[Jim_Kennedy]

Melyvn's comments are more like fiction, not 'magic'. The sad sack who is racked with doubt because a yardage is known from an outside source is the same person who will be racked with doubt from his own computation of it.  

No one should rely solely on outside knowledge, your own two eyes should always be the major component in assessing your position, but a yardage book or device is just a compliment to that process. They are tools, plain and simple, just as gauging the effect that the lie and the elements will have on your ball are tools. Some people know how to use tools and profit by it, people who don't how to use them should learn how. Confusion and self-doubt only rear their ugly heads in yours when you aren't prepared.







  





 

 

[Mac Plumart]

Jim, if you had to pick, which one of the Nuzzo categories do you fit into.  Are you a fun-centric golfer, environment (beauty)-centric golfer, or challenge centric golfer?  This might help me understand why you say Melvyn's ideas are fiction, when from my own experience (and in my life) they've been proven to be fact.

Peter P. correctly diagnosed me as a romantic.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism  Knowing this has helped me understand why I like certain things in life, and golf.  It helps me understand why I don't mind shooting 92, even though I'm a 9 handicap, if the course was fun and the experience ideal.

[Melvyn Morrow]

I do not know about magic but fiction is way out of order, if you actually read my post I said that the previous info from the markers, booklets, electronic aids are made more or less null and void when the golfer address his ball. Do not accept that by all means but what planet are you living on – the mind will block out spam for the majority, but with some the confusion caused problems in judgement.

The biggest shame is having worked out the yardage by exterior means knowing the majority of players are not that accurate or precise making the whole exercise pointless and potentially expensive if one has purchased an electronic aid, not to mention slows play on the course.  

I know that many have over the years produced a fictional score. By the way was it not your good self that took the short cut on one of my competitions rather than entering  into the spirit of the competition.  As I recall it ruined it for all the others. Cheating and morally indefensible IMHO

No Jim nothing fictional, just my sorry heart that people feel they can lower their scores at any cost, even if that questions playing by the Spirit of the Game, yet the fact that they are legal corrupts the game. Thanks to an incompetent Governing Body that seems to only care about money and not the heart and soul of the game, the rules say carts & distance aids are acceptable but we all know it’s not even being honest but plain cheating, worst still by stealth.

Perhaps a culture difference, as I have always felt it’s the taking part not winning that counts, its shows moral fibre and inner strength. Many golfers worldwide feel the same, including Americans but I believe perhaps that only applies to those who are honest and committed not just to golf but life itself – We are know the difference between right and wrong, it’s the basis teachings of many religions.  Be careful otherwise you may find that you are what your greed makes you


From ‘ A Day Dream Believer’ to a ‘Monkey’


Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac,
MM believes that a yardage obtained by some means other than the player's own observation is going to cause such unrest within the player's brain that it will turn into a bowl of Jello, and outside information as to yardage includes sprinkler heads, 150 bushes, yardage books, range finders, GPS units, and advice from your caddie.  
  
It's an idea that neatly fits his ideology, but that's all, and that's why it's fiction.


My taste in golf courses runs toward ones that combine many ideas into one package, so I'd say that I don't fit into any of Mike's player categories, neatly that is.


Melyvn,
At the time of that 'contest' you didn't know that the 'answers' were revealed by a simple look at the 'properties', and I told you so when I posted them. Those weren't your only photos, were they, and you quickly learned the best way to post contest photos in the future. The sad part is that you totally misjudged my intent. You've been walking around with the wrong 'yardage' all this time, and that's even more sad.
  
It may be more esthetically pure to find out a yardage by walking a course in a practice round and pacing off the yardages or looking around for a 150 marker, but it's not ethically unpure to read a yardage book or the screen of a range finder. I've done the former, I rarely do the latter.      

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

TOC, how many carts or Rangefinders do you see at The Open in St Andrews last year. I just want to know how fictional I am.

You may be right about the Game in the USA. I can't comment on that, so I away your answer how many?

Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim

TOC, how many carts or Rangefinders do you see at The Open in St Andrews last year. I just want to know how fictional I am.

You may be right about the Game in the USA. I can't comment on that, so I away your answer how many?

Melvyn

MM,
Before play? Probably quite a few rangefinders found employment, you don't think that any of the players went out unprepared, do you?

Golf Carts? There aren't any at the competitions staged by the USGA or the R&A. Who would want to watch the top players in the world motoring about in carts?





 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

I am still waiting for an answer to my questions

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

Jim...

