Has golf's broadened popularty been at the expense of the architecture ?

[Jason McNamara]

Reading the "Wall Street Journal" article today, I was struck by the rapid capitulation on the part of the club when it came to dumbing down, disfiguring or destroying the architecture, vis a vis an ad hoc referendum.

Is this "architecture's" fate ?

In many places, probably so.   Not everyone wants a Phillip Johnson house.  In fact, most don't.  (And some that do can't pay the premium.)

And a sillier example: the original Trivial Pursuit game was definitely more challenging than the follow-on versions. 

As the spectrum of golfers expanded and broadened, as more people were brought into the game with NO prior connection, has challenging architecture fallen out of favor ?

Pat, were there similar situations in the 60's, with Arnold Palmer bringing more people into the game?    (This isn't rhetorical; I don't know.)

Has the broadened spectrum of golfers resulted in more whiners who want to see the challenge "softened" to suit their own games ?

The article you mentioned made the case that it was a function of demographics. 

As you yourself say, "The golfer universe wants to score as well as they can, irrespective of their having or not having a handicap."



PS:  Terry, please take your political whining to LerachWasFramed.com.  (Or edit your post, at which point I will be happy to edit this one.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kirk Gill,

I believe that as golf broadened its appeal to a wider spectrum of golfer, that the architectural features were compromised in order to gain that more universal appeal.

I also think that the "me" generation is responsible for dumbing down courses to fit their games.

Jim Nugent,

The problem with your premise is that you're taking a handful of courses and holding them out to be representative of the golfing universe.

You can't take a dozen great golf courses and hold them up as a representative sampling of ALL the courses built in the last few decades.

And, if you look at the existing number of courses, ask yourself, have they increased or diminished the challenge ?

Jason Macnamara,

Your Arnold Palmer question is interesting.

Arnold certainly popularized Tournament Golf and the PGA Tour, but, I don't know that his influence extended beyond those that already played the game.  I don't know that he brought new blood into the game.

I also think that the times were different.
People accepted things the way they were.
Today, everyone wants to change things to their liking.

Golf in 1958 was vastly different from golf in 2008, as was society.

I don't want to get off on a rant, but, "The Greatest Generation" endured the Great Depression and World War II.  They accepted adversity and met the challenge, in life and in golf.  Today, everyone meets the challenge and wants to make it "more fair" for the entire spectrum of golfers.

In the old days, and I'm really old, if you wanted to score better, you took lessons and/or practiced more.  Today, if you want to score better, you lobby to remove the bunkers and features that pose a strategic challenge to your game.

[Mike McGuire]

Pat-

I fear it has at our private club. Our core golfers are being replaced by people new to the sport. It is difficult for them to understand architecture as they are concerned more with how to play - how to act - or who to entertain.

It could impact architecture if course restoration efforts hinge on votes.

[David_Tepper]

In 1782, Benjamin Franklin discerned a "general, happy mediocrity" in the young nation of America.  Some things never change and the more some things change, the more they remain the same. The sound of boring old farts, pining for the good ole' days, would appear to be one of those things! 

[Jim Nugent]

Jim Nugent,

The problem with your premise is that you're taking a handful of courses and holding them out to be representative of the golfing universe.

You can't take a dozen great golf courses and hold them up as a representative sampling of ALL the courses built in the last few decades.

And, if you look at the existing number of courses, ask yourself, have they increased or diminished the challenge ?

Have no opinion about existing courses.  Unfortunately I'm too far removed.  One way to measure it: compare slopes and course ratings over time. 

Since 1960, have they gone up, down, or stayed the same?  If they are higher, that suggests courses overall might be harder now.  If lower, they might be easier.  Perhaps some of our posters who do ratings can give us info on this. 

Say you are right, and many existing courses have dumbed themselves down.  There also is the opposite trend.  the hundreds (not just a handful) of excellent new courses that have been built the past several decades.  One sign of this is that at least 35 of Golf Magazine's top U.S. 100 list are modern.       

The architects on this board, among others, build more tremendous new courses each year.  We did not see their type of courses, before the game grew.  We saw RTJ. 

Anecdotally, seems like there are far more good courses for public players, than there were even in the 1960's. 

The original example you gave is kind of the opposite of what you intended.   At Soule Park they didn't dumb down an existing course.  They made it a lot harder.  That is what upset so many golfers. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Nugent,

That's my point.

The challenge that was heightened at Soule Park was screamed down.

