[Melvyn Morrow]

Those who know Mac first hand will I hope agree that we have been fortunate in having such a great free spirit as a member of GCA.com. His approach is not to object to opinions of others but to try to understand what that point of view is about. In fact he seems to travel that extra mile to see if there is any substance to that opposing opinion.

Mac joined because he had a keen interest, nay passion for the game of golf, his posts have been clear on that point, yet within a year this guy has raised his game both on the course and certainly on his posts on this site. He has openly grasped golf course architecture and design, not just in this time but has enquired and the obtained many a good book on past and its legends.

I would recommend to all that you read Mac’s article IN MY OPINION.  I am not suggesting reading his article because he has very kindly mentioned my name once or twice, but  for seeing through all the hype and reading the actual message, which  I was trying to share with all. Mr Plumart comes across as a highly emotional and passionate, in fact you can feel his qualities shining through, infecting you the reader, re kindling your own waning interests in the game of Golf.

Do not fear my name is just one of many but I do feel that Mac’s article is a worthy read, so I commend it to you all.

Thanks Mac

Melvyn

[Tony_Muldoon]

Great stuff Mac.  I await your coments following your upcoming inaugural tour of Scotland.  After I first saw a few old classics I though they aren't that different to old courses, just a few things 'missing' and a lot of fun added.


here's the link.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/extreme-golf

[Eric Smith]

Mac's piece is a stimulating read and his description of Extreme Golf sounds familiar.  I think he got his ideas of the extreme golf course from me on the ride back to Atlanta from Hilton Head.  But I'm not surprised as this is the same guy who plans to write the Confidential Guide Part Deux and is the visionary for the website joshuaslounge.com, a place for golf purists like Dr. Gray and Chris Johnston to hang out. Originality is being turned on its head here folks.  Imagine, greens with 4% slopes...shoot, why not make em 5%!  Golf returns to its roots? Yes!  The stymie resurrected? Get out!!  Wool golf knickers and jackets...REQUIRED?  Great Stuff!!!

I heart Mac and I'm just kidding around, ribbing my friends because they like to have fun. Mac's being here on GCA has been a shot in both arms and I've told him that on more than one occasion. He'll tell you that he is here to learn and just like another great former poster here has said to me - Mac asks questions! and we need more of that.  His opinion piece is a fun read and Mac is definitely a fun guy. I can't wait til we blaze a trail again out in Montany this summer.  

Mac's ideas of having fun align with another golf course enthusiast who I've read on the internet, at least in his definition of what great golf really and truly is. Here's Top100golfer:

Cruden Bay doesn't fit neatly into any category. It is a truly unique location and a one of a kind golf course. I found Cruden Bay to be a refreshing and enlightening experience. The point of golf after all is to have fun and enjoy yourself. Cruden Bay would be ranked #1 in the world if you used this as your only measurement criteria. It makes you see golf like through the eyes of a five year old. If you haven't been around a five year old lately I'll remind you: everything is exciting; there is a sense of discovery around every corner; life is good and full of promise.

Bernard Darwin wrote of this great course, "I think it is typical of Cruden Bay, which is a place extraordinarily difficult to keep away from for those who have once come under its spell." I'm often asked what I'm going to do when I'm done playing the top 100 golf courses in the world. Well, I'm going to go back to Cruden Bay to play it over and over again!

I have a hunch that Mac's Cruden Bay will be Askernish come this May. It'll be fun hearing and reading of his experiences while in Scotland.

Edit -- Mac, adding the 'Suicide Bunker' to the Extreme Golf Course might look pretty good on a young fellow's application...http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42426.msg907891.html#msg907891

[Bart Bradley]

Mac:

Old Mac, Sand Hills, Ballyneal and Kingsley are modern courses that I would immediately say were built for the "fun golfer".  I think they each have the sort of bold, interesting features for which you are advocating.  Have you seen these?

Here's a question or two to spark debate: would you want greens like Stillwell Park if they had to stimp at 4 or 5 in order for anyone to hole out a putt?  Is it really fun to 4 and 5 putt, even in match play?

Nice job and interesting reading.  Keep up the good work.

Bart

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac,
A pundit might note that you chose "In My Opinion" because there was no "In Everyone Else's Opinion" section to place your essay, or that you've made more citations than Cessna...

