Strategic School of Architecture - Part Deux

[Tim Nugent]

"it's like a Worshek(sp?) ink-blot test."

TimN:

I think that one has always been a real poser for anyone to spell. It's a Rorschach test, named after the Swiss psychiatrist, Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922), who invented it.

It uses all kinds of ink blot patterns to reveal the underlying personality of someone depending on what they see in a Rorschach test. Now you take, Pat Mucci, for instance; it doesn't make any difference which Rorschach test you show him; he's pretty much going to see a beautiful naked women in any and all of them somehow.

TEP, I knew I was butchering it, so i didn't even attempt to bluff muy way through.  I just wish this had a Spell Check on it!

[Sean_A]

Jeff

I would probably take a different view from Pat.  

While I agree with him that trying to produce a design today which challenges all levels of players is much harder than 90 years ago, I am not sure challenging all levels of golfers is a reasonable goal for archies to attain.  

Thinking back on Classic American designers such as Tillie and Flynn; these guys designed extremely difficult courses meant to dramatically improve the quality of player in the US.  Indeed, many of these courses are still very challenging for the club player today despite huge advancements in course conditions and technology.  

Both the golfer and the mentality of the game were different then.
Those early architects were more closely connected to the penal roots in the UK.
They didn't have to worry about Juniors, Seniors, Ladies and Handicapped golfers.

They could design for the elite, with the club not having to worry about stocking its membership in order to survive financially.


I don't think we need to design courses today in the hope that they will improve the quality of golfers.  

I never stated or hinted that improvement in the quality of golfers was a design consideration.
Where did you get that notion from ?

We need to design courses which will please the club player rather than worry so much about how the aspiring pro or very good amateur is going to be challenged.  

If that's the case, why has virtually every club lengthened its golf course ?

In today's macho US Open, PGA, Masters world, if you don't design a course with some measure of difficulty/length, you won't be able to sell sufficient memberships to sustain it.

One affirmation of my theory is the inordinate number of golfers who play from the wrong (longer) tees.

My thinking is that the scratch player (not plus cappers) is the high end of the target down to 18s at the low end.  
An archie should be able to build something enjoyable and challenging in this range without resorting to length or 75 bunkers as the primary defenses against good scores.

Your theory has been proven wrong by Flynn and other architects who purposely incorporated elasticity into their designs.
Your theory has also been proven wrong by experience over the last 30 years.
If you built a course to fit your segment of the market 30 years ago, it would be obsolete today.

There are some who claim that distance has been maxed out.
I'm not so sure.  Will someone develop a new shaft that produces increased distance ?
A ball with a cover that produces less friction/wind resistance ?
A combination ?

My theory is that the theory of elasticity was valid 100 years ago and that it remains valid today.

Patrick

Many courses have been lengthened, but many have also not been lengthened to anywhere near the degree which would make them as relatively difficult as 80 years ago.  Yes, I agree that some degree of length for challenge is desirable, but it in no way should dominate the design - if our goal is to design for the handicap player.  Elasticity has a place in design, but it can't be relied upon to challenge the 18 marker and the touring pro.   

I would disagree that classic courses of GB&I have penal roots.  The penal school of architecture was fully developed in the USA.

Good design never becomes obsolete.  That is why the many thousands of visitors flock to GB&I to play courses that were never intended to challenge the best and certainly fall far short of that today. However, what these classic GB&I courses do offer is a fairly equal measure of challenge, beauty playability and most of all, fun.  Will a touring pro find nearly all of these great courses too easy - yes, without a doubt.  Can a scratch golfer sometimes take it down to the 67s and perhaps lower - yes.  Can a 9 capper very occasionally shoot par - yes.  What of it?  Many thousands of satisfied members and visitors play these gems each and every year and have done for countless years.  IMO, it is these courses designers should be looking to emulate rather than the championship or many hundreds of championship wanna be courses that we currently see used as templates.  There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  Perfectly good ones are lying about.  All it takes is for people more people to recognize and embrace this fact.

Ciao   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

Many courses have been lengthened, but many have also not been lengthened to anywhere near the degree which would make them as relatively difficult as 80 years ago.  

Sean, in most cases, simply because they're land locked and can't extend the tees back.

Yes, I agree that some degree of length for challenge is desirable, but it in no way should dominate the design - if our goal is to design for the handicap player.  Elasticity has a place in design, but it can't be relied upon to challenge the 18 marker and the touring pro.    

Elasticity has always been "inventoried" to challenge the best players.
The mid to higher handicaps can continue to play from "member" tees.

I would disagree that classic courses of GB&I have penal roots.  
The penal school of architecture was fully developed in the USA.

The penal school in the U.S. was a derivitive of the designs in the UK.
It remains so today.
The classic courses of GB&I remain far more penal that U.S. courses.

Good design never becomes obsolete.

No one ever stated that "good design" became obsolete, but, the product failed to keep up with the user, and thus, the product became obsolete if it wasn't amended/altered.


That is why the many thousands of visitors flock to GB&I to play courses that were never intended to challenge the best and certainly fall far short of that today.

So, St Andrews, Turnberry, Troon, Muirfield and other courses of GB&I weren't intended to challenge the best players of their time ?

Why did they hold British Opens on those courses if they didn't want to test the best golfers ?

However, what these classic GB&I courses do offer is a fairly equal measure of challenge, beauty playability and most of all, fun.
Is that because they won't let you play from the "Championship" tees ?

I know golfers who wouldn't play a second round at Troon and other courses because they couldn't handle the sod walled bunkers on their first round.

Golfers want to be punished.
That's why they drop balls in the DA at PV, just to experience adversity.

Will a touring pro find nearly all of these great courses too easy - yes, without a doubt.

Nonsense.
From the Championship tees these courses present a formidable challenge.  

Can a scratch golfer sometimes take it down to the 67s and perhaps lower - yes.

Not from the championship tees.  

Can a 9 capper very occasionally shoot par - yes.  

Not in a million years.

What of it?  Many thousands of satisfied members and visitors play these gems each and every year and have done for countless years.  


NO, they haven't.
They've played from an abbreviated distance, from other than the championship tees.

Please stop denying their existance vis a vis exclusion from the discussion.

IMO, it is these courses designers should be looking to emulate rather than the championship or many hundreds of championship wanna be courses that we currently see used as templates.  

Again, you're denying reality.
The "these courses" you're looking to emulate are LONG CHAMPIONSHIP golf courses.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  Perfectly good ones are lying about.  All it takes is for people more people to recognize and embrace this fact.

It ain't happening.
The only reason visiting golfers don't play the championship tees is that the golf course prohibits them from doing so.

As Shivas says, "golfers and chics dig the long ball"

[Peter Pallotta]

If the design principles/strategic ideas of the Golden Age architects weren't that subtle or complicated, why didn't more modern day architects pick up on them ?

Patrick - I think that for about the first 40 years after WWII, most architects in America simply ignored those design principles/strategic ideas.  And the architects (and developers) who did the ignoring did it for pretty much the same reason people always ignore principles and ideas, i.e. money. There wasn't any money to be made in honouring those fundamental strategies. You could probably list better than I could all the reasons why there wasn't any money to be made in replicating the golden age style and ethos, but here are some guesses: changing demographics (i.e. a wider range of players, talent-wise, and a lot more of them, numbers-wise); changing economic models (i.e. away from primarily the small, exclusive private club model); changing technologies (i.e. both in construction methods and maintenances practices, eg gang mowers); and changing tastes, especially after the emergence of television. The kinds of GB&I courses that Sean (rightly) praises clearly manifested the kinds of strategies that are being discussed on this thread -- clearly manifested them, that is, for anyone with eyes to see, and with the willingness to see.  But for a big chunk of the latter half of the 20th century in America, most architects and developers didn't want to see. They didn't want to replicate/recreate/honour those GB&I courses. So that now, in nostalgia and regret, we look back at a drawing of a decent hole by W&S and unduly praise it as a paragon of strategic subtlety.  Again, I think it's a simple and wonderful hole. But complex in design it's not.  And that's not intended to be a criticism.

Peter

[Niall C]

The hole diagram is basically the way the 3rd at Glasgow Gailes plays except they have a couple more bunkers up the right after the turning point and the have a fairway bunker on the outside of the dog-leg. That last bunker is merely a target for me as usually a full tilt driver is going to leave me short.

I suspect the fairway bunker was put in to deter the longer hitters and force them to hit into a narrower landing area to the right and beyond. As far as I was concerned the "correct" strategy didn't occur to me until quite number of plays. That probably says more about me than the golf hole.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter Pallotta,

Which post WWII American architects ignored those principles ?

I don't think that Dick Wilson did, but, I could be mistaken.

What principles do you feel were ignored, and by whom ?

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - I used the word "ignored" mostly to contrast your notion that modern-day architects didn't "pick up on" the strategies of the golden age architects, i.e. I used it to argue that this was a conscious decision rather than an unconscious inability. But to keep using the word, I'd rephrase your last question this way: "Which post World War II architects ignored the approach of predecessors like Colt and Flynn and MacKenzie by a) trying to create/define/control a site instead of working with its natural strengths, and b) by moving strongly in either of two philosophical directions -- i.e. the heroic or the player-friendly -- instead of utilizing the traditional strategic designs/and use of angles of the golden age"?  And my answer would be: "Almost every single one, except for Pete Dye".   

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - I used the word "ignored" mostly to contrast your notion that modern-day architects didn't "pick up on" the strategies of the golden age architects,

I may have missed it, but, where did I make that statement ?

i.e. I used it to argue that this was a conscious decision rather than an unconscious inability.

I'd agree with the conscious versus unconscious decision.

But to keep using the word, I'd rephrase your last question this way: "Which post World War II architects ignored the approach of predecessors like Colt and Flynn and MacKenzie by a) trying to create/define/control a site instead of working with its natural strengths, and b) by moving strongly in either of two philosophical directions -- i.e. the heroic or the player-friendly -- instead of utilizing the traditional strategic designs/and use of angles of the golden age"?  

And my answer would be: "Almost every single one, except for Pete Dye".

How did Dick Wilson fail your test ?

Interestingly enough, when Pete was designing/building Hilton Head he told me that he was importing some of the features he found and liked when he visited the UK.  Those features tended to be penal in nature.  He also indicated that the American golfer had gotten spoiled with the softening of features/challenges

I don't think you can discount the trend toward "player friendly" designs/features/courses or the emerging retail golfer as Mike Keiser calls them.
Golf experienced a post WWII increase in popularity where a more diverse crowd was drawn to the game and the courses it was played on.
In addition, resorts and residential communities with golf courses were springing up in number.
I can't imagine a resort or residential community building a course that would terrify golfers.
Dick Wilson's Blue Course at Doral might have been one of the exceptions

Resorts in Carlsbad, CA, Scottsdale, AZ and Florida are an interesting study as are the residential community courses that sprang up in numbers in the sunbelt/s  

[Sean_A]

Patrick

Many courses have been lengthened, but many have also not been lengthened to anywhere near the degree which would make them as relatively difficult as 80 years ago.  

Sean, in most cases, simply because they're land locked and can't extend the tees back.

Yes, I agree that some degree of length for challenge is desirable, but it in no way should dominate the design - if our goal is to design for the handicap player.  Elasticity has a place in design, but it can't be relied upon to challenge the 18 marker and the touring pro.    

Elasticity has always been "inventoried" to challenge the best players.
The mid to higher handicaps can continue to play from "member" tees.

I would disagree that classic courses of GB&I have penal roots.  
The penal school of architecture was fully developed in the USA.

The penal school in the U.S. was a derivitive of the designs in the UK.
It remains so today.
The classic courses of GB&I remain far more penal that U.S. courses.

Good design never becomes obsolete.

No one ever stated that "good design" became obsolete, but, the product failed to keep up with the user, and thus, the product became obsolete if it wasn't amended/altered.


That is why the many thousands of visitors flock to GB&I to play courses that were never intended to challenge the best and certainly fall far short of that today.

So, St Andrews, Turnberry, Troon, Muirfield and other courses of GB&I weren't intended to challenge the best players of their time ?

Why did they hold British Opens on those courses if they didn't want to test the best golfers ?

However, what these classic GB&I courses do offer is a fairly equal measure of challenge, beauty playability and most of all, fun.
Is that because they won't let you play from the "Championship" tees ?

I know golfers who wouldn't play a second round at Troon and other courses because they couldn't handle the sod walled bunkers on their first round.

Golfers want to be punished.
That's why they drop balls in the DA at PV, just to experience adversity.

Will a touring pro find nearly all of these great courses too easy - yes, without a doubt.

Nonsense.
From the Championship tees these courses present a formidable challenge.  

Can a scratch golfer sometimes take it down to the 67s and perhaps lower - yes.

Not from the championship tees.  

Can a 9 capper very occasionally shoot par - yes.  

Not in a million years.

What of it?  Many thousands of satisfied members and visitors play these gems each and every year and have done for countless years.  


NO, they haven't.
They've played from an abbreviated distance, from other than the championship tees.

Please stop denying their existance vis a vis exclusion from the discussion.

IMO, it is these courses designers should be looking to emulate rather than the championship or many hundreds of championship wanna be courses that we currently see used as templates.  

Again, you're denying reality.
The "these courses" you're looking to emulate are LONG CHAMPIONSHIP golf courses.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  Perfectly good ones are lying about.  All it takes is for people more people to recognize and embrace this fact.

It ain't happening.
The only reason visiting golfers don't play the championship tees is that the golf course prohibits them from doing so.

As Shivas says, "golfers and chics dig the long ball"

Patrick

No, the penal school came to full fruition with the Oakland Hills redo for the famous Hogan Open.  It was a slow process which may have even started with Pine Valley and eventually led to Oakland Hills and has lingered on in American architecture to this day. 

The championship courses of GB&I are relatively far and few between.  There are a great many more well designed courses which were never intended to challenge the best and continue to fall far short of that goal.  Thousands of visitors and members enjoy these courses for what they are and I would say part of that enjoyment is that they are NOT championship tests.  In general, the more a course is designed for championships, the less strategic and more obvious it is.  You continue to focus on the very best players and the and how they are challenged whereas I am much concerned and interested in the handicap player and how to satisfy their needs.

Ciao
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

No, the penal school came to full fruition with the Oakland Hills redo for the famous Hogan Open.  It was a slow process which may have even started with Pine Valley and eventually led to Oakland Hills and has lingered on in American architecture to this day.

To claim that RTJ's work at Oakland Hills, which was a mild modification to an existing course, was the culmination of the Penal School of Golf Design is absurd.

How was Oakland Hills different, pre and post RTJ ? 

The championship courses of GB&I are relatively far and few between. 

That they weren't mass produced is of no consequence and in no way diminishes their penal nature, which remains today.

There are a great many more well designed courses which were never intended to challenge the best and continue to fall far short of that goal.


Could you name 10 ?


Thousands of visitors and members enjoy these courses for what they are and I would say part of that enjoyment is that they are NOT championship tests. 

Which of these courses enjoy thousands of visitors and are well known to the golfing world outside of GB&I ?

In general, the more a course is designed for championships, the less strategic and more obvious it is. 

Pine Valley, NGLA and Hollywood not strategic ?  Obvious ?
How many times have you played these courses

You continue to focus on the very best players and the and how they are challenged whereas I am much concerned and interested in the handicap player and how to satisfy their needs.

Obviously, you're reading comprehension needs improvement.  I never focused on the best players and ignored the remainder.

What I focused on is in fact the requirements for appealing to and at the same time challenging the broad spectrum of golfers, not a single faction.
You can't focus on one group as you want to do, and ignore the other groups.
Please go back and reread my posts.
 

[Sean_A]

Patrick

I don't care to re-read your posts.  I got the gist the first time round. If you choose not to regard Oakland Hills as on the more penal end of the strategic continuum then lord help us if you ever get to design a course.  RTJ added fairway bunkering, significantly to both sides of landing zones, added trees and bunkering near greens.  The net effect was a move toward the penal end of the continuum.  The course played totally differently for the '51 Open than the previous Open at Oakland Hills and the 287 total score for Hogan reflected those changes - still one of the highest winning scores in the past 75 years. Its a great pity because a friendly restoration would see the re-emergence of a great course, but not a championship course.    

Well known and respected courses which are not championship courses.

St Enodoc
Enniscrone
Woking
Rye
Addington
Pennard
Tenby
Broa
Carne
Machrihanish
Dunbar
New Zealand
Swinley Forest


There are plenty more, but I thought I would accommodate your qualifier which I never mentioned for this brief list.  

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

I don't care to re-read your posts.  I got the gist the first time round.

Obviously you didn't.
But, I can understand your reluctance to reread my posts as that would be tantamount to an admission of misunderstanding on your part.


If you choose not to regard Oakland Hills as on the more penal end of the strategic continuum then lord help us if you ever get to design a course.  

That wasn't the issue.  You stated that Oakland Hills was the fruition of the penal design which started earlier.