There's clearly a trend away from demanding or penal architecture at the local level.

David Tepper,

Inexperience isn't a good teacher.

The trend in golf has been away from penal architecture.
The trend has been to make golf courses "more fair"

If you look at sports in general, they've been dumbed down.

From the hash marks on the football field being moved in, to the walls in the baseball parks being moved in, all to make it easier to score, because in those sports, scoring equals entertainment value, equals dollars.

Low scores in golf do the same.

There's a reason that Pine Valley, GCGC, Seminole and other courses remain so attractive.  They haven't caved in to the trend to make golf courses "more fair".  They haven't removed their most challenging features and hazards to pander to the broader spectrum of golfer.

We've become soft.
Our "golfing" wills have diminished.

Curiously, Americans make the pilgrimage to the UK to play golf as it was meant to be played, yet, on their home courses, they reject the very features that they traveled thousands of miles and paid thousands of dollars to experience.

I don't know how much experience you've had as a green chairman.
Perhaps none.  But, you'd be amazed at the complaints superintendents and green chairman receive from the members. 
 
Here are a few examples that just relate to ONE bunker:

The sand is too hard,
the sand is too soft,
the sand isn't raked,
the sand is raked wrong,
there's too much sand,
there's not enough sand,
the sand isn't evenly distributed.
the sand is wet
the sand is too dry
there's different sand in the sand.
The sand is too fine
The sand is too course
the sand is too bright
the sand is too dull
the sand isn't raked enough
the sand is raked too often.
the rakes are too heavy
the rakes are too light
there aren't enough rakes
there are too many rakes
the rakes should be out of the bunker
the rakes should be in the bunker.
the lip is too high
the lip is too low
the banks are too steep
the banks aren't steep enough

That's just a few of the complaints on just one bunker AND the really important thing to know, is that many of those conflicting complaints come from the same golfer.  The only thing that's different is how that bunker treated him or his opponent that given day.

If his opponent putted out of the bunker he wants steeper lips/faces.
If he hit into the bank, he wants the lips/faces reduced.

The overwhelming gist/trend is that the golfer wants to amend the individual features on the golf course to suit his game.

Since most clubs operate under that foolish form of government known as democracy, that golfer will seek to lobby to have the feature that troubles him the most ..... altered.  And in doing so, he gains support from his fellow members, if he will support their pet peeves.  Soon a groundswell occurs to modify-alter-disfigure the golf course in the name of making it "more fair" to a broader spectrum of golfers.

This is the systemic "dumbing down" of golf courses, which has been and continues to be THE trend in golf.

Ask yourself, over the last 4, 6 or 8 decades, have more bunkers been added or removed from existing golf courses, and to what degree, what ratio ?

WHY do you think that is ?

Why has course after course removed thousands of bunkers while few if any courses have added bunkers ?

Look what happened at Soule Park.
Does that not prove the point ?

As you get older, and hopefully wiser, you'll begin to get it. 

[David_Tepper]

Pat -

It's all Gene Sarazen's fault. If he hadn't invented the sand wedge, golf would be SUCH a better game!

DT

[Jason McNamara]

I believe that as golf broadened its appeal to a wider spectrum of golfer, that the architectural features were compromised in order to gain that more universal appeal.

Pat, can you think of any similar endeavor which has grown without compromising?  I just don't think it happens that often.

Arnold certainly popularized Tournament Golf and the PGA Tour, but, I don't know that his influence extended beyond those that already played the game.  I don't know that he brought new blood into the game.

I'm sure part of it was just TV, but then the fact that he came along at the same time sure didn't hurt TV golf either.

As a side thought, I wonder if the contemporaneity of Arnie's go-for-broke play and RTJ's heyday was happenstance or not.

I also think that the times were different.
People accepted things the way they were.
Today, everyone wants to change things to their liking.

Well no argument there.

As for your later comment on bunkers, it's my guess (and only a guess) that more bunkers are removed these days, but due more to cost/upkeep rather than (perceived) degree of difficulty.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Tepper,

While Sarazen's modification did revolutionize bunker play, it took about 50 years before Solheim's Lob wedge produced a similar result.

However, during Sarazen's era, bunkers weren't groomed as they are today.  And, I believe that the bunkers Sarazen faced were more numerous and more penal than the bunkers of today.

Being old, I recall how Ping Irons allowed you to get backspin on the ball when coming from the rough, something that was virtually unheard of prior to Ping. 

When you combine the superior bunker conditions with the improvement in the equipment and the softening and/or eliminating of bunkers, I think you've produced a dumbed down playing field.

One would think, that thanks to Sarazen and Solheim that difficult bunkers would have been added...... in numbers, to counter those improvements and the ease in which golfer's now extract themselves from bunkers.

When I see mid-handicappers successfully hitting rescue and specialty clubs out of fairway bunkers, I know the challenge has been diminished.

While every bunker can't be like the front left bunker on # 4 at Sand Hills, they should provide a serious impediment to advancing the ball.

[Eric_Terhorst]

The sand is too hard,
the sand is too soft,
the sand isn't raked,
the sand is raked wrong,
there's too much sand,
there's not enough sand,
the sand isn't evenly distributed.
the sand is wet
the sand is too dry
there's different sand in the sand.
The sand is too fine
The sand is too course
the sand is too bright
the sand is too dull
the sand isn't raked enough
the sand is raked too often.
the rakes are too heavy
the rakes are too light
there aren't enough rakes
there are too many rakes
the rakes should be out of the bunker
the rakes should be in the bunker.
the lip is too high
the lip is too low
the banks are too steep
the banks aren't steep enough

Nice verse Patrick.  It has a surreal quality, like the green keeper recited it just before he went the to asylum.

For some reason it reminds me of a short story "The Scarlatti Tilt" by Richard Brautigan:

"It's very hard to live in a studio apartment in San Jose with a man who's learning to play the violin."  That's what she told the police when she handed them the empty revolver.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim Nugent:

I would wager if you went back to ANY ranking at any time in history, 35% of the courses would be relatively new designs.  But it's rarely the case that more than 15 or 20 of those courses are still in the ranking twenty years later.

None of that really has anything to do with Patrick's premise, but I still thought it was worth pointing out.

As for Patrick's premise, does anyone know when the expression was invented that "The customer is always right"? 

Really, I think the paradigm shift happened about the same time as the popularity of new privately-owned daily fee courses.  The early public courses were municipally-run and nobody bothered to tell the public servants how they should be changed because they knew it would never happen.  But once customers started paying $100 to play public courses, they began to think they were always right ... and owners began to listen out of fear over the bottom line.

[David_Tepper]

Patrick -

Any cannot think of ANY sport where the equipment and the playing field has evolved & changed so constantly and relentlessly over time as golf. That IS the tradition of golf.

Balls - the featherie, the guttie, the Haskell, the balata wound ball, the solid ball, the PRO-V
Shafts - hickory, steel, aluminum, lightweight steel, fiberglass
Club Heads - Forged blades & persimmon, investment cast, low-profile (remember those Browning irons?), perimeter weighting, etc.  By the way, if perimeter weighted clubs make the game so much easier to play, why is the best player in the world using forged blades?

Ben Hogan apparently fussed and obsessed over his golf equipment more than any of his peers. He altered the grips on his clubs. He shaved the face of his driver open. He added an extra spike to the sole of his golf shoes. He used the best technology that was available at the time.  Was he wrong to try to gain an advantage and maximize his ability in this way?   

You talk about specialty clubs as if they are something new. 80-100 years ago, some golfers competed with 20 or more clubs (including perhaps a rut iron or a water iron) in their bag. Is that a tradition of golf to which you would like to return?

I have yet to run across anyone who has quit playing golf because it is too easy. It is plenty hard for me.  Whether the game or the playing field was more (or less) challenging 50 years ago is not especially relevant to me, because I am not competing against the players of 50 years ago. The guys in my Saturday morning foursome have the option of choosing from the same array of golf equipment as I do. We are competing on the same golf course.  That, not competing against some idealized vision of the past, is what matters most to me.

FYI, I play with a set of forged, Hogan Director irons & Hogan wedges that are at least 25 years old!

DT               
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick -

Any cannot think of ANY sport where the equipment and the playing field has evolved & changed so constantly and relentlessly over time as golf. That IS the tradition of golf.

Other than length, I don't see how the playing field has change one iota.

Balls - the featherie, the guttie, the Haskell, the balata wound ball, the solid ball, the PRO-V
Shafts - hickory, steel, aluminum, lightweight steel, fiberglass
Club Heads - Forged blades & persimmon, investment cast, low-profile (remember those Browning irons?), perimeter weighting, etc. 

By the way, if perimeter weighted clubs make the game so much easier to play, why is the best player in the world using forged blades?

For the simple reason that perimeter weighted irons DON'T help him with mishits because he DOESN'T mishit the ball from his intended impact point by enough of a margin where perimeter weighted irons would make a difference.

Ben Hogan apparently fussed and obsessed over his golf equipment more than any of his peers.

On what factual basis do you make that statement ?[/color]

He altered the grips on his clubs.


So did everyone else, including amateurs.
But, what was the incremental enhancement in performance derived from this practice ?  de minimus ?[/color]

He shaved the face of his driver open.

Tinkering with the faces of wooden clubs, drivers and faiway woods was not uncommon in those days, even for amateurs.  What was the incremental enhancement derived from this practice ?  de minimus ?[/color]

He added an extra spike to the sole of his golf shoes.

Are you sure about that ?
What manufacturer added an additional spike, and where was it added ?
Was the alleged addition due to the injury to his leg or to enhance his performance ?
What was the incremental benefit derived from this practice ?
De minimus ?  Did others follow suit in the foot race ?[/color]

He used the best technology that was available at the time. 

What technology ?
I don't think you'll find much difference between the clubs used post WWII and 1964, but, I'm willing to learn.[/color]

Was he wrong to try to gain an advantage and maximize his ability in this way?   

So far you haven't identified one element that caused him to gain a measurable incremental advantage over his peers.  Hogan's advantage was gained from altering his hook/draw to a fade and in lowering the height of the practice tee, and not advanced technology[/color]

You talk about specialty clubs as if they are something new.
They are unless you've been isolated underground for the last 50 years.[/color]

80-100 years ago, some golfers competed with 20 or more clubs (including perhaps a rut iron or a water iron) in their bag.

I haven't noticed any ruts in the courses I've played over the last 20-30-50 years.  Perhaps the rut iron was obsoleted due to better course conditions.
But, if you find the need to carry one today, I'll grant you a special exemption.[/color]

Is that a tradition of golf to which you would like to return?

Only if architects begin designing lots of ruts.
I prefer deep narrow ruts.[/color]

I have yet to run across anyone who has quit playing golf because it is too easy.

Yet, it's undeniably easier.
And, it's been made easier vis a vis unbridled technology.[/color]

It is plenty hard for me. 

Then practice more.[/color]

Whether the game or the playing field was more (or less) challenging 50 years ago is not especially relevant to me, because I am not competing against the players of 50 years ago.

I completely understand that you have no sense of the game outside of your particular foursome[/color]

The guys in my Saturday morning foursome have the option of choosing from the same array of golf equipment as I do. We are competing on the same golf course. 

You choose to view the game in the narrow context of your Saturday morning game, my views of the game are broader and deeper than my personal rounds.[/color]

That, not competing against some idealized vision of the past, is what matters most to me.

That's the problem, you idea of competition is in the narrowest of contexts, against your Saturday morning foursome, with no sense of the global challenge that's been presented to all by the architect.

I prefer a challenge that requires analysis, thought, planning and execution in the context of the process of interfacing with the architecture presented, whereas your only concern is your score and your opponents score.

I'd also imagine that you have NO interest in ever playing TOC at St Andrews[/color]

FYI, I play with a set of forged, Hogan Director irons & Hogan wedges that are at least 25 years old!

What has that got to do with dumbing down the architecture and removing interesting and challenging features ?[/color]               
 

David,

Golf courses were able to adjust to enhancements in I&B through the medium of elasticity that was built into many, if not most, golf courses.

However, elasticity is finite.
It cannot extend beyond the property lines.

Courses have simply run out of room.

A 450 yard par 4 used to be one hell of a long hole.
Today, it can be a Driver and a Wedge.

Examine the 16th hole at GCGC, from Google or from Ran's write up.

It's a wonderful 405 yard par 4, dogleg left, well bunkered with an interesting green.

When the property line is 2 yards behind the tee, there's nowhere left to go.

When bunkers on that same hole needed a really good tee shot to carry them, and are now just vestigial features, their intended architectural purpose has been totally destroyed, rendered useless by technology.

In the past, the golfer had to decide whether or not to challenge those bunkers off the tee.  If he did and was successful, he was granted the ideal angle of attack into the angled, well bunkered green.
If he failed, those are ferocious bunkers.

If he didn't want to challenge those bunkers, he drove left of them, leaving an awkward approach which required his shot to traverse intervening bunkers to a green angled disadvantageously.

