[Mac Plumart]

I am trying to squeeze in one more question prior to my meeting...so bear twith any spelling issues...

In the 1926 book, "The LInks", Hunter makes many statements alluding to, and sometimes directly stating, the technology advancements in golf ball technology.  For a specific instance, he says the following..."To lay out holes of ideal length is surely most desirable, but how can this be done so long as we can never be sure what manufacturers are going to produce in the way of the golf ball?"

He also says that..."it will be wise to provide, whereever possible, for adding length in case it should be later required."

So my question is this...if Mr. Hunter knew about this technology issue back in the 1920's and he clearly states over and over that architects need to account for it, then isn't it a valid argument that if an architects course has been made obsolete by technology then that architect did a poor design job that he (and most educated golf experts) knew wouldn't stand the test of time?

Just throwing that out there for discussion.  I may get some angry responses, but I really was stunned that this guy wrote about this so clearly in the 1920's...but yet we are outraged today by the same issues he knew about and wrote about 86 years ago.

I open it up to the floor for debate as I am heading out.

Later!

[Jeff_Brauer]

It would be hard to leave to much room for expansion on the typical 1920 era 130 acre site......and they would have had to anticipate not only more length (and on a hole by hole basis, if they backed a tee up to the property to make the most of it then, there is no room to go back) but also more width.

I am not sure I even heard anyone speak of spacing holes out further over the years, but it clearly happened, too.

[TEPaul]

Mac:

What we should know and certainly appreciate is that the prospect of increased distance seemingly worried most all those architects in the 1920s far more than it worries architects today. It is probably even true to say that the onset of the Haskell ball (around 1900) was a far larger concern than at any other time in golf. However, at that early point there really was very little regulation in place on golf balls or equipment.

William Flynn's remarks in the USGA Bulletin around 1927 on the dangers of increased distance was even more surprising than Hunter's in his terrific book "The Links."

Preparing for future distance increase with architecture is referred to as "Elasticity" and if you think about the essential aspects of routing it can get pretty problematic to set tees far enough forward to leave enough room behind them for future distance increases. Obviously that was more problematic in the old days when walking was the norm and they liked to get the next tee as close to the previous green as possible.

So rather than just automatically trying to design in loads of elasticity for future distance increases these guys also implored the I&B regulators (the R&A and USGA) to stop the distance increase!

One really fascinating proposal was the so-called "Floater" golf ball. They actually tried it or something quite similar to it for about a year in the early 1930s but lo and behold the golfing public basically hated it and refused to accept it and it was dropped.

[Mike_Young]

Mac:

What we should know and certainly appreciate is that the prospect of increased distance seemingly worried most all those architects in the 1920s far more than it worries architects today. It is probably even true to say that the onset of the Haskell ball (around 1900) was a far larger concern than at any other time in golf. However, at that early point there really was very little regulation in place on golf balls or equipment.

William Flynn's remarks in the USGA Bulletin around 1927 on the dangers of increased distance was even more surprising than Hunter's in his terrific book "The Links."

Preparing for future distance increase with architecture is referred to as "Elasticity" and if you think about the essential aspects of routing it can get pretty problematic to set tees far enough forward to leave enough room behind them for future distance increases. Obviously that was more problematic in the old days when walking was the norm and they liked to get the next tee as close to the previous green as possible.

I don't think leaving room for tees has ever been as much of a problem as allowing for turnpoints/second shot areas to be adjusted in the future....(straight holes being the exception)  Don't you think any distance increase should be evenly distributed percentage wise between all shots and not just the the tee shot?

[Adrian_Stiff]

The abiity to extend a golf course is always a great idea but sometimes that 'nice hole ' may just be at the property limits already. We are in theory extending for the purpose of the drive, so if the equation is' drives go 30 yards further than 30 years ago' a course needs to be abe to extend as many par 4 and par 5 holes by 30 yards in order to preserve the intent. If you extend some 60 yards you are altering beyond the original architure, although you can make the case that if a few holes cant add that extra 30, then adding some extra beef somewhere else is going some way to preserve the course as a whole.

[TEPaul]

"I don't think leaving room for tees has ever been as much of a problem as allowing for turnpoints/second shot areas to be adjusted in the future....(straight holes being the exception)  Don't you think any distance increase should be evenly distributed percentage wise between all shots and not just the the tee shot?"


