[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob Huntley,

Watson and Trevino were great ball strikers.
Watson's SIX British open wins are a tribute to his ball striking ability.

I know some very good golfers whose games disintegrate when facing a constant wind.
I think it's an acquired skill, mentally and physically.

I thought the US Open at Shinnecock along with several British Open venues highlight the effect of wind on the best golfers in the world, let alone amateurs, great, good, fair and poor.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Let’s look to the first part of the question “Does the wind make better golfers”, no I do not believe it does but it prepares them for the hazards that the wind generates.

I feel this is easily proven by remembering The Opens from a few years ago with G Norman the T Watson. The weather closed in wind and rain hit the courses, slowing the game and scores down. Greg Norman showed a clean pair of heels to the rest of the field while these weather conditions endured. The same can be said about Tom Watson a couple of years ago. Yet as soon as the weather improved the rest of the field caught and passed the two. Their skill and experience did not make them better golfers when the weather improved, but they knew how to control themselves when the weather was windy, as experienced golfer would do with any other form of hazard or trap.

AS for the course, why did the past designers tend to have a reverse direction hole at the most windy spots on a golf course?

As I mentioned before my answer is NO to the original question and by way of proof I have mentioned two recent visible cases.

Melvyn 

[Alister Matheson]

Let’s look to the first part of the question “Does the wind make better golfers”, no I do not believe it does but it prepares them for the hazards that the wind generates.

I feel this is easily proven by remembering The Opens from a few years ago with G Norman the T Watson. The weather closed in wind and rain hit the courses, slowing the game and scores down. Greg Norman showed a clean pair of heels to the rest of the field while these weather conditions endured. The same can be said about Tom Watson a couple of years ago. Yet as soon as the weather improved the rest of the field caught and passed the two. Their skill and experience did not make them better golfers when the weather improved, but they knew how to control themselves when the weather was windy, as experienced golfer would do with any other form of hazard or trap.

AS for the course, why did the past designers tend to have a reverse direction hole at the most windy spots on a golf course?

As I mentioned before my answer is NO to the original question and by way of proof I have mentioned two recent visible cases.

Melvyn 

Melvyn,
            I agree entirley with your post this is part of what makes THE OPEN so special  because you get more varibles both with the weather and leaderboard, some of the older more experianced golfers do tend to handle the weather ,firm turf and creativity needed better than your good tour pro.

Cheers
          Alister

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally,

I completely disagree with Melvyn.

He's contexting the issue solely within the confines of the one one thousandths of one percent of golfers, the PGA and European Tour Players.

They're already the most accomplished golfers on the planet.

If you read my opening post, it's clear I'm referencing amateurs, great, good, fair, mediocre and poor.

All too often golf and golf course architecture are viewed and posted from the perspective of a game with which the poster is totally unfamiliar, that of the PGA and European Tour player

Shouldn't the context be focused on the perspective of thousands or millions of amateur golfers rather than less than 300 people on the planet ?

[Sean_A]

I tend to think of wind as a nuetral or even an element which detracts from good architecture so far as club players are concerned.  These guys are generally not good enough to cope with the architecture let alone wind on top of it.  Now, I will qualify my idea of wind and that is probably starting at ~12 mph.  Below this amount and I think many club players have a good chance to be savy and post a score that stands out from the crowd just by playing smart.  Certainly once we are on about 20 mph wind then for almost all at club level will struggle and I dare say it will largely be an ugly scene, but importantly, it isn't impossible to do well.  Plus, there really aren't all that many courses which would shine in 20mph wind.  Most are too narrow (because of trees, rough and bunkers) to really allow for a good game of golf in 20mph wiind.  At the pro level, I suspect good and bad architecture is accentuated by wind, but either way I want to see them play in wind because its better entertainment.  Besides, these guys are good enough to find a way to post a good score because they do everything well.  This is far from true for club players. 

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Patick

Is it possible to play a round without any wind (gentle breeze perhaps, but no wind)?

If so how does that support your case, because I have been on TOC many times at St Andrews when even a gentle breeze was missing. If it is not there it does not come into play like other hazards be they bunkers etc. navigate away from them and they are out of the game.

15 – love, or was that an Ace ?

Melvyn

[Wade Schueneman]

More than anything, playing in a strong wind exposes my lack of confidence in my golf swing.  It has an amazing way of breaking down my golfing ego and leaving me an absolute wreck of a golfer by the end of the round.   

[Kirk Gill]

What wind does is change the character of the course I'm playing, and that's a good thing. There's a local course i play with back to back par 5's. One is long, uphill, and into the prevailing wind, while the second is shorter, more downhill, and most certainly with the prevailing wind. They make for an interesting gauntlet, but especially when the wind is up. If we get the prevailing wind from the west, then the first becomes a most challenging par, while the second makes me think of eagle. But a north wind makes holding these two fairways a lot more difficult, etc. This course isn't on many lists of "better architecture," but the wind elevates these two particular holes, among others.

[David_Madison]

Here's a counter question to yours - - are courses that truly test quality players without needing to resort to wind actually better architecturally than those that need the outside influence of the wind to come alive?

The answer tends to be strictly a function of length, not wind.

[/quote]

Pat- Please explain or provide an example. Are you saying that if you took Mountain Ridge, #2, Oakmont, WFW etc., played them at 6,700 yards, slowed their greens to 9 or less, and then hit them with a 1-2 club wind they'd be better, more interesting courses that developed better players than what they are in their present configurations without the wind?

I'd argue that courses like Mountain Ridge, WFW, #2, and Oakmont have better/more interesting architecture right there on the ground, whereas courses requiring the wind to fully come alive and make better golfers are by definition incomplete without the wind. Bandon Dunes (the course, not the entire resort) and Old Mac are examples of this. When after playing OM twice with hardly any wind and then learning that there'd likely be no wind for our third play either, we switched to Bandon Trails and were happy we did so because that was a far more interesting and enjoyable course without wind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patick

Is it possible to play a round without any wind (gentle breeze perhaps, but no wind)?

Absolutely.

If so how does that support your case, because I have been on TOC many times at St Andrews when even a gentle breeze was missing.

I think you should go back and reread my "case", because it appears that you don't understand it.

If it is not there it does not come into play like other hazards be they bunkers etc. navigate away from them and they are out of the game.

I'm not talking about the absence of wind, I'm talking about it's effect on the architecture, and golfer's play.

15 – love, or was that an Ace ?

Neither, you just double faulted

Melvyn

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's a counter question to yours - - are courses that truly test quality players without needing to resort to wind actually better architecturally than those that need the outside influence of the wind to come alive?

The answer tends to be strictly a function of length, not wind.

Pat- Please explain or provide an example.

Sure.
What courses at 6,400 to 6,700, with no wind, test today's quality player ?

Are you saying that if you took Mountain Ridge, #2, Oakmont, WFW etc., played them at 6,700 yards, slowed their greens to 9 or less, and then hit them with a 1-2 club wind they'd be better, more interesting courses that developed better players than what they are in their present configurations without the wind?

I don't know that you'd have to slow the greens to 9, but, at 6,700 yards they'd be much more interesting and challenging courses with a 1-2 club length wind than they would be with NO wind

I'd argue that courses like Mountain Ridge, WFW, #2, and Oakmont have better/more interesting architecture right there on the ground, whereas courses requiring the wind to fully come alive and make better golfers are by definition incomplete without the wind.
Nonsense.
Mountain Ridge, Oakmont and WFW ONLY present a challenge to the better player today because of their length.
If they were all 6,400 yards, you'd refer to them as wonderful olde sporty membership courses.
It's their length that makes them so challenging.

PRESTWICK should be the poster child for what lack of length can do with respect to challenging the better golfer

Bandon Dunes (the course, not the entire resort) and Old Mac are examples of this. When after playing OM twice with hardly any wind and then learning that there'd likely be no wind for our third play either, we switched to Bandon Trails and were happy we did so because that was a far more interesting and enjoyable course without wind.

Having never played OM, I can't comment on yuor statement
[/quote]

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Wind I consider the finest asset in golf; in itself it is one of the greatest and most delightful accompaniments of the game.
Without wind your course is always the same, but as the wind varies in velocity and from various points of the compass, you not only have one course but you have many courses.  Experts at the game temper their shots to the wind and learn how to make the most of it, pulling or slicing at will into the wind or hitting a low ball into the face of the wind.  It is here that the true golfer excels.  Low says, "A good player always prays for a windy day, but, he must not pray too earnestly.""

[David_Madison]

I'd argue that courses like Mountain Ridge, WFW, #2, and Oakmont have better/more interesting architecture right there on the ground, whereas courses requiring the wind to fully come alive and make better golfers are by definition incomplete without the wind.
Nonsense.
Mountain Ridge, Oakmont and WFW ONLY present a challenge to the better player today because of their length.
If they were all 6,400 yards, you'd refer to them as wonderful olde sporty membership courses.
It's their length that makes them so challenging.

PRESTWICK should be the poster child for what lack of length can do with respect to challenging the better golfer

Pat,

I can't believe you believe that length is the sole required element that makes a great course a challenge, certainly not one the calibre of an Oakmont, WFW, or even a Mountain Ridge. When set up for top tier professional tournament play with baked out fairways yielding enormous drives to everyone, length is a non-issue (unless you want to see them playing 7800 yard courses). Wind, or pretty much any other element that adds variability (meaning the taking away of a formulaic aerial dart game) is what creates the challenge. We heard that from Brad Klein and Mike Davis.

Now bring it down to the real world, to the level of what we'd consider an excellent golfer, scratch plus or minus a couple of shots. Add a 1-2 club wind to an Oakmont or WFW and even at 6500 yards the average score is going to balloon. You'll identify the smartest and mentally toughest golfers for sure. But there's a problem - - these players are likely to shy away from engaging the architecture. Instead they will be missing greens on purpose and then relying on their short games. Much of the great architecture that can be engaged on a more normal risk/reward basis in calm conditions becomes monstrous with wind, and therefore must be avoided. So in that case the wind does just the opposite of accentuating better architecture.

Seems you have to look at the wind and great architecture on a case by case basis.  Your original question can only then be answered "yes" universally if you also believe that in all cases "hard" or excessively hard" equals great. I don't believe that and I wouldn't think you do either. At a Seminole or Sand Hills, absolutely yes. But on a great course that doesn't avail itself of a ground game, probably not so much.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd argue that courses like Mountain Ridge, WFW, #2, and Oakmont have better/more interesting architecture right there on the ground, whereas courses requiring the wind to fully come alive and make better golfers are by definition incomplete without the wind.
Nonsense.
Mountain Ridge, Oakmont and WFW ONLY present a challenge to the better player today because of their length.
If they were all 6,400 yards, you'd refer to them as wonderful olde sporty membership courses.
It's their length that makes them so challenging

PRESTWICK should be the poster child for what lack of length can do with respect to challenging the better golfer

Pat,

I can't believe you believe that length is the sole required element that makes a great course a challenge, certainly not one the calibre of an Oakmont, WFW, or even a Mountain Ridge.

I NEVER said that it was the SOLE  requirement, that's your interpretation
But, Oakmont, WFW and Mountain Ridge at 6,400 yards don't present the overwhelming challenge that most associate with those names

When set up for top tier professional tournament play with baked out fairways yielding enormous drives to everyone, length is a non-issue (unless you want to see them playing 7800 yard courses).

Length is ALWAYS an issue.

And, I only recall one Open where the fairways were "baked out", "dry" would be my definition and that was at Shinnecock

Wind, or pretty much any other element that adds variability (meaning the taking away of a formulaic aerial dart game) is what creates the challenge. We heard that from Brad Klein and Mike Davis.

Without length, there is no significant challenge.
Brad and Mike can speak for themselves, but, their presentation and discussion was within the context of the courses that host USGA Championships today, not courses with abbreviated length of 6,400 yards

Now bring it down to the real world, to the level of what we'd consider an excellent golfer, scratch plus or minus a couple of shots. Add a 1-2 club wind to an Oakmont or WFW and even at 6500 yards the average score is going to balloon. You'll identify the smartest and mentally toughest golfers for sure.

Oakmont has narrowed their fairways and brought in the fairway bunkers with them, as has Baltusrol and others.
Almost EVERY US. OPEN course has narrowed their fairways and NOT returned them to Pre-Open widths

But there's a problem - - these players are likely to shy away from engaging the architecture. Instead they will be missing greens on purpose and then relying on their short games.


I don't believe that.
Why would you want to miss a green on purpose ?  What can be gained of that strategy or tactic ?  And how do you avoid bunkers on narrow fairways with a 2 club wind ?

Much of the great architecture that can be engaged on a more normal risk/reward basis in calm conditions becomes monstrous with wind, and therefore must be avoided.


I disagree.
Why does the architecture become "monstrous" ?  Isn't the architecture static ?
How does a fairway or greenside bunker become "monstrous" in the wind while remaining benign without the wind ?

So in that case the wind does just the opposite of accentuating better architecture.

Seems you have to look at the wind and great architecture on a case by case basis.  Your original question can only then be answered "yes" universally if you also believe that in all cases "hard" or excessively hard" equals great. I don't believe that and I wouldn't think you do either. At a Seminole or Sand Hills, absolutely yes.

But on a great course that doesn't avail itself of a ground game, probably not so much.

Two questions:
How can it be a great course if it doesn't avail itself of the ground game ?
Could you list 10 great courses that don't avail themselves of the ground game ?

[David_Madison]

Pat,

Not talking 6,400 yards; never mentioned anything that short. I'm thinking 6,600 - 6,800. Certainly not long by any modern standards but not pitch and putt for most of us.

Missing a green on purpose is a perfectly valid tactic if your expected average score by missing the green is less than if you go for the green and then have the architecture and the elements lead you to the occasional disaster. And hitting the green is no guarantee of scoring lower than missing the green at the right location and then getting it up and down. Spent an hour talking with Grant Rogers (Director of Instruction at Bandon) about that among other interesting things. He often intentionally misses greens (and even fairways) and avoids taking on the difficult elements of the architecture at all the Bandon courses under windy conditions, as his expected average score is lower that way. Wasn't Billy Casper's intentionally laying up on #4 (or was it #10) at WFW in the Open another such case?

Was length an issue at the last Open at Oakmont? The par-5's were all reachable in two, and most of the par-4's were hit with wedges. Much the same at Pebble and the last Open at Pinehurst. When players are hitting 3-wood/8-iron into 475 yard holes, distance isn't an issue. Maybe you and I think differently about length. Once a tour level player is hitting 8 or 9-iron or less into a green, my sense is that distance wasn't an issue. Sure, wedge is better than 9-iron, and 80 yards is better than 110 yards, but the architecture certainly isn't highlighted with the 9-iron but not with the wedge.

Wade Hampton, Olympic, The Homestead, Harbour Town, TPC Sawgrass, Castle Pines (and almost everything Nicklaus), Grandfather, Quail Hollow are all courses played better in the air. Most of the AWT stuff I remember from NJ/NY seemed that way as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Not talking 6,400 yards; never mentioned anything that short. I'm thinking 6,600 - 6,800. Certainly not long by any modern standards but not pitch and putt for most of us.

WFW, Oakmont and Mountain Ridge aren't the challenge at 6,600 that most associate with those names.
In addition, there's an enormous difference in the courses.  WFW and Oakmont have had their fairways narrowed considerably, Mountain Ridge's fairways are VERY generous.  You can't take a course specifically narrowed for a USGA Championship and then factor in signficant wind.  Shinnecock showed the unfavorable result of that combination, and that was with the best golfers in the world.
Imagine if the members played under those conditions.  They'd never finish. 

Missing a green on purpose is a perfectly valid tactic if your expected average score by missing the green is less than if you go for the green and then have the architecture and the elements lead you to the occasional disaster.

What's the difference if you miss a green on purpose or if you miss it inadvertantly while attempting to hit the green ?  ?  ?

And hitting the green is no guarantee of scoring lower than missing the green at the right location and then getting it up and down.

I disagree with that as well.  If you're not good enough to hit the green, what makes you good enough to miss the green in the optimal location ?

Spent an hour talking with Grant Rogers (Director of Instruction at Bandon) about that among other interesting things. He often intentionally misses greens (and even fairways) and avoids taking on the difficult elements of the architecture at all the Bandon courses under windy conditions, as his expected average score is lower that way.
 
I'd be interested to know on what holes he employs that tactic, and where he tries to miss greens and fairways.
Why would you ever want to miss a fairway ?

Wasn't Billy Casper's intentionally laying up on #4 (or was it #10) at WFW in the Open another such case?

It was # 3.
At the time, Billy Casper was deemed to be one of the best putters and short game players in the world,
A far cry from the club golfer

Was length an issue at the last Open at Oakmont?
yes

The par-5's were all reachable in two, and most of the par-4's were hit with wedges.

I must have been watching a different tournament.
And, I played Oakmont shortly after the Open and it's a long golf course with a few short holes

 Much the same at Pebble and the last Open at Pinehurst. When players are hitting 3-wood/8-iron into 475 yard holes, distance isn't an issue. Maybe you and I think differently about length. Once a tour level player is hitting 8 or 9-iron or less into a green, my sense is that distance wasn't an issue. Sure, wedge is better than 9-iron, and 80 yards is better than 110 yards, but the architecture certainly isn't highlighted with the 9-iron but not with the wedge.

You're making the same mistake as everyone else.
Suddelnly you're contexting the issue within the confines of the best 120 golfers on the planet.
It isn't about PGATour caliber play.
I thought I made that clear at the onset and in subsequent posts.

Wade Hampton, Olympic, The Homestead, Harbour Town, TPC Sawgrass, Castle Pines (and almost everything Nicklaus), Grandfather, Quail Hollow are all courses played better in the air.


That WASN'T the issue you raised,

You said, and I quote, {But on a great course that doesn't avail itself of a ground game, probably not so much}
So how don't those courses avail themselves of the ground game ?.


Most of the AWT stuff I remember from NJ/NY seemed that way as well.

There's not an AWT course that I know of in the NJ/NY area that doesn't avial itself of the ground game

[David_Madison]

How do tight courses with small, elevated greens with fronting hazards avail themselves of a ground game? You said it earlier - it takes width. I agree with that. It takes width and angles. But if the architectural style and course set-up (grass length, plushness, and inconsistent ground ball speed) best supports an aerial attack, then how does the wind accentuate the architecture? If you have fast, firm, severely contoured greens with small features, doesn't the wind render approach shots a virtual crapshoot? It's at that point that I believe the architecture is not accentuated, but instead often best avoided by playing extremely conservatively.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Patrick

Your comment is rather interesting, yet you make no reference to rain which also has its effect upon play and the ball. These hazards attributed to God and not one of our jolly architects/designers are just that HAZARDS, albeit periodic ones. IF the weather is great that day do you miss their interface with the course and your game, no of course not. If they are not present or active how can anyone deal with a non-event or no show.

Pat I believe you are making a simple issue complicated. A more appropriate point of view would be to ask why designers place bunkers behind a Green – if the shot is wayward then that’s down to the golfer and he should suffer the consequences not be saved by cleverly positioned bunker by the designers. Trap the approach but let the rabbit run, this will be a better lesson for the golfer.

When is a hazard not a hazard, when it’s not there, so how can you expect  players to adjust. Many don’t, many can't, they wait until the weather improves just as happened with Norman and Watson over the last few Opens.  

Melvyn

[David_Madison]

Pat,

An example of a hole that Grant Rogers misses the green on purpose - - #12 at Bandon Dunes. You may remember it's a pretty long par-3. The ocean is on the right and also comes into play if you hit a shot long thru the middle of the green. There's a bunker mid-green on the left. When the wind is blowing in any direction other than right to left, if pin is in the back left third of the green, Grant always hits his approach long and left, from where it is relatively easy to make a par. For sure your average score will be lower playing the hole that way than if you go for the pin or even the middle of the green, as you'll make more fives playing with the ocean. And as Grant puts it, even if you do hit it into the center of the green, which is a low percentage shot, you still have to get it in the hole, and a 2-putt is no sure thing. This is clearly a case where while the wind may accentuate the existence of the architectural features, it makes the smart player not engage them.

[Michael Whitaker]

Pat - My observation playing in several Buda Cups is that the UK players have a greater advantage over the US players as the wind speed increases. We just don't play in serious wind as much as the guys who play links golf on a regular basis.

As I have learned first hand, wind reveals the flaws in one's golf game more surely than any other factor. I've never experienced as much golf frustration as I have on a windy links.

The skill to play in wind can be learned, but in this country most golfers head for home if the wind is too severe. There are just too many "good" days to play. In the UK, one would almost have to give up the game if he couldn't learn to cope with wind.

I don't think wind makes for "better" golfers in general. It just forces one to learn to cope with a different style of play. I'm a golfer of average skill, but players who can whip me on a windy day often don't fair as well on a calm day. Eventually, I will learn to play the wind... they can't improve on their calm day game!

I don't think wind accentuates better architecture. It just changes the playing characteristics of the course... sometimes making a course play more difficult, sometimes less.

If a course is good, it's good... if not, it's not. The wind is not going to change that fact, only exaggerate the effect of the features presented.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How do tight courses with small, elevated greens with fronting hazards avail themselves of a ground game?

What course are you referencing ?

You said it earlier - it takes width. I agree with that. It takes width and angles. But if the architectural style and course set-up (grass length, plushness, and inconsistent ground ball speed) best supports an aerial attack, then how does the wind accentuate the architecture?

All of the items you list are non-architectural items.  They're maintainance items.
Rather than talk in terms of hypotheticals, let's use a specific AWT course as our example.
Take Baltusrol Lower, how is that course ill suited to the ground game ?

If you have fast, firm, severely contoured greens with small features, doesn't the wind render approach shots a virtual crapshoot?
Again, let's not talk in terms of hypotheticals, let's use Baltusrol Lower, which doesn't have severely contoured greens with small features

It's at that point that I believe the architecture is not accentuated, but instead often best avoided by playing extremely conservatively.

In terms of Baltusrol Lower, I don't see it.

But, perhaps you have another AWT course in mind where your position might apply.
Let's discuss that course

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat - My observation playing in several Buda Cups is that the UK players have a greater advantage over the US players as the wind speed increases. We just don't play in serious wind as much as the guys who play links golf on a regular basis.

As I have learned first hand, wind reveals the flaws in one's golf game more surely than any other factor. I've never experienced as much golf frustration as I have on a windy links.

The skill to play in wind can be learned, but in this country most golfers head for home if the wind is too severe. There are just too many "good" days to play. In the UK, one would almost have to give up the game if he couldn't learn to cope with wind.

Michael, on some recent visits to Seminole I noticed the same thing.
Golfers who played the course regularly, in good winds, were so much better prepared than those who didn't have the same depth of experience.

There's no doubt in my mind that repeated play under windy conditions improves the golfer's game.
They just seem to get used to it and incorporate it into their normal play

I don't think wind makes for "better" golfers in general. It just forces one to learn to cope with a different style of play. I'm a golfer of average skill, but players who can whip me on a windy day often don't fair as well on a calm day. Eventually, I will learn to play the wind... they can't improve on their calm day game!

I'd agree with that, that's why I stated that it's an acquired skill

I don't think wind accentuates better architecture. It just changes the playing characteristics of the course... sometimes making a course play more difficult, sometimes less.

You might change your mind after playing Seminole, where the architecture and the wind seem to form a symbiotic relationship

If a course is good, it's good... if not, it's not. The wind is not going to change that fact, only exaggerate the effect of the features presented.

Seminole is a great course that gets exponentially better with wind

I think you could say the same thing about NGLA and Shinnecock

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

Your comment is rather interesting, yet you make no reference to rain which also has its effect upon play and the ball.
Melvyn, feel free to start a thread on "rain" or sleet and snow, and the ball, but, this thread is about the effect of the wind, which on some sites is almost always present

These hazards attributed to God and not one of our jolly architects/designers are just that HAZARDS, albeit periodic ones. IF the weather is great that day do you miss their interface with the course and your game, no of course not.

Not true.

The sport, game and challenge are made better, enhanced by the introduction of the wind,
whereas, I can do without the rain.

If they are not present or active how can anyone deal with a non-event or no show.

The same way one can eat and enjoy a cake without the icing

Pat I believe you are making a simple issue complicated.

I think you'd change your mind if you'd played Seminole and NGLA

A more appropriate point of view would be to ask why designers place bunkers behind a Green – if the shot is wayward then that’s down to the golfer and he should suffer the consequences not be saved by cleverly positioned bunker by the designers. Trap the approach but let the rabbit run, this will be a better lesson for the golfer.

I started a thread about rear bunkers based on my interaction with the back bunker on # 16 at The Creek

When is a hazard not a hazard, when it’s not there, so how can you expect  players to adjust.

I never defined the wind as a hazard, you did.
If you don't adjust to the wind, you're doomed to be its victim

Many don’t, many can't, they wait until the weather improves just as happened with Norman and Watson over the last few Opens.
How does a competitor, in an Open, with set starting times, wait for the weather to improve before he decides to tee off ? 

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

Patrick


I love your answers, it’s the old story of the best form of defence is to attack.

Your comment is rather interesting, yet you make no reference to rain which also has its effect upon play and the ball.
Melvyn, feel free to start a thread on "rain" or sleet and snow, and the ball, but, this thread is about the effect of the wind, which on some sites is almost always present

It’s a simple statement, rain, wind, snow or sun are not always present.

These hazards attributed to God and not one of our jolly architects/designers are just that HAZARDS, albeit periodic ones. IF the weather is great that day do you miss their interface with the course and your game, no of course not.

Not true.

The sport, game and challenge are made better, enhanced by the introduction of the wind,
whereas, I can do without the rain.

The weather is an addition hazard, rain as with snow and wind can affect the ball both in air and on land, alternatively when they are not present then no affect.

If they are not present or active how can anyone deal with a non-event or no show.

The same way one can eat and enjoy a cake without the icing

WHAT! What has that to do with golf, wind – oh I see icing gives you wind

Pat I believe you are making a simple issue complicated.

I think you'd change your mind if you'd played Seminole and NGLA

Pat, my experience of golf if that is is far from complicated, many try and make it complicated. By why to show they play golf love the game or just like to try and understand the science of a game. Which alfter all is all it is ‘a game’. Love the game for what it is, don’t try and make it a university study degree.

 I say “Golf's Final Frontier is in The Mind” , no to make it look complicated but in explaining it is not, it’s us humans that make things complicated for ourselves as its appears another mountain we seem to want or need to conquer, it is not as there is no mountain it is all within our minds.

A more appropriate point of view would be to ask why designers place bunkers behind a Green – if the shot is wayward then that’s down to the golfer and he should suffer the consequences not be saved by cleverly positioned bunker by the designers. Trap the approach but let the rabbit run, this will be a better lesson for the golfer.

I started a thread about rear bunkers based on my interaction with the back bunker on # 16 at The Creek

I have seen it mentioned and believe it is worth far more discussion, why are modern designers trying to help the golfer, should the hazards not be to the front, minimising costs and leaving the wayward shot to fend for its self.- But that’s another topic, yet is as important as wind.

When is a hazard not a hazard, when it’s not there, so how can you expect  players to adjust.

I never defined the wind as a hazard, you did.
If you don't adjust to the wind, you're doomed to be its victim

No you did not I did as that is what it is. If yur game does not touch upon the hazard(s) then they play no part in that hole. You adjust to the wind if it is there just as you do if series of bunkers are in your target area otherwise it does not come into play. No wind no hazard is my point.

Many don’t, many can't, they wait until the weather improves just as happened with Norman and Watson over the last few Opens.
 
How does a competitor, in an Open, with set starting times, wait for the weather to improve before he decides to tee off ? 

You seem to have missed my point on this one completely – Norman and Watson came through the field when condition were bad, they adjusted to the hazard of the weather and played accordingly. The clearly did not letting Greg Norman take the lead which he held until after the weather turned for the better allowing the younger players the opportunity to return to their natural form and game. Ditto Watson. Reason, the older guys understood the game how to play the game, do not overcomplicate the game, just play it. The younger guys still rely more on power that the mind, yet had the weather not broken then we would have had two old guys winning The Open. It had sod all to do with start times off the Tee

Again why look for the complicated answer on Tee Times when you know they are set and players must Tee off accordingly or fear disqualification.

The answer does not rest in a good golfing book but in open and free mind, to view before you the wonders of golf in the form of a natural course blending in all Natures gifts asking you to walk and perhaps flirt with her for a few miles. But to take her as your Mistress then it gets complicated, you make it complicated.

Melvyn

[Michael Moore]

You might change your mind after playing Seminole, where the architecture and the wind seem to form a symbiotic relationship.

Pat -

How does the architecture affect the wind at Seminole?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()