Or he could bail out and play his second well right of the green leaving him a dicey little recovery shot.

High tech has deprived almost every golfer of the joy of playing that hole under those circumstances.

Now, the fronting fairway bunkers are decorative only.
And, with golfers hitting it straighter and farther, a little wedge is all that's required for many golfers

The green and its defenses were NEVER prepared or meant to be assaulted by a wedge.

Thus the distinctive life has been squeezed out of the hole.
It's inherent design, once so brilliant, has been diminished and in some cases rendered null and void.

But, since your same Saturday morning foursome would play the hole with the same choice of equipment, I guess none of that matters to you.

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

Ben Hogan had an extra spike under the ball of his right foot to help him stay down through impact. It can be plainly observed in the iconic photograph of him playing the eighteenth hole of the Merion Golf Club (East Course). These shoes were made by Maxwell.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Moore,

If they were made by Maxwell, then anyone could purchase them.

http://www.cnnsi.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/2005/06/03/hy.peskin/hogan_1950.jpg

click on the link, then put the cursor over the picture and when the + sign comes up, click again and you'll zoom in on the sole of Hogan's golf shoe.

[David_Tepper]

Patrick -

It's all Stan Thompson's fault! If he hadn't invented the Ginty 50 years ago, golf would be SUCH a better game!

Your lack of knowledge about Hogan and how he fussed over his equipment is surprising, especially for someone with such knowledge and comprehensive appreciation for the history and tradition's of golf.  Even such a heathen as myself has read "The Hogan Mystique," "Afternoons with Mr. Hogan," Hogan biographies by both Sampson& Dodson and the article in Golf Digest several years ago that detailed the specs of his golf clubs and noted how much they had been altered to make them "hook proof."  The extra spike in his golf shoe was something he specifically asked Maxwell to add.  Certainly anyone else could have gone to the trouble to have Maxwell do the same, but Hogan must have thought it gave him some advantage. Why else would he have done it?

Your assertion and presumption that I lack appreciation for the heritage of the game and would have NO interest in playing TOC is both laughable and woefully ignorant, as I bought a vacation home in Dornoch 4 years ago.  I have been fortunate enough to have spent a total of 22 weeks over the past 4 summers living there, playing golf regularly both at Royal Dornoch and nearby James Braid-designed courses such as Golspie (where I have been a member for 6 years) and Brora.  If memory serves me correctly, I believe have played 40 various courses in GB&I over the past 25 years and have enjoyed my time there enormously.

But thanks for sharing and thanks for caring!

DT
     

[Michael Moore]

" . . . who memorized every detail about his hero that week, from the Faberge foot powder he put in his $1,500 Maxwell Brothers golf shoes to the way he kept a beautiful sports jacket and fresh dress shirt and silk tie waiting in his locker . . ."

James Dodson, Ben Hogan: An American Life (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 448.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick -

It's all Stan Thompson's fault! If he hadn't invented the Ginty 50 years ago, golf would be SUCH a better game!

Your lack of knowledge about Hogan and how he fussed over his equipment is surprising, especially for someone with such knowledge and comprehensive appreciation for the history and tradition's of golf. 


All of the PGA Tour Pros fussed over their equipment, perhaps none greater than Palmer, who was constantly tinkering in his basement.  Your lack of knowledge regarding the other players on the PGA Tour is both vast and surprising.[/color]

Even such a heathen as myself has read "The Hogan Mystique," "Afternoons with Mr. Hogan," Hogan biographies by both Sampson& Dodson and the article in Golf Digest several years ago that detailed the specs of his golf clubs and noted how much they had been altered to make them "hook proof." 

You're not the only one who's read those books.

Some golfers tinkered with their clubs to prevent slices, others hooks, this is nothing new and nothing engaged in solely by Hogan.  The golfing universe of his peers as well as Pros and amateurs did the same thing.
BUT, there was only so much that could be done, deviations from normal were de minimus.[/color]

The extra spike in his golf shoe was something he specifically asked Maxwell to add. 

Possibly.  Do you know for a fact that they made that shoe specifically for him, or, did he endorse that shoe after it was made ?[/color]

Certainly anyone else could have gone to the trouble to have Maxwell do the same,

Perhaps they knew that there was no substantive benefit.
[/color]

but Hogan must have thought it gave him some advantage.

How would he know that before the shoe was made ?

