[JC Jones]

So I am reading a history of the Belvedere Golf Club today in the Charlevoix library and I come across this quote from the president of the club:

[after bringing in architect Didier in the sixties] the only criticism he leveled against the course was the fact that it was a 1927 type course.  It needed modernization.  Narrow the fairways.  Build up good rough.  Fill in with grass about a dozen badly placed sand traps and put in fifteen new bunkers that really present a challenge to players.  Speed up the greens.  Plant lots of trees.

Why, in the sixties, did this become the prevailing theory of architecture?  To what can this be accredited?  Should we be classifying the work of Doak, C&C, DeVries, et al. as "modern" in light of the above?


On a separate but related note, the president also boasted about the planting of 100 new trees and how he wished he could be here in 50 years (from 1990) to see how they've grown. 

He also had this gem: "Believe it or not, there are several members and public players who would rather walk with a caddy than ride around in a cart."

Edit: Im bumping this b/c Im curious and I have another question.  Is there enough work "undoing" the modernization of the the 60s-90s out there to keep Architects in business during the slow economic time?

[Anthony Gray]

  JC,

  Does it sound like he wanted to institute target golf? Which the recent courses are getting away from.

  Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

Didier? Didier? Somehow I can't remember this architectural genius. Please refresh my mind.

[JC Jones]

Didier? Didier? Somehow I can't remember this architectural genius. Please refresh my mind.

The memoir doesn't say anything except that this Raymond Didier from Chicago was "a good architect."

[Dan Herrmann]

Just did a Google on him - found this tidbit:  "Helped Joe Lee and Ben Hogan with the Trophy Club near Fort Worth."

PS:  JC - fascnating find!

[JC Jones]

bumped for reasons stated in my modified original post.

[Adam Clayman]

Jc. The best theory I have for the mindset you question is that the better golfers fell into a trap that only a sport like golf can provide. That slippery slope is this subjective rationalization of tightening up the golf course is making it more difficult. The reality is these changes make it easier for the better golfer. Take Harvey Pennik's mantra of "taking dead aim" as proof that giving the better golfer a finite place to aim eases their need to think. The principle of not providing this specific target places doubt into the better golfers mind, does not allow for specific alignment, and points of reference. That's a start for discussion.   

[JC Jones]

Jc. The best theory I have for the mindset you question is that the better golfers fell into a trap that only a sport like golf can provide. That slippery slope is this subjective rationalization of tightening up the golf course is making it more difficult. The reality is these changes make it easier for the better golfer. Take Harvey Pennik's mantra of "taking dead aim" as proof that giving the better golfer a finite place to aim eases their need to think. The principle of not providing this specific target places doubt into the better golfers mind, does not allow for specific alignment, and points of reference. That's a start for discussion.   

So, if I understand you correctly, good golfers desired a harder golf course because it was easier for them than a wide open golf course?  Interesting.

[Andy Troeger]

Adam,
I would take a slightly different view--in addition to your comments which I think do have merit I think the bigger issue is that the better players that you refer to like narrow golf courses because it creates a greater SEPARATION between themselves and the weaker player. They want those who don't hit the perfect shot to be penalized severely. They don't want someone like me to aim at a central hazard and swing hard figuring that 90% of the time I'll miss it in the fairway on one side or the other, when they actually have to pick a side and execute the shot.

On the narrow course we all have to hit the same shot and they are much more likely to execute.

[David Stamm]

 
[after bringing in architect Didier in the sixties] the only criticism he leveled against the course was the fact that it was a 1927 type course.  It needed modernization.  Narrow the fairways.  Build up good rough.  Fill in with grass about a dozen badly placed sand traps and put in fifteen new bunkers that really present a challenge to players.  Speed up the greens.  Plant lots of trees.

 

 

[Adam Clayman]

JC, No. Your use of the term harder is incorrect. Narrower does not make it harder. It just makes it one dimensional, boring and easier for the str8 ball hitter.  To me, this is not the better golfer. Maybe a better scorer, but if we expand the definition of a better golfer to include other aspects, like creative, mentally tough and all the other aspects that can come deep within a person, narrower does not compute.

The card and pencil stroke play mentality is likely behind all this narrowing. I would even argue in the todays reality this mindset and the architects that perpetuated it, are responsible for the declining interest in the sport. Why? Because it is less interesting.

Andy, This separation only confirms why golf has lost it's inclusive nature as a sport for most every person.

[Andy Troeger]

Adam,
Probably true--sometimes when I'm spraying the ball off the tee I wonder why I'm bothering to play because it makes it hard to even keep a score (which I usually don't). I played competitively through high school and haven't played a single competitive event since (except for scrambles which to me don't really count).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()