....but it's a nice job, and thanks.

[Mac Plumart]

Hey guys...thanks for the kind words.  

Eric...you are correct.  I shared with you some of the extreme golf ideas on our road trip back from Old South.  Frankly, the golf on the golf trips are great...but it is the interaction during the non-golf times that is priceless.  For instance, seeing your routing of St. Albert's, discussing Cruden Bay with Wardo, and things like that.

I will write that book you mention.  Of course, it won't be just like The Confidential Guide.  And I might have a fellow GCA'er who will help me out with it.  I'm really excited about it.  HOWEVER, I've got a few more years of intensive golfing research to complete first.  

And, yep, that Suicide Bunker looks totally amazing!!!

Bart...great questions.  Of the courses you mention, I've played Sand Hills and Ballyneal.  Hopefully, I'll be playing Old Mac and Kingsley this year.  

On Ballyneal, I agree 100%.  That course fit my ideal of adventure/fun golf.  I know I've said this before (and my apologies for being redundant redundant) but I still day dream about green #12 and the entirety of hole #8...holy cow!  8 may be the best hole I've ever seen.  So amazingly good!  And 7 is no slouch either.

On Sand Hills, I think the greens might be just a touch too mundane.  The course is amazing, in fact I rank the course a bit higher than I do Ballyneal on my list of favorites, but on the extreme golf/fun scale the greens are just a bit too mundane.  However, I think they are the perfect blend of speed and undulation for having a great day putting...but I was never awed by them.  Litereally, at Sebonack and Ballyneal, I felt my mouth hanging open in amazement at some of those greens.  Also, at some of the bunkering and some of the shots required...think #2 and #3 at Sebonack.  For you Golf Digest guys, shot values?  Oh yeah!!

On the Sitwell Park green and the appropriate stimping of them, I have no idea!  I am simply not educated enough to know.  I think the one, and to date only, time I've played Ballyneal they staff told us the greens were stimped at 11.  I thought that was fine, but the member I played with thought they were too fast.  When I played Sebonack the greens were every bit of 12 (maybe 13), that was a bit too fast.  When I played Pinehurst the greens were running 8 to 9, per the caddies.  I thought that was a bit too slow.   But really I have no idea.  Not my specialty.  Have a super set up the greens, I'll hit a few putts and tell you if I think they are too slow or too fast.  

Is it fun to 4 or 5 putt?  I have no idea, I've never even 3 putt...on any green!!!  



Jim...what's wrong with that?  

If I'm here to learn, shouldn't I listen/read what people like Tom Doak and Mike Nuzzo have to say?  Critically think about it and decide whether I agree or disagree?  Part of my reason for being on this site is to find out why I love this game so damn much and to discover courses that bring this love to its peak.  To achieve this, I read about, study a lot of, and play a lot of golf.  I've found the guys whose ideals and thoughts on golf line up with mine and I've discovered guys whose views and desires on golf don't line up with mine.  This helps achieve part of my goals.


 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Nothing's 'wrong' with that Mac, hence, the big smiley at the end of the sentence.

[Mac Plumart]

Jim:

I'm not being defensive...YOU'RE being defensive. 

Anyone see that Saturday Night Live with Martin Short playing the role of the CEO of a company that is being sued for defective whoopie cushions?  That's where that line comes from. 

[Ronald Montesano]

did you have a smoke dangling from your mouth, Martin, when you typed it?

Honestly, how can you not love a guy who quotes a guy who personifies a hole as "This Caliban," of The Tempest, one of Shakespeare's great bags?

I'm with you, Macadamia. I think of scrawny little courses of little worth in Buffalo that, with a bit of the crazy and the extreme, could be immortalized.  Hope there is, D-Park, C-Park and S-Park!!

[Mac Plumart]

I think of scrawny little courses of little worth in Buffalo that, with a bit of the crazy and the extreme, could be immortalized.

Ronald...That is just it!!!  We don't need mutli-million dollar, over-the-top luxury courses...which will turn out to be pretty much like the one just down the street.  We need something new (or is that old...really old) to generate some buzz.  At least, that is what I think.

EDIT...You got the joke Ron.  Here is a photo of said CEO. 