Some would say that Pete Dye with his PGA West, TPC Ponte Vedre, Crooked Stick and Hilton Head had significant elements of the penal school, indicating that Oakland Hills did NOT represent the fruition of penal design.

I then asked you to list how RTJ managed to convert Oakland Hills to the "fruition" of penal design.
As to my design capabilities, on the infinitesimal amount I've done, the results were pretty good.

RTJ added fairway bunkering, significantly to both sides of landing zones,

On what holes ?
Photos subsequent to 1951 don't seem to confirm your claim that he added fairway bunkering, "significantly to both sides of the LZ.

added trees

Again, photos subsequent to 1951, some as late as 1964 when the trees would have matured, don't confirm that claim.

and bunkering near greens.  

Which greens ?

The net effect was a move toward the penal end of the continuum.  


Are you sure that added length wasn't a primary factor contributing to the difficulty of the design ?

The course played totally differently for the '51 Open than the previous Open at Oakland Hills and the 287 total score for Hogan reflected those changes - still one of the highest winning scores in the past 75 years.

Wasn't the previous Open in 1937 ?

Its a great pity because a friendly restoration would see the re-emergence of a great course, but not a championship course.
By "restoration" are you advocating a return to the course as it existed and played in 1918 ?

I'm not a fan of a great number of changes made to courses in order to accomodate the games of the PGA Tour Pro, but, elasticity has been and continues to be a critical design element.  I know 58 year old amateurs with septuple by-passes that can hit the ball 300 on the carry.
And, he's an 8 handicap.
You can't keep your head in the sand and ignore the realities of how the game is played today.
I also know 17 year old high school kids who fly it 300 yards.
The game has been ALLOWED to change, vis a vis equipment, and courses must retain the intended challenge presented by the architecture.
Thus, architects must design for a far broader spectrum of golfer, and not the game of a narrow band of players.    

Well known and respected courses which are not championship courses.

St Enodoc
Enniscrone
Woking
Rye
Addington
Pennard
Tenby
Broa
Carne
Machrihanish
Dunbar
New Zealand
Swinley Forest

There are plenty more, but I thought I would accommodate your qualifier which I never mentioned for this brief list.  

They may be well known to the locals/regionals, but, I can assure you that 90 % to 98 % of the golfers in the U.S. never heard of them, and 99+ % of the golfers in the U.S. couldn't pinpoint them on a map.

Golfers alien to GB&I have heard of the Open rota courses and are anxious to play them.
If I asked 1,000 or 10,000 or 1,000,000 golfers in the US to name the top 5 or 10 courses they'd like to play in GB&I, not one of the ones you listed would make up .1 %, or be named at all.

You're living in a fantasy world on this issue.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D - I know you meant what you just wrote, but I genuinely don't understand it.  Where does the "subtle strategy" lie in the hole that Neill posted?  As W&S themselves note, "a good player who wants to make his second shot easier must take an initial risk with his tee shot" [i.e. landing it on the extreme right edge of the fairway].  But the reason the good player needs to do this is crystal clear, isn't it? Even for the golfer playing the hole for the first time it was crystal clear, no? 80 years ago he would've stood on the tee, seen the massive green-side bunker on the left and the opening to the right of it, and immediately realized that he needed to play to the extreme right-side of the fairway in order to have a clearer shot (and a chance at the run-up shot that was probably required back then) to the green.  The playing of the hole seems obvious enough to me. What's more interesting -- and subtle -- is how you (in your instruction to Eric Iverson) have to think about constructing that golf hole.  
  

Peter:

Sorry to be late to get back to you, I just spent 12 hours plus working on some subtle strategy of my own.

What is subtle to me in the Simpson sketch is just exactly what Bill M. disliked about the hole ... that there is no fairway bunker to give you a clue of where to go.  Without a bunker, most people are going to play the shortest route to the hole, or the center of the fairway, but they are almost never going to think of playing to the outside of the dogleg, so that they can attack the slope in front of the green at a better angle.  And I think the bunker at the right of the green is a good one, because shots from the middle or left will be carried toward that bunker if they are pushed a bit to the right.

Plus, Bill M. assumes that being in the rough to the right is no big deal, but it might well be a big deal ... or at least it was back in those days.  They didn't manicure the roughs much, and trying to hit a long club out of the rough was always going to be an iffy proposition.

[Sean_A]

Patrick

I don't care to re-read your posts.  I got the gist the first time round.

Obviously you didn't.
But, I can understand your reluctance to reread my posts as that would be tantamount to an admission of misunderstanding on your part.


If you choose not to regard Oakland Hills as on the more penal end of the strategic continuum then lord help us if you ever get to design a course.  

That wasn't the issue.  You stated that Oakland Hills was the fruition of the penal design which started earlier.

Some would say that Pete Dye with his PGA West, TPC Ponte Vedre, Crooked Stick and Hilton Head had significant elements of the penal school, indicating that Oakland Hills did NOT represent the fruition of penal design.

I then asked you to list how RTJ managed to convert Oakland Hills to the "fruition" of penal design.
As to my design capabilities, on the infinitesimal amount I've done, the results were pretty good.

RTJ added fairway bunkering, significantly to both sides of landing zones,

On what holes ?
Photos subsequent to 1951 don't seem to confirm your claim that he added fairway bunkering, "significantly to both sides of the LZ.

added trees

Again, photos subsequent to 1951, some as late as 1964 when the trees would have matured, don't confirm that claim.

and bunkering near greens.  

Which greens ?

The net effect was a move toward the penal end of the continuum.  


Are you sure that added length wasn't a primary factor contributing to the difficulty of the design ?

The course played totally differently for the '51 Open than the previous Open at Oakland Hills and the 287 total score for Hogan reflected those changes - still one of the highest winning scores in the past 75 years.

Wasn't the previous Open in 1937 ?

Its a great pity because a friendly restoration would see the re-emergence of a great course, but not a championship course.
By "restoration" are you advocating a return to the course as it existed and played in 1918 ?

I'm not a fan of a great number of changes made to courses in order to accomodate the games of the PGA Tour Pro, but, elasticity has been and continues to be a critical design element.  I know 58 year old amateurs with septuple by-passes that can hit the ball 300 on the carry.
And, he's an 8 handicap.
You can't keep your head in the sand and ignore the realities of how the game is played today.
I also know 17 year old high school kids who fly it 300 yards.
The game has been ALLOWED to change, vis a vis equipment, and courses must retain the intended challenge presented by the architecture.
Thus, architects must design for a far broader spectrum of golfer, and not the game of a narrow band of players.    

Well known and respected courses which are not championship courses.

St Enodoc
Enniscrone
Woking
Rye
Addington
Pennard
Tenby
Broa
Carne
Machrihanish
Dunbar
New Zealand
Swinley Forest

There are plenty more, but I thought I would accommodate your qualifier which I never mentioned for this brief list.  

They may be well known to the locals/regionals, but, I can assure you that 90 % to 98 % of the golfers in the U.S. never heard of them, and 99+ % of the golfers in the U.S. couldn't pinpoint them on a map.

Golfers alien to GB&I have heard of the Open rota courses and are anxious to play them.
If I asked 1,000 or 10,000 or 1,000,000 golfers in the US to name the top 5 or 10 courses they'd like to play in GB&I, not one of the ones you listed would make up .1 %, or be named at all.

You're living in a fantasy world on this issue.

Patrick

Do your own legwork on Oakland Hills.  I know how the course evolved and I guarantee that Ross didn't envision what is there today.  Those radical changes started with RTJ for the '51 Open.  It isn't a matter for debate.

While I never stated that there are countless wonderful non-championship courses in GB&I that Americans know of, I think for the type of golfers who actually travel overseas to play golf, my list is of courses is well known.  That said, whether or not Americans know of what is probably a list of at least 200 non-championship courses which are joy to play has no bearing on my original comments nor on the fact they do exist.  

Most of my conversations with you bear no fruit.  Therefore, I shall take this opportunity to to disengage.  

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"Tom D - I know you meant what you just wrote, but I genuinely don't understand it.  Where does the "subtle strategy" lie in the hole that Neill posted?  As W&S themselves note, "a good player who wants to make his second shot easier must take an initial risk with his tee shot" [i.e. landing it on the extreme right edge of the fairway].  But the reason the good player needs to do this is crystal clear, isn't it? Even for the golfer playing the hole for the first time it was crystal clear, no? 80 years ago he would've stood on the tee, seen the massive green-side bunker on the left and the opening to the right of it, and immediately realized that he needed to play to the extreme right-side of the fairway in order to have a clearer shot (and a chance at the run-up shot that was probably required back then) to the green.  The playing of the hole seems obvious enough to me."


PeterP:

If the playing of that W-S hole seems obvious to you because you looked to that big left greenside bunker as perhaps most of what dictates the strategy of that hole from tee to green, then good for you. That proves you "get it," that you are reading the architectural strategy of that hole well. Sometimes that's all an architect asks of a golfer on various holes.

This particular hole strategically is a perfect example of what Behr called "indirect tax" architecture or strategy where neither the risk nor the reward comes immediately on the first shot, or tee shot, it comes on the approach shot and how its affected by where the tee shot is. Not all holes need to be this way but this is a perfect example of "indirect tax" architecture.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean S,

They did hire Ross to redo OH for the '51 Open, and he did do a plan which consisted of adding numerous bunkers in red pencil.  He died soon after so they hired Jones.  While there are some differences to the plans each drew, Ross did envision the "new OH to be very similar to what RTJ did, if it was to be mostly a tournament course.

[TEPaul]

Jeffrey:

That's very interesting. I've never heard that.

[Sean_A]

Sean S,

They did hire Ross to redo OH for the '51 Open, and he did do a plan which consisted of adding numerous bunkers in red pencil.  He died soon after so they hired Jones.  While there are some differences to the plans each drew, Ross did envision the "new OH to be very similar to what RTJ did, if it was to be mostly a tournament course.

Jeff

Yes, I know Ross did some plans for OH and that RTJ altered the Ross plan somewhat with his own plan.  My comment about Ross not envisioning the course as it turned out refers to two things.  First, how those changes led to what we have today - even more penal than in in '51.  Second, I don't believe Ross mentioned anything about added trees nor the rough, but I could be wrong as it has been a long time since I was looking into this matter. 

Ciao   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I don't recall anything about trees either and the plan really was about bunkering.  I have told the story about how I was ashamed to even have briefly walk out of the empty maintenance building with the plans.  Not to steal them, but to take them to Kinkos for a large scale color copy and then try to sneak them back in without being detected!  But, its been a while since I have seen them, too.

I am curious about how much more penal it is now than '51 in your opinion - my take is that Hills and others merely moved most of the bunkers down the fw to again make them applicable to modern tournament play....

[Mark Pearce]

 

They may be well known to the locals/regionals, but, I can assure you that 90 % to 98 % of the golfers in the U.S. never heard of them, and 99+ % of the golfers in the U.S. couldn't pinpoint them on a map.

Golfers alien to GB&I have heard of the Open rota courses and are anxious to play them.
If I asked 1,000 or 10,000 or 1,000,000 golfers in the US to name the top 5 or 10 courses they'd like to play in GB&I, not one of the ones you listed would make up .1 %, or be named at all.

You're living in a fantasy world on this issue.

You have excelled yourself here, Pat.  Your criteria for well known and respected now becomes "well known and respected in the US".  Well, frankly, that's utterly stupid.  Whilst many (perhaps all) of the courses Sean mentioned may not be well known, or indeed known, to the majority of US golfers, the same is true of many (indeed the vast majority) of the great US courses not being known by UK golfers.  I'd include Pine Valley, Cypress Point, NGLA and almost anywhere else that doesn't host a major.  Ask any number of randomly selected UK golfers where in the States they would want to play and you'll get a list of Major championship venues.  Hardly surprising, I think.

That doesn't make any of these courses (UK or US) any less relevant for their design intent.  The fact is, as Sean pointed out, that the majority of UK courses were not designed with the intent of test ing the best players. What you will find is courses with two or three sets of tees which sensibly test scratch golfers to teen handicappers and which almost anyone can get a ball round.  To be honest, ignoring relatively new "Championship" tees, the same could be said of some of the Open venues.
[/quote]

[TEPaul]

" have told the story about how I was ashamed to even have briefly walk out of the empty maintenance building with the plans.  Not to steal them, but to take them to Kinkos for a large scale color copy and then try to sneak them back in without being detected!"


Mr. Jeffrey:

Goodness Gracious, GREAT BALLS OF FIRE!!

Even though redemption is a pretty fine thing I am now going to have to label you the "Kinko Oriented Copy Burglar" amongst your other impressive career accomplishments!

[Ally Mcintosh]

  Your criteria for well known and respected now becomes "well known and respected in the US".  Well, frankly, that's utterly stupid.  Whilst many (perhaps all) of the courses Sean mentioned may not be well known, or indeed known, to the majority of US golfers, the same is true of many (indeed the vast majority) of the great US courses not being known by UK golfers.  I'd include Pine Valley, Cypress Point, NGLA and almost anywhere else that doesn't host a major.  Ask any number of randomly selected UK golfers where in the States they would want to play and you'll get a list of Major championship venues. 

Ask many a UK golfer the courses they know in the States and you will get Augusta National and Myrtle Beach... Many UK golfers go to The States for the sun first and quality golf second... The more educated will know of Pine Valley and Cypress Point... Hardly anyone (and I really mean almost no-one) will have ever heard of NGLA...

[TEPaul]

"Hardly anyone (and I really mean almost no-one) will have ever heard of NGLA..."


Ally:

Then why is it that every American golfer has heard of Shibboleth on Solway GC, and Burnham and Barroom GC and Whiffensnoofer on the Mersey GC over there?

[Patrick_Mucci]

 

They may be well known to the locals/regionals, but, I can assure you that 90 % to 98 % of the golfers in the U.S. never heard of them, and 99+ % of the golfers in the U.S. couldn't pinpoint them on a map.

Golfers alien to GB&I have heard of the Open rota courses and are anxious to play them.
If I asked 1,000 or 10,000 or 1,000,000 golfers in the US to name the top 5 or 10 courses they'd like to play in GB&I, not one of the ones you listed would make up .1 %, or be named at all.

You're living in a fantasy world on this issue.

You have excelled yourself here, Pat.  
Your criteria for well known and respected now becomes "well known and respected in the US".  

That wasn't my criterion, that was my qualifying statement and response to Sean's reference to thousands of GUESTS.

Well, frankly, that's utterly stupid.  


No it's not.
What's stupid is your reading comprehension skills, or rather, the lack of them.

Whilst many (perhaps all) of the courses Sean mentioned may not be well known, or indeed known, to the majority of US golfers, the same is true of many (indeed the vast majority) of the great US courses not being known by UK golfers.  

That's NOT the issue.
It was never the issue.
Equivalency has nothing to do with Seans and my discussion

I'd include Pine Valley, Cypress Point, NGLA and almost anywhere else that doesn't host a major.  
Ask any number of randomly selected UK golfers where in the States they would want to play and you'll get a list of Major championship venues.

That's precisely my point.
Haven't you been reading these posts ?  

Hardly surprising, I think.

That doesn't make any of these courses (UK or US) any less relevant for their design intent.  

That wasn't the issue.
Please enroll in a refresher course in reading comprehension.

The fact is, as Sean pointed out, that the majority of UK courses were not designed with the intent of test ing the best players.

That too, was never the issue

What you will find is courses with two or three sets of tees which sensibly test scratch golfers to teen handicappers and which almost anyone can get a ball round.

That's nice, but, NO ONE in the U.S. has heard of them, and Sean was specific in referencing thousands of visitors to these courses.  

To be honest, ignoring relatively new "Championship" tees, the same could be said of some of the Open venues.

There's a difference between "ignoring" a tee and being "prohibited" from playing the same tee.

[/quote]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

Do your own legwork on Oakland Hills.  I know how the course evolved and I guarantee that Ross didn't envision what is there today.  Those radical changes started with RTJ for the '51 Open.  

It isn't a matter for debate.

Yes, it is, because I'm challenging the depth of your knowledge concerning those changes.
Changes which had very, very little to do with tree planting as you alleged

In addition, photos taken after the 1951 don't confirm your statement that every fairway had bunkers flanking both sides of the fairway in the DZ.

While I never stated that there are countless wonderful non-championship courses in GB&I that Americans know of, I think for the type of golfers who actually travel overseas to play golf, my list is of courses is well known.  

For the "purists" I'd agree, but for the thousands of guests you referenced, I'd disagree

That said, whether or not Americans know of what is probably a list of at least 200 non-championship courses which are joy to play has no bearing on my original comments nor on the fact they do exist.  

That wasn't the issue.
If they're not well known outside of the UK, who's going to travel to play them ?

Most of my conversations with you bear no fruit.  Therefore, I shall take this opportunity to to disengage.  

I understand !
That's your usual response when you can't answer pointed questions that challenge your position.