The reason I asked you where you fit in Mike's categories is that I believe that knowing that is important wen trying to convince/argue with somone.  I don't fit perfectly into any category, but I think I'm more in the "fun" category than any other.  Combine this with my romanticism and Melvyn's ideas and thoughts are a perfect fit.  HOWEVER, if someone is more of the challenge-centric...then perhaps Mevlyn's ideas are a bunch of crap.

Frankly, I think these types of arguments/debates will go nowhere.  That is a "fun" golfer arguing/debating with a "challenge" golfer about how to play the game, what is  the best course, etc.  It is just a big waste of time that will cause fights and hard feelings.  I think this is a huge issue on this site, especially combined with the fragile human egos.

And this is why I like the Big World Theory so much.  It recognizes that we are all different and doesn't try to make everyone fit into one paradigm.  Cypress Point maybe one person's "best" course, while St. Andrews Old course another, and Pine Valley another.  People might fight like hell over who is right or wrong on the topic, but no one is.  Same applies to distance markers, walking, etc.

It is a Big World. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac,
Big World? Try telling that to Melvyn.

The quintessential Morrow:

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.

[Dan King]

Jim_Kennedy writes:
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.

It's possible I'm nostalgic for an era that never existed. Perhaps my problem is just taking to heart too much of C.B. Macdonald's concern about the Americanization of golf. In Scotland's Gift: Golf he wrote: "The earliest rules of play always suggested a code of honor. One rule alone governed the play after driving off; The player must play the ball as it lay and not interfere with his opponent's ball. The ball was not to be touched with anything but a club until it was holed out. There was only two exceptions -- a lost ball or a ball in water. In each case there was a penalty."

I personally have no problem with golfers touching the ball while playing golf. I just think there should be repercussions. Anytime you touch the ball: add a stroke.

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.

Wouldn't it be wickedly cool if the governing bodies encouraged such golf?

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.

The lie of the ball in golf should be sacrosanct. Every time there has been additions to the rules or decision it seems like the USGA and R&A are going out of their way to make an unfair game fair and drastically changing (and slowing down) the game in the process.  Much of the rule book is also intended for the card and pencil player.  Macdonald said "The scoring habit if American golfers is a pernicious habit, much to be deplored, and if persisting in will result in the destruction of the eternal conception of the game in its highest sense."
 
But I don’t see cleaning the ball as any great corruptor of the game, especially on the green.

I believe it is all part of the slippery slope of Americanizing the game. Once golfers started cleaning and aligning the ball on the green the cry went up to let them clean it and align it elsewhere.
 
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.

So lets reverse the coming slippery slope. Since we got to play with mud on the ball off the green, lets also play with mud on the ball on the green. It is the same test. Can you mentally handle hitting a great shot and getting screwed? That is a much more interesting test than who hits the prettiest shots.

Cheers,
Dan King

So many people preach equity in golf. Nothing is so foreign to the truth. Does any human being receive what he conceives as equity in his life? He has got to take the bitter with the sweet, and as he forges through all the intricacies and inequalities which life presents, he proves his metal. In golf the cardinal rules are arbitrary and not founded on eternal justice. Equity has nothing to do with the game itself. If founded on eternal justice the game would be deadly dull to watch and play.
 --Charles Blair Macdonald

[Melvyn Morrow]

I do not agree with this Big World view, it seems to me to be just an excuse not to honour the rules or traditions. It smack of failure to persevere, to commitment, to stick to the program, a charter for slackers who will  do anything they wish without seemingly considering the thoughts or beliefs  of others.

The problem is it does affect others, some are just selfish that they care not about the interruption to existing golfers and courses. They also cause problems with our courses in providing carts, cart paths, distance markers, longer courses, modifications to holes, the list goes on and on

So I do not agree but if others want to follow for  their own reasons that’s down to them.  But don’t be surprised if you get some protesting about the general lack of commitment you show to the traditional game. 

My reasons I am fighting for a great game called Golf. What's your reasons to disrespect this game and some of its players.

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

I do not agree with this Big World view

Melvyn...I don't think you are alone regarding that thought. 

Dan...

"The scoring habit of American golfers is a pernicious habit, much to be deplored, and if persisting in will result in the destruction of the eternal conception of the game in its highest sense."