[Colin Macqueen]

Mac, Enthusiasm as usual. Good stuff.

Ron,

"I'm with you, Macadamia."  Now that's a magic moniker for Mac Plumart.  Why didn't one of my mob from Down Under twig to this as the macadamia is a native nut and tree from Queensland in Australia.

Having mentioned nuts... Mac is a a self-confessed golf nut so Macadamia is perfect! Well thought out Ron!

Cheers Colin

[Adam Clayman]

Mac,
 It's been my great pleasure to have learned a lot from this website. One of the major lessons surrounds terminology and the importance to be accurate with each word. No where better is that concept learned than when trying to decipher Max Behr. Bob Crosby's piece on the great debate centers on the need to be certain about terminology. The sport v. game is where I'm trying to get to. I'm just not very good at it. In essence, that's what Mike Nuzzo was also saying. Doak's pamphlet too.

TePaul's Big World Theory acknowledges golf's elasticity allowing freedom for people's "adventure" to take different paths, expressing their own emphasis on how important golf is to them. What happened, that you accurately alluded to, is that "gameminders" won out in a commercial sense. So did Ray Croc. But, if golf is to have a healthy future the game mind needs to be de-emphaisized. For after 1000's of rounds, it ceases to be any fun.

Well Done!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Adam

I sincerely believe and understand that many want to stamp their identity upon the game known as golf. In a free world that is totally their right, however, being a free world with rights for individuals, we tend to forget that that applies both ways.   While some may want to do their own thing others want to maintain the quality and magic which brought them to the game in the first place.

Is it wrong to want to maintain a game that had a grace, discipline with a prerequisite for open honest fairness merged with a requirement to consider others (Course Etiquette)  while enjoying oneself . Add to this the fact that the Majors are all walking competitions, alas spoilt (IMHO) by the allowance of distance information. On this point alone we are not able to judge or assess the real skill qualities of the golfers, as they are clearly downloading outside information in the form of distance. I believe if you are playing golf you should only have the use of your own eyes to judge distance.

The Big World Theory is great in principal but like Communism just does not work. Who is going to be the First Among Equals, who will dare define the Rules knowing that some may again breakaway and do their own thing, yet still endeavour to call it golf. How many variations of golf will we have, will the Majors breakaway and follow a specific type of golf. The Rules or should I say what Rules would apply to a game open to multi variations or clones of itself.

Rules have been changed or relaxed allowing many modifications to slip into today’s play. It’s not new, that I suppose is the whole point, control on technology was never thought through in the early days, but give the old timers their dew they were trying to standardise, seeking clubs fit for purpose, balls that did not lose their shape when hit or wet and thus would roll. But this was more or less achievable by the latter part of the 19th Century, yet no one noticed, or considered the future thus  allowing technology to rule while our courses lost their arsenal of penal defence for something call the strategic game. 

I have no problem with those who want to ride and not walk,  I am indifferent to those who use distance aids, but I am very protective if they want to call their game golf because in truth they gave up that right once they moved away from the traditions of the game. After all these traditions are not just 30-50 years old but have been part of the game from its conception.  I suppose we could argue that the Governing Bodies failed in their duty to protect the game of golf, I think that case would be easily proven, but it was doe not out of malice but plain and simple ignorance. They never considered the future or what the consequences of their actions would mean on the future of the game.

Clearly understand is something the Governing Bodies seem to fail at but, the problem I believe is the total lack of planning or researching as to what may happen if they allow that practice to come within the rules. For me the classic are ball/club technology  (we have the tail wagging the dog), letting healthy golfers ride when walking is the bedrock of the game and finally this belief that distance aids actually work for 99.9% of golfers, when in my experience they delay the onset of skill and pleasure, slow the game down and frustrate the golfers not using aids.

Nevertheless, it’s a Big World out there and we all have our opinions, perhaps some might like to consider that others too have that right.  As for my case, well maybe some consideration or even understanding that golf has been a major part of my life way before I even played a round. While it’s not in the blood it is most certainly is in my genes.

Mac’s approach with a few others is very refreshing, not only listening but entering into debate upon the subject of Golf and its constituents parts, willing to understand all arguments before making up an opinion. Very refreshing, as in this way we have minimal casualties caused by so called friendly fire, thus allowing the debate to continue enriching all who take the time to read the different points of view.

Melvyn

[Adam Clayman]

Melvyn, I hear you and empathize. My bringing up TePaul's BWT was only in regard to the architecture. Since I'm not really a student of the history, what little I suspect I know is each club had their own rules. Is that correct? And the game grew, eventually coming together with a standard set of rules, resulting in the creation of the R&A. Please stop me when I err?

[Dan King]

Melvyn Hunter Morrow writes:
Who is going to be the First Among Equals,

That would be me.

who will dare define the Rules knowing that some may again breakaway and do their own thing, yet still endeavour to call it golf. How many variations of golf will we have, will the Majors breakaway and follow a specific type of golf. The Rules or should I say what Rules would apply to a game open to multi variations or clones of itself.

I think golf has some basic principles. You keep your hands off the golf ball, you leave the course as you find it and you realize you share the course with others and behave accordingly.

The USGA and R&A allow golfers to touch the golf ball for all sorts of trivial reasons which not only gets away from the first principle but also gets away from the third principle, forcing everyone to play the slow 21st Century game.

Cheers,
Dan King

Almost every venerable tradition at a men's club starts out as a joke.
 --Joe Bob Briggs

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
The first rules of the game allowed a player to put his hands on the ball by picking it up if it was touching another one, and they also allowed the player to pick the ball up when taking free relief from certain conditions. If 1773 a gollfer could even "change his Ball either in the Green or hazards" if the act was "agreed on by both parties".  He could also lift his ball for identification in 1773 and he was allowed a free lift from an ball that was embedded. In 1775 a player was able to lift his ball and drop it behind certain man made hazards, like drainage ditches, which was the precursor of GUR.

These same six instances of touching the ball that were part of the first thirty years of rulesmaking continue to be with us today.
I can't think of any trivial reason that allows a modern player to touch his ball that isn't found in these six. Even the 'modern' marking of the ball on the green had its start when balls were touching or when one ball was so positioned to give an advantage where none should be given.


Melyvn,
I probably use a yardage device one out of a hundred rounds. Having said that, I don't see much difference between the mid 19th century caddy who answers his player with "it's a full swing with your mid-mashie sir" when his man asks advice, and the modern caddy who answers the same question with "it's 143 yards boss, I'd go with easy nine". 
 

[Mac Plumart]

I agree with Tom Paul's Big World Theory, if I understand it correctly.  Golf is a big world, there is something for everyone's taste.  

I absolutely love to play East Lake and feel that history and play a Championship course, greens stimped at 13, brick hards greens, thick and devastating bermuda rough.

I absolutely loved playing Ballyneal.  Such a crazy, great, fun, eye opening experience.  It certainly was golf...but much different than the PGA Tour courses...like East Lake.  

So, I am not saying ALL courses need to be these extreme golf courses.  I just think they'd be a nice addition to have here and there to open up a new audience to the game, make the game more cost effective for the players and the clubs.

And  I can respect that people like to play golf in different ways.  You've got stroke play, match play, alternate shot...whatever.  But you've also got strict rules of the game and then you've got mulligans off the first tee, putts are good inside the leather...things like  that.  Again, whatever...I really don't care.  It is a Big World, right?  

You want hickory golf...go for it.  You want modern golf...go for it.  You want to walk...cool, have at it.  You like to ride...or need to ride...fine.  Enjoy.  Again, it is a Big World.  There is room for all of us to enjoy this game.

But, like usual, I really think Melvyn makes some super great points.  (and yes, I totally get that he can beat a dead horse...walking...and he can come off terse in the presentation of his opinions.  But, nevertheless, I think he put up an excellent post above and came across VERY well and) His points on wanting to maintain a game that has a grace, discipline with a prerequisite for open honest fairness merged with a requirement to consider others is simply spot on.  IMO.  In fact, this is the essence of the game to me.  I don't care where you play, what equipment you play with...open, honest fairness merged with a requirement to consider others.

Also, his point about Golf being a walking game is irrefutable.  Change this and you change the game.  No doubt about it.  It is kind of like basketball without dribbling.  It is still fun to shoot the ball, but the game changes.  And, as you all know, I get the needing to ride thing.  I am not blasting those who don't walk.  I walk maybe 50% of the time...that is all.  I still like the game when I ride, it is just different, especially internally...how I am thinking, what I am thinking, what kind of rhythm I'm in, etc.

And his point about distance aids seems to get lost in his effort to promote walking, but, again, I think he's nailed it.  A golfer's skill has a lot to do with judgement.  What club to hit, what kind of shot to hit...add in lasers, and yardage books, and the game changes.  You don't have to make that judgement.  The shot is 150 yards to the center of the green.  Pin, per the pin sheet, is up 5.  Wind is slightly in my face and the shot is uphill.  Boom...got it.  Give me my 7 iron (or whatever), execute routine shot process, bingo...artillery practice.  I really think the game is more fun when you use your brain, eyes, and judgement to try to figure all that out.  But that is JUST me.  It is a Big World...I like the game that way.

Some might say that if I play this way, I am cheating.  Not using distance yardage will artifically inflate your handicap.  You'll get more strokes in a match and you'll be more difficult to defeat when you use those things.  You know what, maybe.  But what I forgot to tell you is that when I walk, I only take a few clubs.  Cheater!  Right?  Artifically inflating my handicap by not using all the tools available to me.  

But you know what, I fundamentally reject the handicapping system.  I am debating not even recording my scores anymore and never playing in a tournament ever again...or playing someone for money.  Personally, I hate that aspect of the game.  But, again, it is a Big World.  Some people play golf for the competition.  They thrive on it.  They LOVE it.  I don't.  I've seen people game the system, I've seen fights break out over a golf match (some physical confrontations and some verbal spats).  WTF is that all about?!?!?  I see this type of thing so much that it is common place.  I don't like it.  I don't want to be part of it.  But that is just me.

Anyway, I am rambling...apologies.  

We all love the game or we wouldn't be on this site.  Enjoy it in whatever way you choose, as long as you are considerate of others...everyone should be cool with however you play it.

[Dan King]

Jim_Kennedy writes:
The first rules of the game allowed a player to put his hands on the ball by picking it up if it was touching another one, and they also allowed the player to pick the ball up when taking free relief from certain conditions.

Is it your opinion that golf started in 1744 or was it just anarchy prior to then?

Read the Leith Rules again. They are designed to deal with situations where there is no other way for the medal contestant to proceed without touching the ball.

Think about the last time you played golf. Did you play a single hole without touching the ball between teeing and holing? How many of those were because you could not proceed with out touching? My experience with golf is many people put their hand on the ball to make it all shiny and new, give it a better lie or to align it. These should never be allowed in golf. If my ball is sitting on the green, but I don't like the look of it and want to lift it, clean it and align it the USGA and R&A both say go ahead, take all the time you want to make the ball pretty and aligned. Which of the Leith Rules does that fit under?

Cheers,
Dan King

Golf is the only game in which a precise knowledge of the rules can earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship.
  --Patrick Campbell

[Wade Schueneman]

Mac,

I enjoyed your article.  I remeber when we spoke a bit about this subject while driving to Aiken that you seemed to capture the essence of what you are saying by describing yourself not as a golfer but as a "sportsman".  I am in total agreement.  How better to approach the game than as a sportsman in search of golfing adventures. 

Perhaps part of the problem is that GCA enthusiasts are more likely to roll with the punches when encountering bold (and perhaps even "unair") features during their travles, because they visit courses to experience them and are hoping for unique and innovative features.  That is my outlook.  However, I can see why a golfer who belongs to a club and essentially only plays at that club day in and day out might be quick to label features as unfair or goofey, because after a few dozen plays that golfer is probably more interested in shooting a good round than experiencing the course.

[Mac Plumart]

Wade...

I agree.  And your last part is absolutely true...the part about shooting a good score.  But these types of courses need to be pure match play courses.  If someone launches one of these they need to completely sell that it is a match play course plain and simple.  No golf score will be discussed ever.  Embrace the adventure...not the score.

But like I said, I agree with your sentiment.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

First of all you presume that both the 19th Century Golfer and his/her Caddie where into and understood the modern meaning of distance aids.  Caddies carried the clubs, perhaps some who knew the course may have suggested how his Golfer might like to navigate the course.  Distance apart from the length of the Hole  (which back then was not normally shown on the Tee post -that is to say if you could find one) was not part of the game.  Again distance seeped into the game in the middle to late 20th Century .

