[Sean_A]

On another thread Pat M raised this point as an "if" question.  I didn't pay much attention to it until today and at first thought I think the advent of multiple tees could be to provide exactly what Pat M asked.  What say you, should the archie try to provide a thorough examination for the golfer?  If so, what would that entail and in which circumstances would it be utilized?  If not, does this mean we are requesting dumbed down architecture?  Is dumbing down architecture inherently bad for the game or architecture itself?

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

If your question is, should EVERY golf course attempt to provide a thorough examination for the golfer, my answer is in the form of a question:

Why should every golf course have the same goal?

Pat is welcome to choose his own criteria for deciding whether a course is good or not, but he is not welcome to decide whether others may disagree ... especially the people who are putting up the money to build those courses.

[George Pazin]

Define your terms!

That's my standard response for a vague statement like "A thorough examination of the game".

Thorough in what way? For whom?

I think too often thorough means a variety of distances and directions - but not a variety of trajectories or shapes, or stances or lies. In other words, execution of the basic golf swing is tested, but little else.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - in a certain mood, I might argue that the demand for a thorough (and, from Pat's pov, equitable) examination of the game is in fact ITSELF an example of the dumbing down of architecture; and a result of the fact that, as a race, golfers have become soft and self-indulgent over the past 80 years.  Look at some of those great 1920s courses (and, for example, their lengths relative to the equipment of the day) -- it tells me that back then a bogie golfer knew he was a bogie golfer and had no expectation that a course would somehow allow for and cater to his shortcomings.  In other words, he accepted FAILING the 'examination' as a matter of course, but didn't take that to mean either that the game was not worth the candle nor that the designer had not done his job.

IMHO

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

A simplistic view is that the aerial assault game was perceived as the ideal, for too long. The over abundance of courses which only test that aspect is what went wrong with GCA in America. Bring on the advent of wall to wall irrigation and you have an epidemic of golfers that expect their low trajectory shots to hold soft greens.

If there's more than one way to skin a cat. There should be more than one way to golf your ball. (All you linguistic experts can spare the rant)

Golf should test more than one's game. It should also test character, awareness, and one's humility.

[BCrosby]

Strange thread.

I thought one of the several glories of a well designed hole was that the long handicapper might elect to avoid more difficult shots. That is, reduce the examination of his playing skills. He would pay a price for that. Par or better would be more difficult to attain. But he makes that election willingly because he takes doubles and triples out of the equation. If he takes more aggressive routes, big, big numbers are more likely.  The point being, all of that is up to him.

Since when has it been an important design prinicple that a good hole offer an equal examination of the games of all players of all skill levels? The point of a good strategic hole is to do something else entirely.

Bob

[George Pazin]

Since when has it been an important design prinicple that a good hole offer an equal examination of the games of all players of all skill levels? The point of a good strategic hole is to do something else entirely.

Bob

Excellent question and point, Bob.

I think in many ways it goes back to a general over-fixation among most everyone - architects, writers, and golfers of all types - on length. The main thing to infer from the ideas behind many tee markers and "play the right tees" thinking seems to be that length is the main difference between lesser golfers and better golfers. Anyone who's played any significant amount of golf knows this is not at all the case, yet no one seems to argue the premise. They seem to accept it and offer ways to combat it, as though it can be eliminated with just enough tweaking - extend a tee here, put in a short tee there, move a bunker here, a little water there, and SHAZAMM! A wonderfuli course for all...

It is indeed strange.

[TEPaul]

Sean:

If I understand what you're trying to get at, which I very well may not, I would say and have said often in the past that perhaps the most universally equitable way to play golf, and for everyone, would be to do it again the way it once was and even the way the Rules of golf used to require that it be played----and I mean it, I'm speaking of everyone, good player, duffer and men and women alike.

I speak of course of the universal handicap equitableness of both distance and direction but particularly distance. Golf used to require that all golfers play from the same tee marker or designation (everyone plays the very same golf course distance-wise) and if one just moderately thinks about that there is actually no better form of natural handicap equitablness in golf than that.

Would that require perhaps a complete philosophical and actual retooling of golf course architecture? Of course it would, but we should not forget, that is the way it once was and not much more than a century ago and that is the way it certainly could be again.

You want to talk about a thorough examination of any golfer's game and a natural handicap way of doing it as well-----that is IT, plain and simple and it sure as hell could never be considered some modern innovative invention in golf or architecture because THAT is the way it used to be for all!!

[Bill_McBride]

A simplistic view is that the aerial assault game was perceived as the ideal, for too long. The over abundance of courses which only test that aspect is what went wrong with GCA in America. Bring on the advent of wall to wall irrigation and you have an epidemic of golfers that expect their low trajectory shots to hold soft greens.

If there's more than one way to skin a cat. There should be more than one way to golf your ball. (All you linguistic experts can spare the rant)

Golf should test more than one's game. It should also test character, awareness, and one's humility.

Great final paragraph, Adam. 