Nice one!  This one from CBM dovetails nicely with Low's comments that golf is not about the winning, it is about the playing. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,

 He may have forgotten how many times a ball could be touched when he wrote that.  The rules that CBM played under while at St. Andrews allowed for lifting a ball to identify it.
 They also provided a bit of relief from an embedded ball, allowing the player to unstick it from the ground and replace it “loosely in the hole it has made.”
 A ball that was within 6 inches of another could also be lifted, except on the putting green, where the ball in the way that was closer to the hole was to be played out (Other clubs at the time allowed a ball to be lifted on the green if it was within 6 inches of another).
 If the ball landed in the water a player could either play it as it lay, no stroke added, or take it out, change the ball if he wanted to, and tee the thing up behind the ‘hazard’, at the cost of one stroke.
 A ball deemed unplayable carried a penalty stroke for moving it, but if it was found laying “on clothes, in water (probably what we’d call casual), or in the bed of the burn, or in any of the holes or short holes made for golfing”;  it could be “lifted and dropped behind the ‘hazard’ and played with an iron” and no penalty stroke was added.

 I don’t see where the modern rules deviate much from these. There are more instances of free relief today, like cart paths, etc., but such relief was granted in CBM’s era also.
 
Even though cleaning the ball is a relatively modern rule, the idea that a player could remove his ball from the water and replace it if he wanted to is a rather generous remedy, especially when a ball could easily have muck and weeds attached to it if it landed on the banks of a hazard. Once the rules allowed a player to replace a muddy ball that was taken from a water hazard, as was possible back then, it only seems logical, (not fair, just logical) that cleaning a ball in the few instances we do it today is the natural progression, and one that wasn't going to lead to rack and ruin.….and I don’t believe it has.


edit: p.s. I never let a simple thing like a great shot gone astray bother me, I've had too many poor ones turn out well.  

[James Boon]

Mac,

I enjoyed your piece, so thanks for taking the time. Some very interesting points and its always good to see that picture of Sitwell Park! If only it still existed (insert sad smiley here)

I believe that virtually everyone of us here on GCA would love it if they made the trip to Askernish, but having read your article and knowing you are going there this year, I think you are going to LOVE it!

And dont worry about quoting people in your articles, I think it works just fine. And you can quote me on that!

Cheers,

James

[Tom_Doak]

Dan,

 He may have forgotten how many times a ball could be touched when he wrote that.  The rules that CBM played under while at St. Andrews allowed for lifting a ball to identify it.
 They also provided a bit of relief from an embedded ball, allowing the player to unstick it from the ground and replace it “loosely in the hole it has made.”
 A ball that was within 6 inches of another could also be lifted, except on the putting green, where the ball in the way that was closer to the hole was to be played out (Other clubs at the time allowed a ball to be lifted on the green if it was within 6 inches of another).
 If the ball landed in the water a player could either play it as it lay, no stroke added, or take it out, change the ball if he wanted to, and tee the thing up behind the ‘hazard’, at the cost of one stroke.
 A ball deemed unplayable carried a penalty stroke for moving it, but if it was found laying “on clothes, in water (probably what we’d call casual), or in the bed of the burn, or in any of the holes or short holes made for golfing”;  it could be “lifted and dropped behind the ‘hazard’ and played with an iron” and no penalty stroke was added.

 I don’t see where the modern rules deviate much from these. There are more instances of free relief today, like cart paths, etc., but such relief was granted in CBM’s era also.
 
Even though cleaning the ball is a relatively modern rule, the idea that a player could remove his ball from the water and replace it if he wanted to is a rather generous remedy, especially when a ball could easily have muck and weeds attached to it if it landed on the banks of a hazard. Once the rules allowed a player to replace a muddy ball that was taken from a water hazard, as was possible back then, it only seems logical, (not fair, just logical) that cleaning a ball in the few instances we do it today is the natural progression, and one that wasn't going to lead to rack and ruin.….and I don’t believe it has.

Jim:

Those may have been the rules in the 1880's, but that's not to say that is the way Mr. Macdonald learned how to play golf.  It's very possible the fellows he played with had a simpler and stricter code, much like they did at Pine Valley for years, where it was a code of honor NOT to use the unplayable lie rule, no matter how severe one's situation.

I played with a group of true believers last year who had a "no talking after your shot" rule.  They said that no matter what you say to your ball after you've hit it, what you are really saying is that you are better than that shot, or you deserve better results for some reason -- and I realized they were right.  It was a very difficult code to learn to play under, even for one round, but also highly instructive.  I think that the "no touch" rule would have similar effect.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Either situation is possible, and a third presents itself in the "Introduction to St. Andrews" chapter of CBM's book where he tries, in five paragraphs, to imbue the reader with the spirit/honor and simplicity of the game as he found it by making the comparison to 'modern' rules (1908) and the hundreds of decisions they have entailed. It seems likely that CBM had a thorough knowledge of the rules of the time, even if he and his cronies played to a stricter code, and if he enumerated all the situations where a player could touch his ball his presentation would have been longer and it would have been less effective.

I sometimes talk to my ball when it's in the air, saying things like "GO!", "STOP", "YOUR OTHER RIGHT", "SWIM LITTLE FELLER, SWIM", etc..
Once it comes to rest (hopefully on the ground) I shut-up.
  
 


  

 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Being a Member of this site has nothing to do with of being well read, nor the ability to quote others, the actual importance is in being able, willing and Man enough to sustain an open mind while other present their opinions. For a site that is designed to discuss all things architectural we have accumulated a percentage that feel they are either aloof or feel superior to others, caring not to debate any issue but  try to degrade if no denounce their potential victims comments. These individuals care not for others lets alone their opinion. It therefore is so refreshing when a guy like Mac comes alone and examines the opinions of others before making and submitting his own.

Rubbishing the opinion of others is not conducive to debate nor to move the subject along further, yet this seems to be in part the modern attitude. We see little defence of others on this site, yes it does happen but in dribs and drabs. We see no consideration for others, so why would we expect to see the basic Rules of Etiquette upheld on a golf course by some of GCA.com Members.

Perhaps many are tired of my comments on many subjects, but at least they are actively associated with course design, they have a significant effect upon the planning and maintenance not to mention finance. Pray tell me what has the Top 50 Course Listings actually to do with course architecture, as I have previously said that’s a marketing ploy, but many prefer to go over and over and over and over these list based upon some weird rating basis that has zero reflection upon design architecture of a golf course, than discuss some of the real issues.

Many wonder why our game is shrinking, perhaps we should look to the Governing Bodies, but let’s look to the new courses.  Modern designs are being done to protect the golfer, no bunkers across the fairway just in case we screw it for the longer hitters, shallow bunkers both front and rear and in some cases all-round the Green, to save the overshooting ball rather than see it continues its travels into the rough. Over waters, over Green courses set within the wilderness that look like they should be on Chocolate Box covers, Island Greens instead of water feature offering the golfer a choice, use your skill and go for it or accept the easier path if you feel unable to rise to the challenge.  What about the architects/designers suggesting options on how to curtail the long hitters, by forcing the golfer to take shorter shots by having to navigate the course. I thought that Architecture was about offering  options, challenging the golfer and sometimes forcing the issue, not being reduced to pampering the golfer and undertaking only cosmetic surgery by littering bunkers with small fake parts of sleepers. 

Mac, in his own way is will to take the conversation on, to open it up, perhaps to see the designers of the day making serious suggestion as to how to go about this.  This is a blog site, an opportunity to voice OPINIONS not lay down the law, perhaps if we are lucky raise items or points that may have an impact upon the thinking of designers/architects  and clients for future projects.

So coming back upon Mac article I feel it gives us a start, food for thought and more importantly the willingness to listen and to try to see the other point of view.

Melvyn     

[John Kirk]

Tom Doak says:

"I played with a group of true believers last year who had a "no talking after your shot" rule.  They said that no matter what you say to your ball after you've hit it, what you are really saying is that you are better than that shot, or you deserve better results for some reason -- and I realized they were right."

Great rule.  I am a chronic offender, not so much to suggest I deserve better, but a running commentary on my shortcomings.  My Dad had a great quote to discuss, a French proverb which translated into "Never complain, never explain."

Mac Plumart,

Thanks for your effort.  Three comments:

1.  Extreme golf should not be so extreme that it interferes with the core requirement of walkability.

2.  That Sitwell Park green may be fascinating, but to me it looks wildly unnatural.

3.  An editorial comment.  Rather than say, "I think challenge-centric golf should be de-emphasized", eliminate the "I think" and present it as truth.  Eliminating "I think" makes for a bolder presentation.  Challenge the reader to disagree.  One man's opinion.

[Mac Plumart]

I feel it gives us a start, food for thought

Melvyn...Exactly.  That was the whole idea behind writing this piece.  I have paid attention to what I like regarding golf and tried to highlight a few of those points.  And I feel those points might appeal to the target market that golf desperately needs.  And I see so many golf courses being just like the one down the street that I don't see much differentiation.  Therefore, why bother to make a trip to another course when you can play your local one and have a very similar experience.  Recently there have been a few "radical" courses in the US that have been massive hits...Sand Hills and Bandon most notably.  And remember, people said those courses would never work.  

I suppose to summarize, I think we need brainstorm ideas to kick around and experiment with.  Hence, the piece.



John...


Regarding walkability of a golf course.  ABSOLUTELY!!!  That it part of the adventure, in my opinion.  But maybe on a hole or two you could make the walk a little bit more interesting than the norm.


On the Sitwell Park green being unnatural looking...I still struggle with why natural looking is important.  I've mentioned this many times over, but I'll mention it again.  I don't think Raynor's work looks natural at all...but it seems to make for fun golf.  And isn't that the key, fun golf?


And on the "I think" writing style...you are correct.  But I have a real problem making definitive statements regarding opinions.  Removing the "I think" will make for a more bold statement and perhaps give the reader something more to chew on and debate, but I don't think (there is that word again) it is intellectually honest.  I think challenge-centric golf should be de-emphasized, but I haven't done any robust studies to develop data that will back up my opinion.  Therefore, I feel compelled to use the phrase "I think" whenever I discuss my unproven opinions.  But, indeed, you are correct...removing that phrase might make for better writing.

[JC Jones]

On the Sitwell Park green being unnatural looking...I still struggle with why natural looking is important.  I've mentioned this many times over, but I'll mention it again.  I don't think Raynor's work looks natural at all...but it seems to make for fun golf.  And isn't that the key, fun golf?

Is fun golf the key?  At all costs?  If golf can be fun without man asserting his testosterone rage on the land, shouldn't we discourage such a practice?

[Mac Plumart]

JC...

Perhaps that is a great point to discuss. 

We could ask...What is THE most important factor regarding golf course design?

Or lthis...Is making a golf course fun to play the most important factor regarding golf course design?

I actually wonder if the 3 different Nuzzo classes of golfers will answer the question differently...and/or will the two other non-fun centric classes of golfers simply replace "fun to play" in the second question with "challenging", "beautiful", or "a test of golfing skill", "worth spending four+ hours on".

[Tim Bert]

On the Sitwell Park green being unnatural looking...I still struggle with why natural looking is important.  I've mentioned this many times over, but I'll mention it again.  I don't think Raynor's work looks natural at all...but it seems to make for fun golf.  And isn't that the key, fun golf?

I think the importance of natural looking varies based upon the audience.  Certainly fun is one goal of golf for most people, but it is perhaps one of many goals and its relative importance is different for each person.  For some, including me, there is an artistic aspect to a golf course that is enjoyable.  As with art, each of us has a different eye and different things will appeal to us.  I happen to like a natural looking course and setting, even if it isn't natural.  If the architect and builders are good enough to fool me into something completely artificial looking natural, then good for them!  Some people, while perhaps the minority on this site, may find something manufactured - perhaps geometric looking - more appealing.  Some may like a blend.  As with art, there is a good amount of room for interpretation.  Many may ignore the "art" aspect all together and really only care about how the course functions. 

[Mac Plumart]

Tim...

I personally think that was a great post.  This line, "there is an artistic aspect to a golf course that is enjoyable", screams Ballyneal to me.  From what I've seen thus far, Ballyneal is an artistic masterpiece that seemlessly blends nature and the course together in a way I haven't seen duplicated.



And I feel that the 7th green just might be the pinnacle of that seemless integration.  

[Sean_A]

JC...

Perhaps that is a great point to discuss. 

We could ask...What is THE most important factor regarding golf course design?

Or lthis...Is making a golf course fun to play the most important factor regarding golf course design?

I actually wonder if the 3 different Nuzzo classes of golfers will answer the question differently...and/or will the two other non-fun centric classes of golfers simply replace "fun to play" in the second question with "challenging", "beautiful", or "a test of golfing skill", "worth spending four+ hours on".

Its very difficult to pinpoint which attribute a course should exhibit or be known for.  The knee jerk reaction is fun, but digging past instinct tells me that fun doesn't cover it.  For instance, I know the function of a course is important to me and helps contribute to an enjoyable round.  Perhaps it is folly to think fun or any other descriptor should cover what I want from a course. 

Mac - thanks for the thought provoking piece.  It could be that the younger generation of golfers are seeking a bit more in the thrill category when it comes to golf, but I am not sure this is or will be a lasting desire.  Of course, one man's wild ride on a course is another man's snooze fest.   

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Sean...

I think you make a real good point here, "It could be that the younger generation of golfers are seeking a bit more in the thrill category when it comes to golf, but I am not sure this is or will be a lasting desire."

Maybe the courses could be a gateway to "Big Boy" golf courses...or maybe a segment of the market would prefer these new fangled/old school courses.  But the kicker is that if they are only 6, 9, 12 holes, they will be more affordable to build, less costly to maintain, and for sure you wouldn't put a big clubhouse, pool, and tennis courts to go along with them.  So, maybe the cost/benefits works.  I'll let you know how it all works out in about 5 years! 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()