If I heard a Caddie sprout distance while on a golf course I would ask him to pass on the information to his golfer quietly as I do not want my mind confused by distance. But please if we are going to delve back into history please remember that walking and thinking was the main part of the game back then. Unlike today when many golfers have to rely upon distance information be it in booklet form , electronic or word of mouth via a Caddie, because they do not trust themselves or their eyes.
The word natural or instinctive is alien to these golfers, but on the bright side we have the pleasure of watching the “The Distance Dance”  in it various forms i.e.  The Pacing;  The Paper Rustle; The Rangefinder/GPS Quickstep  (do not be confused by the name it can takes as long as pacing out distance) and finally The Caddie’s Whisper  - although all within three Greens can hear his distance mating call.

Jim, distance is a modern sickness that many golfer get these days, I liken it to a STD, (playing with aids), no good ever really comes of it as one instinctively knows that one has been given outside help and did not/could not work it out for oneself.   

As with all things one should use a Caddie wisely without interfering in the pleasure of other golfers.
My father used caddies on TOC, but never for distance information. There were times when a forward caddie would  hand him a club and he would decline it, selecting another, but then we must remember that TOC was his back garden and he probably knew it better that many a caddie. MY point being even the Caddies can get it wrong and anyway who’s round is it anyway?

Distance Aids – must be the best marketing con in the world, selling a product that questions the golfer’s right to declare he played that round unaided or under his own steam or even by the power of his mind.

Melvyn

PS  Wade

I take your point to Mac but on the guy playing his home course and not much else, then first the quality of the course comes into question and is another moan I have about the modern game. It would seem that his course is not fit for purpose as there are many way to play a good or should I say interesting course. IMHO the course needs to reflect the surroundings and not look out of place allowing the golfer the ability to recharge his mind as he walks to the next Hole or shot. Place a well-manicured course in a wilderness you may well upset the golfers balance to absorb the layout/terrain, after all he is there to play golf not crazy golf. An unnatural located course can affect the golfer’s ability to settle due to the distracting contrast no matter which way he faces. Land fit for purpose is important IMHO as golf was originally played over Nature. A relaxed mind and body allows for a better experience, but I am also a great advocator of playing and experiencing other courses, so do not confine yourself to one.

[Jim_Kennedy]

“Is it your opinion that golf started in 1744 or was it just anarchy prior to then?”

Dan,
Please.
My 'opinion' would be that no one actually knows what rules were in play before 1744, but the same provisions which allow us to ‘touch’ the ball today were included in the first thirty of their two hundred sixty years of written history. What can also be seen is that the clubs which existed at the time all had their own set of rules, and a comprehensive and unifying code wasn’t established until 1842, the era of the R&A.    

“Think about the last time you played golf. Did you play a single hole without touching the ball between teeing and holing?”

We have no fairway irrigation where I play the majority of my golf, so I hardly ever feel the need to pick my ball off the green to clean it because it isn’t ‘dirty’. Most of the evening games we play move fast because no one labors over the ball, they couldn’t stand the abuse if they did.  I will lift the ball if it’s in someone’s way, just as it was written some 260 years ago, and when replacing it I’ll rotate it so I don’t see any of the writing that’s on it.  
 
But I don’t see cleaning the ball as any great corruptor of the game, especially on the green. If we’re following the rules we must still play with the mud, etc., that adheres to it when we're not on the green, unless we’re taking it out of some situation that allows for cleaning it.


MM,
What was Harry Vardon doing during a practice round? Probably gathering as much information as he could that related to how we was going to tack his way around the course, and what clubs and types of swings he might use to do that. The process is not much different today, except that knowing yardages happens to be more relevant in our era than it was in his.

[Mac Plumart]

One more long post...sorry.

I've read more than one comment (on this thread and others) about me posting a lot of other people's comments in my piece.  Frankly, this is what I do day in and day out in my business; I build mosaics.  I watch all the data on the market (consumer sentiment, unemployment), I read earnings reports, I listen to what CEO's are saying, and I study history in order to determine what the next market move will be and make investments accordingly.  So...that is simply what I do...I'm a mosaic builder.  That is why I like asking questions, listening, and then putting together all the moving pieces.  Okay...enough on that.

Regarding whose comments I used in this piece...I think from time to time we all should take a step back and look at who is on this site and why they are here.  If you do that, things become a little more clear.  And, if you really think about who is on the site...golf lovers should thank their lucky stars that Ran has granted us membership.  

For me, I can't imagine a better place to learn about golf architecture.

Here are just a few of the people I quoted in the piece:

Tom Doak is on the site.  Tom "Mother F___ing" Doak.  Are you kidding me?  The greatest  architect ever?  Arguably. He comments on here, I/we can send him IM's...he answers (usually).  That alone is crazy.

Mike Nuzzo...I think if Mike gets a chance on a more public project, he will be more of a household name.  But in the meantime, we can appreciate his insights.  His concept of there is no single greatest course, only greatest courses and his three types of golfers is correct.  I wanted to highlight that and bring it to people's attention again.  We debate which course is better and always list Top 10 lists, but hardly anyone ever brings up his categoris of golfers while talking about this list...this is a mistake in my opinion.

George Bahto...An expert on MacDonald/Raynor.  Consultant at Old Mac.  Author of the most valuable book I own.    

Melvyn...Unbelievable passion for the game of golf.  Struggling big time with technology and the game...but isn't that symbolic of the game itself and its struggles with technology?  Perhaps he represents a different Nuzzo class of golfer than the majority of people on the site, but his core ideas on golf are certainly worth listening to and considering.

Bob Crosby...What can I say about Bob?  His Crane piece is an absolute classic.  One of the most enlightening golf articles I've ever read.  The Crane Debates still rage today...even if the vast majority of people fighting the battle have never heard of Crane, Behr, or Mackenzie.  People try to nit-pick his article, but the core concept of it is a fundamental building block of golf that we all need to be aware of.

Being still a newbie to this game, I am grateful beyond words for the opportunity to interact with all of you.  I can not think of a better place to learn about golf than here.  Thus far, it has been an amazing journey and I know it will do nothing but get better.

On my extreme golf courses idea...maybe it is a little out there.  It will be more niche than golf itself.  In fact, if Mike Nuzzo's classes of golfer have equal market share...67% of the golfing community won't like my courses.  And you know what, that is fine.

I just wanted to get a little outside of the box discussion going and stoke some internal thought processes and see if people more knowledgable of the game than me could take an idea or two and run with it.  Perhaps that will take hold.

In all sincerity, thanks for having me on this site.  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

Thanks for confirming my point

“except that knowing yardages happens to be more relevant in our era than it was in his”.

I understand golfers who ride carts, and certainly sympathise with those who have problems with mobility, age and heat, however I will never understand the golfer that needs his distance fix at every opportunity. My reason, I believe is that once you have obtained your distance via booklet. Caddie, markers or electronic device, that information is next to meaningless, it’s just numbers because you have not generated it from within (brain/eyes coordination). So you have a figure, the yardage, yet that was not obtained by your senses, so your brain is only half-cocked and will be finding it hard to register the details.

Now come the “coup de grâce “ when their already confused brain is presented with the whole procedure all over again except this time their eyes and brain are involved. The Golfer steps forward to address his ball, looking at the LZ or Pin, then his ball then back again to the pin. Throughout this procedure he/she is re calculating automatically the distance but in a measured way, a sort of power to swing ratio. Their brain is doing multi calculations and rechecks before they start their swing, in fact this process continues up to the beginning of the reverse process and the start of the swing forward to the ball. My point is that the information obtained by the outside source has been more than totally compromised through your own procedure of actually addressing then hitting the ball. Your own mind has overruled the distance information not generated from within its self.

Distance Aids remind me of that fairy story about the The Emperor's New Clothes is a short tale by Hans Christian Anderson about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that are invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" Except to me the joke is on the players who seek their distance information and spend some considerable money on these toys,  yet for what purpose. All I can see a slowing down of the game and piss off the your fellow players who use their natural gifts to judge distance.

Mac, has taken the time to see the message that golf offer the player so much more than just a ride in the country and an electronic board game. By making the effort and rising to the challenge the internal rewards are a joy to experience.  Had Mac been given the same golfing start as my family gave me then I sincerely believe he would be out there campaigning for the abolition of the cart and distance aids. 

We wonder why golfers are leaving the game, perhaps we should look to what game they are leaving. Also I believe that each course should offer an induction course of 10 -15 minutes on the story, history  layout and special features to be aware, supported with club booklet and last but not least the Do’s and Don’t while on the course. Short clear INTERESTING induction will add more to the golfer’s experience.

After all Golf is not just about putting a small ball in a hole, it is all about a full day’s  enjoyment and  entertainment, after all a good business thrives on repeat orders/visits.

Melvyn

PS  Mac, Do not let yourself get upset by comment by others,  it tend to be a reaction to their own internal battle they are having with themselves. Their knowledge is limited by the fact of not having an open mind preferring to rely upon hearsay and of article they once read. MY knowledge of the game is all around me both living and dead, from personal experience to family archives and photos, backed up by National Newspapers and Government archives that date by to the mid 1600’s. Golf can be traced from the first generation of ball makers from 1720 when a Morris and Robertson married and worked in St Andrews in a golf ball shop.  That’s History, that golfing history, that golfing knowledge  and all from the Home of Golf – but my tone is not correct, I live off my family name, and post rubbish – each to their own, but then who  actually who cares, they do not have my golfing pedigree.  So forget the individuals with closed minds they have very little to offer  themselves let alone the world. 

[Mac Plumart]

Melvyn...again, simply great stuff!

Concerning me getting upset about people's comments, I'm not upset at all.  I suppose I'm simply saying aloud what is the truth.  I'm relatively new to the game.  If I wrote an piece based simply on my own ideas on golf, it wouldn't be worth reading...as I have little experience.  But to overcome that, I read everything that I can (as long as it comes from worthwhile sources), I listen to credible people on this site, I play every course I possibly can (Top 100, bottom 100, public, private, whatever), and I think about it all and try to see what fits for me.

But more importantly, these comments of yours are so spot on they are almost magical...

Now come the “coup de grâce “ when their already confused brain is presented with the whole procedure all over again except this time their eyes and brain are involved. The Golfer steps forward to address his ball, looking at the LZ or Pin, then his ball then back again to the pin. Throughout this procedure he/she is re calculating automatically the distance but in a measured way, a sort of power to swing ratio. Their brain is doing multi calculations and rechecks before they start their swing, in fact this process continues up to the beginning of the reverse process and the start of the swing forward to the ball. My point is that the information obtained by the outside source has been more than totally compromised through your own procedure of actually addressing then hitting the ball. Your own mind has overruled the distance information not generated from within its self.

I've done it both ways...without aids and with aids.  That confused brain you talk about with information overload happens to me quite a lot.  I am so focused on precise distance numbers, bunker placement, uphill, downhill, wind, hazards...that I can't seem to even execute a basic swing.  But I've had walking rounds with no aids and no thought of numbers or other precise data where I just eyeball things as I walk up the fairway, immediately grab the club that fits my minds eye, swing in such a wonderful peaceful manner, with really no thoughts whatsoever...and the results are incredible.  Having experienced the difference in the two ways to play and feeling that weird feeling (I call it magic), is the reason I want to talk about it and share it with others in the hopes they can feel that difference.  The frustration imbedded in the game disappears.  It is quite a weird feeling.

And these points you make...

I believe that each course should offer an induction course of 10 -15 minutes on the story, history  layout and special features to be aware, supported with club booklet and last but not least the Do’s and Don’t while on the course. Short clear INTERESTING induction will add more to the golfer’s experience.

...are spot on again.  In fact, Rivermont does this/did this for me....and my other club, St. Ives did/does not.  The "feeling" I have for Rivermont is simply on another level...perhaps this is due to the proper introduction and respect for the course.  In fact, Chris Cupit, just sent members a book detailing the ideas behind each hole and with what clubs the approach to the hole was designed to be played with.  He suggests if you aren't coming in with these clubs, to move up a tee.  Knowing the idea that the architect had for each hole and how to play it, opens up another level of interest for the game for me...and probably other golfers.  It unwraps a bit of the mystery and opens the doors to further layers of interest in the game.  Rather than an enigma, the idea that the course was laid out strategically and with specific ideas on how to attack it might open up peoples minds to try to score better by employing similar strategies.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()