The failure to put things in context or perspective

[George Pazin]

Perhaps my biggest pet peeve these days is when I'm reading something - it could be an article in a magazine, a book, or even a post on here - and the author chooses to make some remark, without putting it in some sort of context or perspective.

It happened to me last night while reading the new Golf T&L: Jim Finnegan, a wonderful writer, mentioned that one of David Kidd's associates spent "about a day and a half" shaping a green. Can someone put this number in perspective? What's normal? Is there even such a thing as normal? The implication was that this was a long time, but it doesn't seem long to me.

It happened repeatedly on the most recent Pebble thread - holes dismissed as weak, bad, ugh, etc - with little or no accompanying explanation. Can someone mention what specifically left them cold about the supposedly weak holes at Pebble? Bunker placement? Mundane greens?

I hate when people tell others how to post, so I'm just going to make a request here: please provide some sort of explanation that puts your remarks in perspective. And please, to all you golf writers out there, do the same - don't assume others automatically know something.

I've always said that is the moment that a med student or resident becomes a doctor: when he or she starts spouting medical jargon, assuming others know exactly what he's referencing. (Or is this simply showing-off?)

[Philippe Binette]

A day and a half shaping a green, if it's to point out their commitment to site work, well?
at Sagebrush for example:
We shape it once in the dirt (half a day to a day)
Excavated the green
Put sand in
Shape the first layer of sand
Put the second layer
Shape it again
Touch up,
Retouch up
Sand Pro

If you're straight on sand, it's a little faster: sometimes green are done in 4 hours by somebody who barely knows how to run a dozer, some times it takes week to figure out by a bunch of expert shapers.

[George Pazin]

Thanks, Philippe.

[Mark Smolens]

Mr. B,
     How many is a "bunch?"  Are you/they all using a bulldozer, or is some of this shaping work done by hand?

[Philippe Binette]

When saying a bunch, it's one at the time, it could be 5 or 6 guys (I'm not an expert, so I don't count in the 5 or 6) giving a shot at a green that is hard to get right.
Depends on the construction process, if you follow plans to the inches, in shouldn't take that long since you have only one thing to do.

There is also hand work, but I didn't count it into shaping

[Kyle Harris]

A day and a half shaping a green, if it's to point out their commitment to site work, well?
at Sagebrush for example:
We shape it once in the dirt (half a day to a day)
Excavated the green
Put sand in
Shape the first layer of sand
Put the second layer
Shape it again
Touch up,
Retouch up
Sand Pro

If you're straight on sand, it's a little faster: sometimes green are done in 4 hours by somebody who barely knows how to run a dozer, some times it takes week to figure out by a bunch of expert shapers.

For me, even this needs some context. It's entirely possible that David Kidd was speaking of just shaping it in the dirt.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm sure David was speaking only of rough shaping the original contours, prior to "green construction" -- all of the other layers mentioned by Philippe, not all of which are always necessary.

The day-and-a-half time frame is pretty standard.  Some you get in half a day; some you have to modify a couple of times.

I just returned from four days on site in Mexico.  Had two shapers there, and in that time we built two greens from scratch, modified four others until they were good to go (on top of two that needed no changes), built about six new bunkers, erased two, and located a bunch of tees.  So when I left, there were seven holes approved for irrigation to begin.

P.S. to George:  I am pretty sure that's faster than normal.

[John Foley]

OK, a few questions from a contruction standpoint I've always wondered:

Is the final green shaping done by hand or by equipment?

How much does the green "settle' such that you have to back in after the grass has been spriged or sprayed? I would expect not to have this on a soded green.

If the green "settles" how are these micro-breaks that we read on a finish green chaged from an architects plan or do they just occur as part of the build proces?

[Tom_Doak]

John:

Assuming you are talking about building sand greens (whether USGA profile or native sand), you water the heck out of the green after the sand is installed, and once you've done that it should not settle very much.

The micro-breaks are a function of careful thought or random error.

I am decidedly opposed to sodding greens because nearly every green failure I've ever heard about has been on a sodded green.  Even when Tom Fazio builds a project where they sod the whole course, they usually seed the greens.

Hardly anything is done by hand anymore.  Some architects or superintendents may insist on raking the green by hand before or concurrent with final seeding, but that's not for getting micro-contours, that's for more even seed distribution and better germination.

[Peter Pallotta]

"Please provide some sort of explanation that puts your remarks in perspective.  And please, to all you golf writers out there, do the same - don't assume others automatically know something...."

