58:34 AM »

Pat

I am not sure of what the "playing field" is. 

Have someone who understands what it is explain it to you.
[/color]

Is this some sort of generic course that exists in your mind ?

It's not generic, it's easily identifiable on every golf course.
Have someone who understands the concept explain or point it out to you.
[/color]
 
Length can be a big change for course. 

Not in the context of keeping the course "current" in light of increased distance vis a vis hi-tech equipment.  The great majority of courses lag well behind the curve.
[/color]

Additionally, details of many courses have been altered over the years in an effort to be more challenging. 

Really.

So, it's your contention that courses have been architecturally beefed up to make them more challenging ?  That they've added bunkers and water hazards ?  That they've put more slope and contour into the putting surfaces ?  And in general have made the architectural features more difficult ?  That's a novel theory, one not proven by the facts.
[/color]

You of all people should accept that a great many courses have been altered over the years because you are forever railing on about it. 


Don't be vague or nondiscriptive, what courses ?
Be specific.

My complaint isn't that courses have been altered to make them more challenging.  So, I don't know where you concocted that erroneous idea.
[/color]

Jeepers, loads of courses would change even if man didn't design the changes.

Would you tell me how NGLA, Shinnecock, GCGC and TOC would change if man didn't change them ?
[/color] 

So far, you have not shown any evidence which directly links the increased popularity of golf at the expense of architecture.  You made a few proclaimations and expected (presumably) your audience to accept them.  Turn over some credible evidence and I will give your question more consideration, or is this a rhetorical question ?

Only someone with limited or non-existent powers of observation could make a remark like the one above.

Credible evidence ?

What do you call the removal of bunkers ?
What do you call the softening of bunkers ?
What do you call the removal of slope in the putting surface ?
What do you call the removal of contour in the putting surface ?
What do you call the building of five and six sets of tees ?
What do you call the creation of buffers of rough between fairway and bunkers ?
What do you call the creation of buffers of rough between the fairway and water hazards ?
What do you call the removal of pronounced earthen features ?
What do you call the softening of prounounced earthen features ?   

You'd have to be obtuse, at best, not to see the trend.
[/color]


Patrick

I see you have reverted once again to playground logic - callem' names and perhaps he will give in.

A very fine list, but its a meaningless list.  Individually, any item on that list could serve to make a course better or just different.  You need to dig much deeper to prove your point.  Furthermore, you still have not made any connection between this list and broadened popularity of the game - you know - old fashioned cause and effect.

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Has golf's broadened popularty been at the expense of the architecture ?
« Reply #53 on: February 15, 2008, 05:20:17 AM »
Sean,

I can't help it if you can't connect the dots.

How can you state that creating buffers of rough between the fairways and hazards isn't dumbing down the golf course ?

How can you possibly state that it makes the course better ?

The same goes for all of the items on the list.

Saying you're obtuse isn't name calling, it's a statement of fact.

Sean_A

Re: Has golf's broadened popularty been at the expense of the architecture ?
« Reply #54 on: February 15, 2008, 06:04:19 AM »
Sean,

I can't help it if you can't connect the dots.

How can you state that creating buffers of rough between the fairways and hazards isn't dumbing down the golf course ?

How can you possibly state that it makes the course better ?

The same goes for all of the items on the list.

Saying you're obtuse isn't name calling, it's a statement of fact.

Pat

It doesn't matter if I believe a course has been dumbed down or not.  The question "Has golf's broadened popularty been at the expense of the architecture ?" has not been answered with any sense logic.  You have thrown out anecdotal evidence without tying the knots.  If you believe the popularity of golf has dumbed down architecture prove it.  Show causation between the two.

Ciao   
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Has golf's broadened popularty been at the expense of the architecture ?
« Reply #55 on: February 15, 2008, 07:02:39 AM »
Sean,

OK.

Is creating a buffer of rough between a bunker and the fairway in order to slow down and prevent the ball from running into that bunker dumbing down the architecture ?

Does the addition of that feature defeat the architect's purpose and the architectural function of that bunker ?

Sean_A

Re: Has golf's broadened popularty been at the expense of the architecture ?
« Reply #56 on: February 15, 2008, 07:06:51 AM »
Sean,

OK.

Is creating a buffer of rough between a bunker and the fairway in order to slow down and prevent the ball from running into that bunker dumbing down the architecture ?

Does the addition of that feature defeat the architect's purpose and the architectural function of that bunker ?

Patrick

Generally speaking I would say that leaving bunkers stranded in the rough isn't clever.  However, I couldn't say with any confidence that the popularity of the game was the reason for leaving a bunker(s) stranded.  Again, its quite obvious that I like to see short grass feeding bunkers and other hazards, but so what?

Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Has golf's broadened popularty been at the expense of the architecture ?
« Reply #57 on: February 15, 2008, 08:07:38 AM »
Sean,

Just answer the specific questions with a direct answer, not generalities , conjecture or your own conclusions.  There's no need to go beyond and ramble about each specific question

If you can't answer the questions, it confirms my thoughts

Phil Benedict

Re: Has golf's broadened popularty been at the expense of the architecture ?
« Reply #58 on: February 15, 2008, 11:35:26 AM »


What do you call the removal of bunkers ?
What do you call the softening of bunkers ?
What do you call the removal of slope in the putting surface ?
What do you call the removal of contour in the putting surface ?
What do you call the building of five and six sets of tees ?
What do you call the creation of buffers of rough between fairway and bunkers ?
What do you call the creation of buffers of rough between the fairway and water hazards ?
What do you call the removal of pronounced earthen features ?
What do you call the softening of prounounced earthen features ?   




Patrick,

It's not clear to me how many of the outrages you list result from golf's broadened popularity.  I can't speak to every item on your list but there are alternate explanations for most of them.  Green slope and contours have been softened to accomodate higher green speeds; buffers of rough around hazards, particularly bunkers, reflect irrigation and the general narrowing of fairway widths over the years.  The removal/softening of earthen features reflect an aversion to blindness.  I'll grant your point on multiple tees.

Where is the causal relation between these trends and golf's broadened popularity?  I could argue the PGA Tour is a bigger factor.  Every week they promote fast greens as the standard; play tight courses with high rough; and bitch about blind shots if there happen to be any.


David_Tepper

Re: Has golf's broadened popularty been at the expense of the architecture ?
« Reply #59 on: February 15, 2008, 12:03:13 PM »
Pat -

Thank goodness I still have the ability to laugh at myself.

However, I do find your pose as the ultimate authority, all full of bluff & bluster, rather entertaining.  It is like you have created a persona from a P.G. Wodehouse story. Roderick Spode lives! ;)

DT

Tags: