Donald Ross--Golf has Never Failed Me

[Sean_A]

Sean,

That may be so. But I think there's a very fine line between the lack of attractive options making a hole great and a lack of attractive options making a hole stink.

Re: 10 and 4 at St E, what I don't like is that the obvious options are boring: three six irons at the 10th and a 4/5 iron and a wedge at the 4th. Neither of those holes - much as I have revisited them in my head, in pics, on aerials since I played them - has ever seemed to have another options that makes any sense at all.

A hole that offers two options, but one is so ridiculous that selecting it is complete lunacy, to me is as one dimensional as a hole that maps out a determined shot that you have to play.

Scott

When we got down to brass tacks there are really only two very general ways to create strategy and that is by width (go over, skirt or well wide) or by length (lay up or be more aggressive).  To me, it is incredibly important for the archie to make golfers feel uncomfortable a few times a round (if not a few more) and that is way I wince when I hear archies talk about accomodating golfers as a method of design.  To me, I would much rather the designer accomodated the golfer by building a 6000ish yarder than feeling like he has room to be bold, creative and yes, controversial.  That is exactly waht #s 4 and 10 are about and those sorts of holes to me are as meat and two veg about design as a few reachable par 5s and at least one properly short short hole. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

The golf holes on the best links...have several different ways of playing them, and because they do not present just one and only one way to everybody, the interest in the game increases with the diversity of its problems."



Mac:

This is essentially the basis of "strategic" golf architecture.

[JC Jones]

The golf holes on the best links...have several different ways of playing them, and because they do not present just one and only one way to everybody, the interest in the game increases with the diversity of its problems."



Mac:

This is essentially the basis of "strategic" golf architecture.

The discussion of which is essentially the purpose of this website. 

[Mac Plumart]

So, Pete's post has stuck in my brain for awhile now.  And re-reading my response, "Something so basic and fundamental, but yet it changes everything," is now stuck in my head.

I agree with Pete that the single teeing grounds for all players would affect how each and every golfer chose to negotiate those hazards.  Each to their own ability...that is all they could do.

BUT...what about the clubs and balls they were using when the courses were designed?  Something so basic and fundamental, but yet I think we overlook it so very often.  Frankly, I think being experienced with the golf clubs being used in the early 1900's is essentially to understanding what Ross, MacDonald, and Mackenzie were doing in terms of their strategic architecture.  

I think back to playing The National Golf Links of America this past summer.  I played it...and I am not really a good golfer by any stretch...but my first time out I shot 85.  None of the par 5's felt daunting to me.  But I played it with modern clubs.  The bunkers were not too big of an issue with my modern 60 degree wedge.  Hitting over the Alps hills wasn't an issue.



The strategy on that one...hit 3 wood as hard as I can at the aiming stick.  Of course, I landed in one of those greenside bunkers.  But, no problem, sand wedge that thing out and move on to the Redan.

However, could I play that hole with the same strategy using hickories?  No way.  A whole new level of strategy would have to be employed.  And I think REALLY knowing your game and your limitations would have been a real key.  

Another thing I notice using old clubs/balls and modern clubs/balls.  Stopping the ball.  Pinehurst #2 hole 5 (which I'll post again)...hitting over that bunker and stopping that ball on the green with older clubs/balls would have been a really tricky task.  Heck, could it even have been done?  I don't know.  I think that would open up the strategy of playing to miss the green right and leave enough green and fairway to run the ball up.  Again, knowing what you can do would have been a HUGE key given the relatively low level of technological advantage available to golfers back when this course was first built.



In fact, the reason I got interested in getting hickories and era balls (and the reason I hope to get persimmon clubs this Christmas to go with my balata balls) was to play with them...not just hit them once or twice...but to play rounds of golf with them and see what they were capable of doing and to see what effect they would have on how I managed my way around a golf course.  What I found has been interesting for sure, but I am sure I've got A LOT more to learn.  

I think what I've learned thus far is that using them required more understanding of my capabilities with the different clubs and different balls...and perhaps more strategy to score well.  And I am wondering if modern equipment has minimized (or at least hindered) the need for strategic golf.  Heck, if you can hit a ball 180 yards out of rough and still stop the ball on the green...what strategy is needed?  Bomb and gouge, right?  

But I suppose this has facilitated the need for greens stimped at 13, super deep rough, and narrow fairways.  But isn't that penal architecture?

Anyway, just some thoughts.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Mac.

Once a friend of mine had fallen head over heels for this really great looking girl who had, let's say, some "issues". He'd debate with himself over and over again whether or not he should stay in the relationship, and once -- when he was leaning towards staying in it simply because she was so damn good looking -- said "Yeah, yeah, I know - beauty is only skin deep. So f--king what, what isn't? Everything is only skin deep!"

Your photos and description of NGLA reminded me of that: strategic smashtigic, so what, what isn't? Its beauty is palpable even if 'only' skin deep.  And beauty is its own reward - and contains within it its own meaning.

Anyway. Nonsense. Please carry on.

Peter

[TEPaul]

The thing that came to somewhat concern me about Ross's "Golf Has Never Failed Me" particularly if you read it carefully enough is it sometimes becomes a bit hard to tell which of the words in it are Ross's and which are Whitten's. Of course some of the captions on photos can throw you off that way. The important thing to know is Ross did not publish that book.

In this vein, it might even be appropriate to get those two GOLFCLUBATLAS.com in-house "historically and factually verifiable accuracy" super-investigators, super-sleuths and "expert" researcher/historians, MacWood and Moriarty on the case of this particular book on golf history rather than wasting the time of all of us with their on-going illogical and nonsensical 7-8 years campaign and charade with Merion's Desmond Tolhurst history book and more recently Myopia's Edward Weeks history book.

Just think, we could have scores of pages of discussion and debate about what either of them (Ross or Whitten) meant if they ever used words like "probably" or "laid out" or if a date was the subject and point, what the word "about" actually meant. And then we of course would need at least 2-3 "independently verifiable" attributions to confirm what either of them were actually referring to or reading when they said anything at all. 

[Colin Macqueen]

Mac,
“Golf is ever failed by me” is my take!

Scott says,
“I can't shake the feeling that you're so determined to "see" things in golf holes that you're making it much more complicated and involved than it is or ought to be.”
and you reply
“Scott...no doubt about it!!  But, frankly, that is what I do.  I over-analyze the crap out of things.  I actually enjoy it.  I'm 38...God-willing, I've got 47+ more years to live.  I've got fill my time doing something.”


I was nodding my head in total agreement to Scott’s assessment of your over-analyzing and then laughed uproariously at your candid reply!  If I did as you seem able to do paralysis due to analysis would ensue. I am amazed at the long, involved talk about strategies played out by members here. I just have to hit the ball down the fairway attempting to get it in a sensible position. It could be good or not and I have to wait patiently on the outcome before I can imagine what I might do next! I think I must play tactical golf rather than strategic! My style of play loves wide open spaces; I like that sort of architecture. Even if I end up in a bad spot and have to take on bunkers, or more difficult angles in, all I want is another crack at the ball and not to be lost in knee high rough or damned water. Let’s see how Barnbougle and Lost Farm treat me in March.
Cheers Colin

[JC Jones]

Colin,

If GCA.com is not the appropriate forum to analyze and discuss golf courses, their strategies, architecture, architectural philosophies, etc., then what is it for?  Over analyzing the number of people aged 18-30 with tattoos and ear piercings?

[Eric Smith]

Mac,

Any thought to bringing the hickories to NGLA next time?

[Mac Plumart]

Great idea Eric.  Great idea!


EDIT...



I understand that many people don't look at things the way that I do...and that is fine...I respect that we all have our differences and we all like different things about golf.  I am captivated with golf course architecture and history.  I love reading the books written by these architects and seeing golf architecture of all sorts.  I find the only place on the face of the planet that I can discuss these things is this site or with other GCA'ers while playing golf and/or enjoying post round festivities.  

Perhaps a lot of people don't see a value to my over-analysis regarding golf, but if one's goal is to play golf better...I think it has helped me.  I've been playing for only a few years, my handicap has dropped from 30ish to 9.1...and I'll bet it gets into the 8's before this year is over.  So, I think it is working.

In fact, I played a round recently with Bart Bradley.  I didn't score well because I couldn't putt on those darn greens...but I noticed that he not only had a higher degree of skill than I do regarding ball striking, but he played smarter.  He saw the architecture and went with it rather than fight it.  I've been trying to apply what I learned there and my last four rounds since then have been excellent (for my skill level).  Lesson learned...I hope.

So, I am not trying to change what anyone likes about golf.  If you don't like my posts...you don't have to read them.  That is how the site works.  

But I really do think that the key to understanding architecture is not to simply analyze todays architecture using todays equipment and looking through modern eyes.  IF someone has a desire to learn about architecture and architectural history, I think understanding the context of the times is important, the changes to architectural theory, and the catalysts for those changes.

Anyway, that is what I think.  If you don't...that is fine.  To each their own.

[Colin Macqueen]

JC,

"If GCA.com is not the appropriate forum to analyze and discuss golf courses, their strategies, architecture, architectural philosophies, etc., then what is it for?  Over analyzing the number of people aged 18-30 with tattoos and ear piercings?"

My post #33 was a self-deprecating statement essentially pointing out that I am not as accomplished a golfer as most seem to be on this forum and thus I am not able to prophesy about where my golf shots may veer to. I was simply participating at a social level and Mac P. does not seem to have been aggrieved.I thoroughly enjoy the discussions on this site and understand that many are able to make very reasonable strategic decisions to counter and possibly overcome the architects design. No insult was intended.

How did you know I have a very small diamond stud in my left ear? There simply because of something that happened on a golf course as it turns out.

Cheers Colin

[JC Jones]

Colin,

I did not read your post #33 as an insult to anyone.  My query was an honest one as there seems to be a building resentment towards those who want to have interesting discussions about golf course strategy and architecture.  The irony, of course, is that the same people who say this site is fat and lazy are the same people who don't like it when honest discussions of golf course architecture are had (and rarely participate in the same).  I am glad to hear you aren't a part of that club.

I would have expected a man of your means to have very large diamond studs.