MikeY:

That is of course an excellent point and a very real one. Just adding tee length really does only address about half the problem if even that (viz---par 5s).

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

So my question is this...if Mr. Hunter knew about this technology issue back in the 1920's and he clearly states over and over that architects need to account for it, then isn't it a valid argument that if an architects course has been made obsolete by technology then that architect did a poor design job that he (and most educated golf experts) knew wouldn't stand the test of time?

A valid question, but I think we would be too tough on the architects if we concluded that they did a poor design job. For example - assuming the R&A/USGA continue to sit on their hands - can anyone guess how far the pros will be hitting it in 2050? Will 400 yard drives be the norm?

It's a bit like the interviews that were conducted back in the 40s and 50s when they asked people questions about the future. Weren't we all supposed to be inhabiting Mars by this stage? It's just too difficult to predict the future.

I started playing in the early 1980s and we had little of no change in driving distances for about 15 years or so, and then all of a sudden, boom!! Guys hitting 300+ yard drives is the norm now. A good drive in 1980 was 230 yards for a decent single figure amateur.

Dónal.

[Sean_A]

Does anybody think the truly great, timeless holes, are those in which distance doesn't matter?

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Does anybody think the truly great, timeless holes, are those in which distance doesn't matter?

Ciao

Sean I think the problem is you dont get all 18 on a course now, distance does matter to a certain brigade. Somewhere like Sunningdale is great for 99% but the pro's say its crazy short for them, that aside I am in the camp so what let them shoot 59.
Some 6,000 yarders though are unstretchabe because of property limits and are of no test for really good players and also the hazards are not in play.
We may end up with golf courses too easy for some and too hard for others. We have over 200 cat 1 or pro's members at ours..its a hard course, we ony have 25 senior members.

[Mac Plumart]

Sean...

I absolutely do think that great and timeless holes are not dependant on length. 

18 at Inverness is a driveable par 4.  300ish yards from the tips.  BUT if you are short you are in some nasty bunkers.  And if you do hit the green the green has som much slope you most likely won't be able to hold it and will roll off.  In either case, the golfer will be chipping (or hitting out of the sand) back to that nasty green.  So, the defense of that hole is its green.  I don't care how far you can hit the ball, you have to be able to putt very well and most likely chip and putt very well to make par or better. 

That to me is a timeless gem and Ross should be commended for a great hole.  It was great in the 1920's and it is great now.  That is kind of what I am getting at.  He most likely had an idea that the golf ball was going to travel further in the future and he used his greens (especially at Inverness) to defend his holes.

Come to think of it, didn't he do the same at Pinehurst #2?  I've yet to play it, but I will be doing so in May.

I guess that is my point.  shouldn't truly great holes/courses stand the test of time regardless of technology?

Once again, I am wide open to interesting debate.

[Forrest Richardson]

If you make a list of all of the variables that affect score (or defend par or score) for a golf hole, you will discover that length is just one of hundreds. Far too much is debated about length, probably because far too much faith is placed on length by the USGA, course rating criteria, etc.  Add the marketing boneheads to the equation and you have summed up the issue with length: Excessive focus.

Would I like to see the equipment manufactures spend less time on length and more on accuracy? Sure. But I also know that new equipment advances will always be a part of the game, and it will keep people interested. New clubs and balls have always been an active part of the game and the allure to golf.

Hunter's comments were geared toward a particular point in time — today, I believe he would be banging the drum for creativity in areas besides length...and he would decry the notion of the 7,000 yard threshold and the par-72 standard.

[michael damico]

mac, great question. I also agree whole heartedly with Mr. Richardson's response about excessive focus and technology. the short par 4's that have withstood the test of time; the distance debacle. there are several examples, of which I'm sure have been discussed at great length on different threads.

i worked maintenance at Oak Hill for several summers and that is a course up to debate, but nonetheless a great example of several differing architect's solutions to the distance debacle. One of the few holes that hasn't been altered all too much, but simply because there is not much room to renovate. The hole surely hasn't played the same throughout its history though. Would it be safe to say that Ross foresaw just how drastic of an evolution there would be in the way the hole would play? That one day players would be able to reach an elevated green site 325 yards away with a driver?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()