George - I think that's a very fair request to the golf writers. But I think the reason you don't see more of that -- in most writing on ANY subject -- is that a writer really needs to know his subject well to be able to give you that context. Otherwise, it's just one 'fact' after another; or worse, one bit of shop-worn 'jargon' after another, strung together not to enlighten but simply to get you to the end of the piece without pause or question.

Novelist/essayist David Foster Wallace wrote a long piece on tennis that is absolutely terrific. (I just went to look up the title, which I'd forgotten): It's called "Tennis Player Michael Joyce's Professional Artistry as a Paradigm for Certain Stuff about Choice, Freedom, Discipline, Joy, Grotesquerie, and Human Completeness."

Peter

[John Foley]

Tom - thanks for the details

[Lester George]

Legend has it that E.H. Coffey once shaped 8 greens in one day.  Complete with bunkers, tie-ins, green wells and drainage.  I have had that story confirmed by at least two people over the past twenty years.  The amazing thing is that he shaped them using a D-8!!!! 

I met Mr. Coffey when I was new in the business and he was pushing 80 years old and still doing small jobs.  What a cool guy, and could tell some incredible stories.  He never really retired, his eyesight got so bad he could not see to put the details in anymore.

He was born and raised near Staunton, VA and had reportedly worked on 250-300 courses in his 50 plus years in the business.  He was a founder of the Golf Course Builders of America.

Lester

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the responses, everyone.

But I think the reason you don't see more of that -- in most writing on ANY subject -- is that a writer really needs to know his subject well to be able to give you that context.

Naaaaah, it's just laziness.

Actually, I think it's fairly difficult to discern when the extra information is called for, but my feeling would be, if in doubt, put it in. It doesn't have to be tons of extraneous, Cliff Clavin-type of stuff, just a little remark here and there would do wonders to better inform.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah, George, but that's the thing -- I'm not saying they actually need to include the 'extra material' in the final piece, but they do have to KNOW it.  It's like having a deep well from which to draw as much water as you want, if and when you need it; that way, you needn't limit yourself to dribbling out a little teaspoon and trying to pretend it's a mugful.

But sorry, this is getting far away from gca and your original question.

Peter     

[TEPaul]

"It happened repeatedly on the most recent Pebble thread - holes dismissed as weak, bad, ugh, etc - with little or no accompanying explanation. Can someone mention what specifically left them cold about the supposedly weak holes at Pebble? Bunker placement? Mundane greens?"

George:

I think it was Tom Doak (perhaps among others) who said a number of the holes at PB were weak or bad or UGH, etc.

I'm not saying this would happen with Doak but would it satisfy you as to context if Doak said:

"I think about half the holes of PB are either weak or bad or UGH, etc, and I really have no idea why I say that---it's just a very strong feeling of mine."

[George Pazin]

Tom, I think I'd have to accept that, or they'd kick me out of the DBB Club.

Peter, feel free to divert, it's a subject I have a great deal of interest in. I tried to convince my brother-in-law last year we should start a business around it, that's how much of a geek I am.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I think I'd have to accept that, or they'd kick me out of the DBB Club."


George:

I just reviewed what Doak actually said about some of the holes at Pebble Beach and after that review I hardly think you can fault him for lack of context on his descriptions. He didn't say any of the holes were weak or bad, he said they were either UGH or YUCK or FUNKY---even if he did say one was AVERAGE and he probably should be given about ten demerits for that oversight.

But definitely not for ugh and yuck and funky.

I mean, didn't you know that UGH was one of the most meaningful words in the entire rich vocabulary of the North Plains Indians? It could be used to describe all kinds of important things in a most detailed and descriptive way including a golf hole that had a boring tee shot (despite being next to the pro shop) a boring second shot and a boring green, and particularly if some Know-Nothing Pale-Face like Mark Fine thought otherwise.

And YUCK!?

Are you kidding me? That word has massive context and descriptiveness. Have you never seen the reaction of a young kid after okra has been put in front of him----YUCK!!?. It doesn't get much more descriptive and in context than that. Matter of fact, with a really big YUCK I can almost feel the gross saliva-ness of the okra.

FUNKY, on the other hand, I think Doak missed the mark. He seems to think it's a negative while I think it describes something remarkably postive like a really cool chicken.

I'm not sure how a really cool chicken relates to a golf hole but I'm sure I can come up with something that's most appropriate in terms of context or perspective.

[Tags:]

Tags: