[Mike Hendren]

I had the pleasure of languishing over Ross' linen of Seminole's routing at the Tufts Archives a few years ago.  On it he labels the "Practice Field." 

Both Augusta National Golf Club and The National Golf Links of America featured modest practice fields which I sense players might use to briefly warm up, but not pound balls to perfect their craft.

Among the Ross courses I've played off the top of my head LuLu CC, Knoxville's Cherokee CC and Memphis CC did not originally feature practice fields / ranges, though both LuLu and Cherokee now have ranges on peripheral property subsequently acquired. 

In the early years of golf course architecture were ranges considered an amenity or afterthought where surplus land was available?  Were they part of the architect's commission?   

Mike

[JC Jones]

Sir Bogey,

The first I had thought of this very topic was my first visit to Crystal Downs, 3 years ago.  The "range" there is about 180 yards long and is used simply for warmup.  It seemed to me, and I could be wrong, that it was a subsequent addition to the club and not a part of the original plan.

[TEPaul]

Michael:

In the era of most of Ross's career separate practice ranges were virtually non-existant and not planned or drawn with architectural plans. However, a bit of a trivia point is the famous so-called "Suicide Hill" in Boston that goes way back in time at a Ross course that is sometimes called the first separate practice range in the country.

When one really starts to think through the practicalities around golf back then they begin to understand better the various reasons why it was this way; for instance, there basically were no practice balls back then other than what any particular player may've thought to amass and keep for himself.

One early method of pre-round practice----eg more like "loosening up" was to send one's caddie out to say the 18th fairway and just hit all the balls in your bag at him, and then get him back up to the first tee to go. That's the way it was at my 1916 Ross course until the mid 1960s.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

One of the most interesting practice stories and procedures there ever was involved how many members did it at NGLA. I remember this very well as a young boy simply because it seemed to me so remarkably expensive, wasteful and frankly arrogant.

All the older men I played with back then would actually buy a number of sleeves of new balls and then just hit them backwards off the back of the 1st tee and right out into Peconic Bay before turning around and driving down the first hole. They have apparently banned that practice now at NGLA.

[BCrosby]

Great topic. Something I've wondered about.

Like TEP, I'd guess that a minority of Golden Age and earlier courses had full length practice ranges. Pinehurst seemed to be an exception, even becoming famous at one time for its "Maniac Hill".

I don't think the lack of practice balls was the issue. As a kid everyone put their old balls in a shag bag. We hit and picked up our own balls. It was also expected that caddies would shag balls for their player before the round.

I'd guess the absence of full length ranges was a cultural thing. Like the absence of practice walls at tennis complexes. At one time the idea of practicing somewhere other than on the course was viewed as odd.

Bob  

  

[TEPaul]

"I'd guess the absence of full length ranges was a cultural thing. Like the absence of practice walls at tennis complexes. At one time the idea of practicing somewhere other than on the course was viewed as odd."


Bob:

When one begins to really analyze the history of what you just called the cultural aspect of practice ranges or even practicing at all one can clearly see that the British etc felt it was pretty much uniquely an American thing, and largely due to the basic American ethos of the time---eg tending towards the idea of perfecting or perfection. There are plenty of references to that in a lot of the old written material. To go even further back in golf and into the 19th century we can even see that many abroad really felt that various types of golf courses created various and different types of golf swings as well as golf shots.

There is little question in my mind that much or some of the foregoing began to merge right into some of the earliest ideas and philosophies of what golf architecture should be!  

[Dale Jackson]

A topic I have wondered about for some time.

Royal Colwood in Victoria was started in 1913 and has from its first days featured a practice area between the ninth and tenth holes.  It was not just a field that players hit balls but always marked as OB.  It was, and remains, about 210 yards long and we now need limited flight balls, and, in this litigious age, have constructed a rather tall and unsightly fence to contain errant shots.  I have often wondered how many such practice areas existed at courses anywhere in the world in 1913.

And how and why did Vernon Macan come to incorporate such an amenity into the course design?  Certainly there could not have been many such areas in GB & I in those early days.

As a side note, there used to be a dead oak tree (perhaps made dead by too many balls striking it over the years) in the middle of the range at about 155 yards.  It made for a very pleasant aiming target but was regrettably removed some years ago.