To me the most fun and interesting courses are those where thoughtful play is required.  These days I don't hit the ball out of my shadow, but I can still enjoy think my way around to avoid doubles and worse.   On a course that is designed to provide a "thorough examination of [my] game," avoiding doubles and worse might not be possible.   I'm not saying I prefer easy courses, but I do prefer the strategic over the penal.

[Melvyn Morrow]

I think we need to ask some simple questions which span the generations.

That question being “Was there a problem with the game (note the word is game and not equipment)”

I believe that question would be the same for each decade and the answers would, I expect prove to be relatively close in a firm NO, that there is nothing wrong with the game. The problem comes with the meddlers from the designers who feel that design no longer describes their activities. Alas the modern architect is so from removed from the designer that he has become a Jack of all trades, Master of none.

We have gone out into the whole wide world believing that we have the ability, the technology and up to the recent past the money to design and build golf courses anywhere in this world of ours  Some even  believing that they can improve upon Nature ignoring some of the worst storms and weather conditions we have encounters in the last couple of years.

Have we learn from the past, apparently very little, was it not Laurence of Arabia who realised that working with Nature he could bring an army through an impenetrable desert. We forgot that one but the Japanese did not in the last war. It took us a couple of years for us to understand that you work with Nature because we cannot beat her.

If only we could learn, if only we could build our courses on land fit for purpose, if only we would stop tinkering with things, expecting technology to solve our problems for us. If only we did not want our cake and eat it too.

Nature is sending us a message, its very clear, work with me or I destroy your pathetic little efforts.

Learn from your mistakes but why change things if they have been proved . Golf has been proved the game of golf does not need changing its about the challenge not dumbing down of the game, the proof is there all to see, it explodes worldwide pre WW1 and continued to grow after the war.

But we will not learn, we will still have casualties cause by friendly fire because we go off half-cocked unaware what it is we are meant to be doing and with whom. If we could only F@#k+”g communicate with each other that would be a start, we could have serious debates on this or other blogs sites.

IF only we had retained Designers who were responsible for the course design, not architects that oversee a whole work load of other designers and contractors, seemingly hiding those responsible for the design or is it the shaper in the end with his bulldozer who actually shapes the course or his part of the course, If only we had someone who knew what he was doing and could control the whole site which includes the course design we might just get back to the quality courses of old

What a great game golf is, its great in all its parts, but if I could ride it would not wear me out so much, if something could tell me what club to use, that would de-stress me further save me learning club names or  their purpose. If only I could hit the ball a long distance, all well that’s down to the equipment manufactures to bend technology into the game to make me look like a golfer. Then if only they would lengthen the course I could play a game of Target Golf.

If, if, if, if, if, if only some of you would have balls then you would be men. I like my women the way they are – of course that’s only my own humble opinion.

Melvyn (with no if’s and certainly no but’s)
 

[JESII]

Melvyn,,

What about the game of golf has been proven?

You reference a boom leading up to WW I and continued growth afterwards...what does that time period prove?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

If only

Melvyn

[JESII]

"If only" I had a clue what you were trying to say...

[Carl Rogers]

Sean - in a certain mood, I might argue that the demand for a thorough (and, from Pat's pov, equitable) examination of the game is in fact ITSELF an example of the dumbing down of architecture; and a result of the fact that, as a race, golfers have become soft and self-indulgent over the past 80 years.  Look at some of those great 1920s courses (and, for example, their lengths relative to the equipment of the day) -- it tells me that back then a bogie golfer knew he was a bogie golfer and had no expectation that a course would somehow allow for and cater to his shortcomings.  In other words, he accepted FAILING the 'examination' as a matter of course, but didn't take that to mean either that the game was not worth the candle nor that the designer had not done his job.

IMHO

Peter

I thought the game was supposed to be "fun".  Only if you are a masochist, would your definition be OK.  How about some combination of "fun and "challenge"?  You have to give the golfer some kind of chance or hope.

[George Pazin]

Some lesser golfers find a challenge to be fun, and find dumbing down a course insulting and condescending. That's hardly masochism.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean - in a certain mood, I might argue that the demand for a thorough (and, from Pat's pov, equitable) examination of the game is in fact ITSELF an example of the dumbing down of architecture; and a result of the fact that, as a race, golfers have become soft and self-indulgent over the past 80 years.  Look at some of those great 1920s courses (and, for example, their lengths relative to the equipment of the day) -- it tells me that back then a bogie golfer knew he was a bogie golfer and had no expectation that a course would somehow allow for and cater to his shortcomings.  In other words, he accepted FAILING the 'examination' as a matter of course, but didn't take that to mean either that the game was not worth the candle nor that the designer had not done his job.

Peter,

I don't understand this post. In the 20's, the GA designers started to make great concessions to the average guy, taking out cross bunkers, providing alternate lines of play, etc.

So, when is it you think gca started to dumb down?  For that matter, are you saying our 7400 yard courses aren't keeping up with distance changes in equipment and if so, by how much?

Lastly, I am in the "golf should be fun (on 99% of courses) camp, since that is why most of us play.  If courses became less difficult relatively, couldn't that just be the right decision for the greatest enjoyment of all rather than a sign of the apocalypse?

[JESII]

I think golf gained in popularity BECAUSE of its difficulty...

I also think it's a fools errand to try to make it easy enough "for most" because it cannot possibly be considered easy under any real life circumstances.

It can become easier than it currently is, but how would a new golfer have clue about that?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Where I think you guys have the rose colored glasses on is in blindly accepting modern architecture is focused more on dumbing it down.  In another thread, I am sure I can find many people saying modern courses are just too difficult, with all aerial carries, etc. (which is also a false generalization)

I don't think it can really become easier, and if there was an architectural way it could, it would include bunkerless, waterless coruses that are short.  While those are out there, they always have been and and don't dominate the world.

Courses vary in difficulty and golfers choose the ones that fit their tastes in look, price, difficulty, etc.  So, the short answer is not every course should try to be a total examination of the game, because not all 25Million golfers like that.

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff. In answer your last q to Jim. No! The actual fun, which I tend to equate with the satisfaction that comes from passing tests, is over coming that greater challenge. I'd bet the universal truth that has held up is that the better player passes these test consistently. The lesser passes the tests infrequently. That's why George calls it condescending when the test is modified to such an extent that it wasn't much of a test. I'd even postulate that this faux testing has diminished the satisfaction to the point of not attracting the golf addicts, that passing a real challenge satisfied, and, created for generations. Stroke play has a huge roll in this too, because there's no conceeding and moving on to the next test.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Is hitting a six iron fade to a tight pin position with a 4 foot deep bunker more or less of a challenge than hitting one to the same position with a ten foot deep bunker?  Does missing the deeper bunker give you more satisfaction?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff, Carl - Sean's post followed-up on one by Pat that asked how architects could ensure that players of differing abilities would have similar approach shots into greens. My point was that Pat's goal is misguided; that it is more a product of modern-day thinking than it is a celebration of the game of golf as it has traditionally been played. (I don't really mind either point of view, actually; I just want good discussion.)  I think this desire/goal, if somehow achieved, would not produce courses that were more thorough examinations for all players; instead, it would only re-inforce the professional ethos that has increasingly dominated the thinking of the average golfer since the PGA first went big-time on television. I enjoy playing golf, even though I can't play very often; and I have fun at it -- in fact, I have a great deal of fun at it because, while I'm always striving to improve my swing and lower my score (and in this sense have a card-and-pencil mentality), I am perfectly satisfied to play bogie golf when that's the best I can do. I enjoy a walk through the fields; I enjoy the fresh air; I enjoy the company of friends; I enjoy a rare perfectly struck 4 iron; I enjoying staying committed to making the best score I can on any given hole and scrambling to make a 5 or 6.  And in that sense, I think of myself as being more like the average golfer in the 1920s and before, i.e. a time when they seemed satisfied with the idea that there could be a 'scratch' card and a 'bogie' card, and with one's sense of "fun and challenged" not being so damned prescribed one way or another (either by those who condemn a golf course as 'too hard' or by those who mock a course for being "too easy off the tee" or by those who demand that others focus on fun by not keeping score but instead through enjoying the architecture and the strategy etc).  And so I have no interest in or desire to having a golf course where I am somehow better 'matched' with the fellow who hits it a lot further than me throughout the bag; I'm not better matched...and so be it; it doesn't lessen my fun.  In short, Jeff, I don't think anything is a sign of the apocalypse except the sign of the actual apocalypse; but I think that when we have to do mental gymnastics to try to figure out how to give modern golfers their fair share of fun, it means that the "game" has become something else already.
Peter

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, Getting out of the deeper bunker gives the greater satisfaction.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Adam

If only some on here could   they might agree

Melvyn

[JESII]

Jeff,

I'm not sure what I said that suggested anything about modern architecture stereotypes, that was not my intention.

My point was merely that removing some controversial features in the name of equity does make the game just that little bit easier and that little bit doesn't help anything at all. It doesn't make the guy the was complaining actually like the game/course better and it doesn't attract new people to the game...BUT...keeping that particular feature does give everyone else a chance to ovecome whatever challenge it presents.

It's the overcoming of a challenge that gets people hooked on golf!

[JMEvensky]

Jeff,

I'm not sure what I said that suggested anything about modern architecture stereotypes, that was not my intention.

My point was merely that removing some controversial features in the name of equity does make the game just that little bit easier and that little bit doesn't help anything at all. It doesn't make the guy the was complaining actually like the game/course better and it doesn't attract new people to the game...BUT...keeping that particular feature does give everyone else a chance to ovecome whatever challenge it presents.

It's the overcoming of a challenge that gets people hooked on golf!

That's well said and I agree--to a point.

What's more likely is that the controversial feature will be removed,the game will be found just as difficult,so even more features will be removed.

But,you're certainly right about one thing--it's overcoming(or failing to overcome) the challenges which brings us back for more.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()