[Peter Pallotta]

I'm reminded of a thread a while back based on a 1906 article from a New York paper on "thinking golf".  Here was my initial summary:

The article suggests that "Thinking Golf" was all the rage in America, and that club committees were busy having their courses altered so as to  better exemplify this new ethos. (It mentions Walton Heath as a wonderful example of Thinking Golf). I'd never come across that term before, but while the term is fairly clunky, it seems to describe pretty well what they were talking about, i.e. the idea that hazards should be placed/arranged so that players could think and play their way around them instead of being forced to go over them.  Interestingly, the article notes that the great amateurs of the day were more enamoured of the Thinking Golf idea than the professionals were, one of whom (I think it was Taylor, or it may have been Braid) thought it 'unfair' that a worse player was not necessarily penalized for being unable to get over a hazard that the better player could.

Peter     

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Circa 1905, John Low's ideas about gca were usually referred to as "thinking golf". Garden Smith, then editor of the British GI, was one of the first to use it. It might have originally been intended as a put-down. Smith didn't agree with Low's architectural ideas. But back in the day, when you used the term "thinking golf" most everyone knew who you were referring to. At least that was the case in Britain.

Bob

[Garland Bayley]

...My point is certain features being deemed unfair has its origins with ODGs.  I probably didn't explain it very well.  I think for whatever reason they deemed these features to be less than ideal was mistaken and short sighted.  The question shouldn't be about ideal/not ideal or fair/unfair.  ...

My reading of the ODGs was not that they deemed things like cross bunkers unfair. They just deemed them stupid.

Anyone can create a difficult golf course. The ODGs found that there were lots of sometimes practitioners doing exactly that. You might best read John Low's principles as how to avoid building stupid golf courses. It certainly wasn't about how to avoid building unfair golf courses. As the quote previously given points out, he was supportive of the randomness that some might deem unfair.

[BCrosby]

"My reading of the ODGs was not that they deemed things like cross bunkers unfair. They just deemed them stupid."

Garland - I'd put it slightly differently. For Low and others they thought X bunkers committed two cardinal sins. They were a dull hazard for a good player. All they required was that you be able to get your ball airborne. But they could be murder for the weaker golfer. Which was the result the Victorian 'equity' school of architecture wanted. Good shots should go unscathed; bad shots should be punished. The worse the shot, the worse the punishment. Topped shots were considered the worst of all misses, thus they deserved the most severe hazard, the X cop bunker. A tidy, seamless universe where each shot received its just deserts.

You can see the beginnings of what we call today strategic golf architecture in objections to such theories about how hazards should be located.

Bob



  

[Sean_A]

...My point is certain features being deemed unfair has its origins with ODGs.  I probably didn't explain it very well.  I think for whatever reason they deemed these features to be less than ideal was mistaken and short sighted.  The question shouldn't be about ideal/not ideal or fair/unfair.  ...

My reading of the ODGs was not that they deemed things like cross bunkers unfair. They just deemed them stupid.

Anyone can create a difficult golf course. The ODGs found that there were lots of sometimes practitioners doing exactly that. You might best read John Low's principles as how to avoid building stupid golf courses. It certainly wasn't about how to avoid building unfair golf courses. As the quote previously given points out, he was supportive of the randomness that some might deem unfair.

Garland

Yes, I have already said the ODGs didn't think in terms of fair/unfair.  Again, my point is that it doesn't much matter.  Certain features were deemed poor architecture and I think this was inaccurate.  Additionally, I don't believe ODGs shied away from penal hazards when they made for thrilling golf.  Look at Augusta's 12, 13 & 15th holes.  Forced carries very similar to cross bunkers, but with an even worse penalty for a miss (or topped shot).  Does that mean these are bad hazards or bad holes?  Hell no.  Think of TOC's 1st - is this a bad hazard?  Hell no. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()