[Dale Jackson]

Bob:

When one begins to really analyze the history of what you just called the cultural aspect of practice ranges or even practicing at all one can clearly see that the British etc felt it was pretty much uniquely an American thing, and largely due to the basic American ethos of the time---eg tending towards the idea of perfecting or perfection. There are plenty of references to that in a lot of the old written material. To go even further back in golf and into the 19th century we can even see that many abroad really felt that various types of golf courses created various and different types of golf swings as well as golf shots.

Really interesting point.  I think you still see that difference in society in general and, particularly in this topic area.  Almost the only courses I recall in the UK with fully developed practice areas are those that regularly host major professional tournaments, notably some of The Open rota courses.  Most other facilities have at most a rough practice field that inevitably feels like an afterthought.  Many (most?) have nothing.

[Eric Franzen]

When one begins to really analyze the history of what you just called the cultural aspect of practice ranges or even practicing at all one can clearly see that the British etc felt it was pretty much uniquely an American thing, and largely due to the basic American ethos of the time---eg tending towards the idea of perfecting or perfection. There are plenty of references to that in a lot of the old written material.

Did you read the article "The Game in America" (published in 1903) from The Scotsman that was posted by Melvyn Morrow a while ago? "A direct result of this ultra-serious view of the game is the practise swing which, by some players, is taken at an imaginary ball before every stroke on the round, including putts."

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=360914ea4bd0b4303cbf1fb677ad69df&topic=36771.0

[Steve Lang]

  Lads, isn't this what the Polo or Cricket field is for at the club?

[Bill_McBride]

Of the MacKenzie courses I am familiar with in the US - Valley Club, Pasatiempo, Cypress Point, Valley Club, Crystal Downs one visit, Meadow Club - only the Meadow Club seems to have had a driving range or practice area in the original layout.  Several of those have one or two par 5 openers to allow for a bit of warm up.

This probably comes from UK tradition where there seldom seems to a formal practice or even warm up area.

[Bill_McBride]

Lads, isn't this what the Polo or Cricket field is for at the club?

See Hoylake, Brookline......

[Pete_Pittock]

Wasn't one of the early architectural principles to have an 'easy' starting hole? Presumably because your golf wasn't warmed up on a range?
I'm picturing the 1/18 at TOC as a practice field.

[Eric Franzen]

Wasn't one of the early architectural principles to have an 'easy' starting hole? Presumably because your golf wasn't warmed up on a range?

You mean like the gentle opening holes at Machrihanish, Prestwick and Royal Lytham & St Annes? 

[Pete_Pittock]

Exactly.
I had two putt pars on all three the first time I played them. But I caromed off the wall at Prestwick.

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

I have a prospectus / brochure for a club Pete Dye was going to build in the late 1960's, modeled after the success of The Golf Club.

It devotes a half page to a drawing of each hole, and at the end, there is a half page devoted to the practice range, as if it was a very big deal in 1968 ...

And the drawing shows nothing but a tee and a slightly tapering field to hit into.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Here's an article on practice ranges from the 1926 USGA Green Section:

The Most Prevalent Defect in American Golf Courses
By Maynard M. Metcalf

I do not know European golf courses, but have studied 86 in North America and 13 in South and Central America. Almost nowhere have I seen at all adequate provision of practice ground and proper facilities for the giving of lessons. Practice ground of sufficient size and proper character for driving,for short and long approaching by run up, pitch and run, or dead-stop shots, for shots out of sand traps and out of rough and for putting should be provided in connection with every course which is designed to train good golfers; and ground for lessons with open-front rain shelters for instruction should also be provided. Members will not practice enough if they have to use the course itself for this purpose. They feel that they are in the way and area nuisance and they know it is irritating to themselves in practice to be constantly interrupted by players. For the training of good golfers practice is at least equally important with play. It should be encouraged by providing abundant room with opportunity for trying out all kinds of shots.It isn't quite reasonable to deprive instructors and players of opportunity for lessons in rainy weather. High, open-front sheds can be built very cheaply and will enable the golf instructor to continue his work on mildly rainy days, a benefit to his own purse and a decided advantage to the players. It seems strange that nearly all golf courses are lacking in practice ground, in ground for lessons, in teaching sheds, or usually in all three. Probably the provision of these facilities in our clubs would do more than anything else of similar cost to improve American golf.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

I worked on my first new golf course in 1957

The first one that had a "driving tee" included in the design was at Tyandaga, in Burlington Ontario in 1963

It was just a tee about 30 yards wide and 10 yards deep.
No target greens, no bunker, and about 200 yards long.

[Matt Day]

this is the driving range project I've been working on for five years, it's about 2-3 weeks from opening. 80 bays, dedicated teaching centre, new short game area and grass teaching tees/fairway bunkers/mounding to follow

[Matt Day]

and the short game area, we have had to work in a tight parcel of land. These three greens are for chipping, pitching only. Two new putting greens of 700 and 400 square metres are to be built in the next two weeks

[Chris Buie]

Supposedly, the first range in the US was at Pinehurst.  The place still called Maniac Hill was built in 1913.  
What is interesting to me is that practice putting greens were apparently called 'Putting Clocks'.  Anybody know the story about why they called them clocks?

From the 1922 map:


From an early aerial.  The red numbers are the holes on #2 - the asterisk is the driving range.  An interesting sidebar here is that the 18th hole has always played straight.  However, in this photo it looks like you could tee off left of there.  I don't know if that was ever done.


The practice putting green is called clock golf:

[Melvyn Morrow]

Pete

“Wasn't one of the early architectural principles to have an 'easy' starting hole? Presumably because your golf wasn't warmed up on a range?”

In Scotland the architectural principal was to offer a challenge to the golfer, yet this seems no longer the criteria that many work to achieve in our modern enlightened era.

May I humbly suggest that before making that type of statement you should get out the Hickory and Gutty ball and try again over some of our most testing and challenging courses which have served golfers for over a century and a half.

Interesting opinion but perhaps your comment would be better served to The R&A showing that our great courses are constantly being eroded by the advent on UNCONTROLLED technology.

I would like to add a comment regards the topic being discussed. ‘The Advent and Evolution of the Driving Range’ While I agree that these ranges offer many golfers the facility to practice and achieve  (perhaps what they consider is the key to the game – consistency in distance shots), they are as close to boring the pants off any one who enjoys the game for what it represents, the test of skill and a challenge.
 
Alas our society is so set on the path of always winning, not realising that sometimes in winning we lose so dreadfully badly because we ignore the finer points of the game. Don’t believe me then just look to Afghanistan & Iraq – battles won - war lost.

Golf is not about distance, this is a modern virus that has infected the game and the minds of many. The real challenge and skill is in the ability to understand how to navigating around a course unaided calling upon shots that required real confidence to perform. Or has that become just too difficult for many of the modern golfer.
 
Golf is not a pissing contest but one of awareness and skill to rise to the challenge. The ability to get up and continue after a devastating shot, regrettable this is not taught at Driving Ranges but come from within.

Never forget ‘The Game is afoot. However, thanks to some modern players and designers, I feel the following seems to apply ‘ Men's evil manners live in brass; their virtues we write in water’. ‘A countenance more in sorrow than in anger’.

Yet ‘The Game is afoot’ with The R&A in deep discussion on how to dismiss rolling back the ball by their secret formula ‘Eye of newt and toe of frog, wool of bat and tongue of dog’ yet history cries out to the Governing Body ‘How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child’,  nevertheless ‘Woe is me’ for ‘A foolish thought, to say a sorry sight’.

But then I would rather see golfers practice at a Driving Range than on one of our busy courses.

Melvyn

[Brad LeClair]

Lads, isn't this what the Polo or Cricket field is for at the club?

See Hoylake, Brookline......

Also Piping Rock..

[TEPaul]

I am happy to report that apparently the Myopia Hunt Club as of late is allowing golfers to use one of the polo fields as a practice range (I guess on all days they aren't actually playing or practicing polo). This certainly is welcome as Myopia has always used a pathetic excuse for a practice range (with matts) literally pie-wedged in along the left of the 17th hole. It's only taken about 114 years for the horse interests of the club to allow golf to do this but better late than never, I suppose! 

And apparently Myopia is holding the Massachusetts State Amateur there next week, to be followed the next week by the Herbert C. Leeds Invitational, one of the most important annual tournaments in the world if not the Universe!

[Wayne_Kozun]

I remember reading that in the days of hickory shafts that players didn't like to practise too much as they didn't want to risk fracturing their shafts.  And don't forget that it is not just a case of practicing incessantly - how does a pro give lessons if there is no range, and how do new players learn the game without clogging up the course? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()