Perhaps he needed what he thought was additional anchoring due to the problems with his leg.  But, again, I ask you, what was the perceived advantage Hogan sought, and what incremental physical benefit did he derive from it ?

Sam Snead played in his bare feet, and he played quite well.
Perhaps he should have had nails driven through his feet to give him an advantage[/color]

Why else would he have done it ?


There could be a lot of reasons.
Perception rather than reality being one of them.

Again, what advantage did it give him ?[/color]

Your assertion and presumption that I lack appreciation for the heritage of the game and would have NO interest in playing TOC is both laughable and woefully ignorant, as I bought a vacation home in Dornoch 4 years ago. 

That's about 145 miles from St Andrews as the crow flies, isn't it ?
I don't see what buying a vacation home in Dornoch has to do with St Andrews.[/color]

I have been fortunate enough to have spent a total of 22 weeks over the past 4 summers living there, playing golf regularly both at Royal Dornoch and nearby James Braid-designed courses such as Golspie (where I have been a member for 6 years) and Brora. 

Do you ever get down to St Andrews ?[/color]

If memory serves me correctly, I believe have played 40 various courses in GB&I over the past 25 years and have enjoyed my time there enormously.


That's terrific.  Since you're only 145 miles or so away, do you ever play TOC at St Andrews ?  Do you take your Saturday morning game there with you ?[/color]

But thanks for sharing and thanks for caring!


Te nada

You're also getting away from the gist of the thread which has to do with the dumbing down of architecture for the benefit of appealing to the broader spectrum of golfers.

But, I understand how you get distracted and confused from time to time.[/color]
     

[David_Tepper]

Pat Muci -

How many times did Seth Raynor, your idol & hero, play at TOC?

DT

[Sean_A]

Patrick -

Any cannot think of ANY sport where the equipment and the playing field has evolved & changed so constantly and relentlessly over time as golf. That IS the tradition of golf.

Other than length, I don't see how the playing field has change one iota.
   

Pat

I am not sure of what the "playing field" is.  Is this some sort of generic course that exists in your mind?
 
Length can be a big change for course.  Additionally, details of many courses have been altered over the years in an effort to be more challenging.  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.  Jeepers, loads of courses would change even if man didn't design the changes.   

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?   

Ciao

[David_Tepper]

Pat Mucci -

How times did Tillinghast, Max Behr, George Thomas, Bill Bell, etc. play TOC? How many times did Ben Hogan play TOC?

Are you saying that playing TOC is requisite for speaking with knowledge and authority about golf and GCA?

How many rounds must one play at TOC to gain this knowledge and authority? 1? 5? 10? 50? 100?   

DT

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Muci -

How many times did Seth Raynor, your idol & hero, play at TOC?


Seth didn't need to, he was schooled by the "Master".
He was imbued with a heightened sense of the game and architecture's roll.
He understood that golf, the golf course and the game extended well beyond the narrow context of a single foursome's play on Saturday morning."[/color]

[David_Tepper]

Pat Mucci -

Seth Raynor was schooled by the "Master."

We here at gca.com get to bask in the glow of your knowledge and wisdom, which surely must be the next best thing!

DT

[Patrick_Mucci]

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_Mucci]

Pat Mucci -

How times did Tillinghast, Max Behr, George Thomas, Bill Bell, etc. play TOC?

Let's see, they lived thousands of miles across the ocean, long before airlines could whisk them to the UK in a few hours. 
They didn't live 145 miles from TOC or surely they would have played there every Saturday morning.

Your equating yourself with Tillinghast, Behr, Thomas and Bell, and their understanding of architecture and the play of the game is beyond comical.
[/color]

How many times did Ben Hogan play TOC?

Probably more than you, and he didn't live 145 miles from TOC.
For you to equate yourself with Hogan is not beyond comical.[/color]

Are you saying that playing TOC is requisite for speaking with knowledge and authority about golf and GCA?

No, I never said that, you said that. 
Why don't you go back and reread what I said, then call Sean Arble and the two of you can discuss it for hours.  Then, when you're exhausted, yet still befudled, call (1-800-HEL- Pme) and have one of the architectural hot line operators explain it to you.[/color]

How many rounds must one play at TOC to gain this knowledge and authority? 1? 5? 10? 50? 100? 

In your case, 1,000 rounds wouldn't help.

However, there's hope for you and Sean Arble.

TEPaul is going on vacation and will glady lend you the services of his faithful companion, "CoorShaw",  architectural guide dog "extraodinaire". 
[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags: