And we wonder what is wrong with modern Game of Golf

[Melvyn Morrow]

With apologies to Mark Saltzman on hijacking his post as my topic is taken from Marks’s post “Greg Norman’s Tribute to the Road Hole” as are the following two photos.

First The Parkland G &CC course seems to convey a serious contribution to design, well so one is lead to believe by this first photo


Interesting small bunker with likable contours around its perimeter. Perhaps in a way reminiscent of the 17th at TOC. Looks to have the ability to make a golfer think and weigh up his options.

The next photo, apparently is meant to convey the Old Station Road adjacent to the 17th at St Andrews, but fails IMHO miserably on all counts.   


What has design,  well GCA design turned into when one of the past great golfers produces a Hole with this type of – well is it a bunker or a design feature that might have a chance of winning the Tate’s Turner Prize.

Come on guys show some respect for the game and golfers, this is just not acceptable. It looks like the designer ran out of ideas and time so placed what appears to be a hard firm bed of crushed sand around what seems like half the bunker. Just what sort of deterrent or hazard is that – well in my opinion it seems to offer none, an easy out shot and subject to the density/compatibility of the sand  may offer very little in the penal department.

The Road to Hell Bunker perhaps its intention but it’s not. Nor can it be as a serious contribution to GCA. If so then boy do I know what is wrong with the modern game (apart from no control over technology, aids free allowed and piss poor land selection).

This is not Design. If it was intended as tribute then IMHO it’s failed while taking a side swipe at insulting Old Tom and Allan Robertson. I could say what was the designer thinking, but the answer is clearly he/she was just not thinking at all.

Melvyn 

[Bill_McBride]

Template holes have a rich history.   Clearly intended as a tribute to OTM and TOC, this one looks great from the front, but I agree the acre of flat sand behind looks not so great.  Must be Hell to maintain.   

I'll bet Mr. Norman doesn't spend 1/1000th the time thinking up ways to besmirch Old Tom as you do looking for ways he's been defamed.

And if you think a 60 yard shot from that bunker is an "easy out," you were either a superb sand player or have a poor memory.

Happy New Year, Melvyn!

[Tom Yost]

Mark created a thread to discuss the hole, I don't see the reason to start a second thread.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bill

“I'll bet Mr. Norman doesn't spend 1/1000th the time thinking up ways to besmirch Old Tom as you do looking for ways he's been defamed.”
I think you need to offer up some proof to that statement Bill or take it back. I have only ever tried to defend the truth relating to OTM.

Tom
I am sorry you feel that way but my post is directed to what appears to show piss poor design when related to golf, while Marks interesting topic was the course itself and perhaps a tribute. It certainly does not come across to this guy as a tribute as I believe it to be shocking waste of time and space of a bunker. Designers seem to have become devoid of ideas rest upon large expanses of water or shallow hard firm oceans of sands as worthy hazards, yet they have no content in good GCA IMHO.

My topic is born out of Marks post, yes but to question modern designs, certainly around Greens as the modern game is so full of long aerial shots it appears that Greens are the only place that requires a design input, yet it’s so often wasted by surrounding the Green with bunkers, many shallow and firm.

So I believe it was right to launch a new topic rather than hijack his thread.

Melvyn

[David Whitmer]

I personally don't think there is anythng wrong with the modern game of golf; however, the modern game is all I have played so I have no basis for comparison. I love teeing it up with my buddies and walking 18 holes over 4 hours or so. What a great game...the best one ever invented!

Regarding this particular hole, I'm not so sure what many (including me) deem to be bad architecture is an indictment on the modern game of golf. It's simply a bad golf hole...there are many of them. Instead of looking at it and rendering the entire modern game lousy, I look at it and can better appreciate the great golf holes.  

[PCCraig]

Melvyn,

Perhaps you should write Greg Norman a letter letting him know what you and Old Tom think of his template hole. As far as I know no one on this board had anything to do with its design.

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

The modern game is now so much technology enhanced that the ball flies over much of the course making the modern game a glorified Pitch & Putt Range. Design is more or less pointless for the first 200-300 yards, so is the land, its cost and on-going maintenance budget. When we look at many Holes the only part that matters is the Green, then what do we find bunkers either interlinked all round or massive amounts of water in the form of lakes making the Green close to an Island Green. The Game has lost its depth because no one is willing to control technology to first maintain some of the great courses or Holes that have been generated by some of the great names in Golf, just so a few players can have a ‘hard on’  with their long Tee shots. Yet give these players a gutty and Hickory and then watch their skill levels prove that the game is not the result of technology.

The game has lost the art of navigating the hazards, traps and contours of a course including testing one’s self against the design, it’s not a question of come fly with me and land on or around the Green.  Par 5, 4 & 3 are becoming a blur, all for the sake of a lower score. The game is prostituted for a lower score, but in the end age will beat the advantages of technology and one’s score will start to rise again, then you will understand what Golf is really about the pleasure of thinking your route over and around the Natural & Man Made obstacles place there by the design to test ones true resolve.

Pat

As usual your contribution is pointless, a template is used I believe to praise the design not to diminish it and certainly not to increase the initial and maintenance budgets. As for anyone on this site designing it, I do not know nor is it the point of my post.

Melvyn

[Mark Chaplin]

Melvyn I do not disagree that the modern game has turned some wonderful old courses to little more than pitch and putts, Sunningdale Old is a good example. In 1926 Bobby Jones used less than a 2 iron for his second shot for fewer than a handful of holes. Nowadays I doubt Rory would use a 2 iron or more for any second shot.

However.......we are only talking about circa 0.1% of golfers, for the other 598 members of the club technology hasn't caused a tumbling in handicaps. Golf still remains a challenging sport, fully of variation and a battle to a greater or lesser degree against the ground conditions and the weather.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mark

I agree, but who do our Lords and Master listen to, the vast majority or the elite few who make and generate the money so loved by the R&A.

Melvyn

[David Whitmer]

Melvyn,

I hear your message, and appreciate your stance.

It seems to me, though, that what you describe might only apply to true links golf, where the game was first played. For the record, I have never played golf in Scotland but will next year and look forward to it. But, when the game expanded to the U.S., the ground used for golf was vastly different from the land used to begin the game. With a few exceptions (Ballyneal, Bandon Dunes, and the very few courses where the ground is very firm), the ground here does not promote fast and firm golf. Here where I am, in the midwest U.S., our courses are never fast and firm.

My point is, no matter if I used a gutty and hickory or the modern equipment, I would want the ball to fly through the air. If it did not, I would hit it and watch the ball roll a few feet and stop. What a slog that would be!

So I think there is true links golf, and non-true links golf. Is one better than the other? I have no idea. But since fast and firm, seaside links ground is at a premium here, I need to play in Cincinnati, Ohio on a weekly basis or not play at all. Yes, the game I play is mainly through the air, because like I said if it wasn't, it would not be nearly as fun on these courses.

Some might say that is not true golf, while others might say it's just the game evolving in order to live in certain areas. I still need to and try to think my way around the golf course, tough as that might be with my vast lack of smarts. I still need to hit it, go find it, and hit it again, trying to hole it out in as few a strokes as possible. That is my definition of the game of golf, and it's the game I grew up with and the game I love.

Respectfully,

David

[Sam Morrow]

6 Pages

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

Technology allows for better scores, but why do we as golfers want to cheat ourselves by just going out and spending more, surely any improvement should come from skill, be it on a links course or inland. The aerial game is fine but what does it actually achieve for a good golfer, it means more land is required to accommodate the longer shot, yet for those unable to hit the long ball the course still needs to have a design to cater for them. Add to that the majority of courses are old, well over 40-50 years plus although - this many not be the case in all parts of the USA. So thanks to improved technology during that time period it has resulted in Par 3, 4 &5 blurring into a constant version of Par 3’s, I mentioned earlier.  The only way to combat the long aerial shot is according the ‘powers that be’ is to add yardage. Thus more land, more money, more design changes, more fairway mods and more overall maintenance. Nevertheless by controlling the equipment technology we can peg the courses to a reasonable distance, perhaps back to those that easily allowed a good 36 Holes in day. Bring back the game to the way it was played between the end of the 19th Century and the pre 1930’s.

I do not want to change golf as each course should have its own character, but I still believe that 150-200 yards aerial shot is adequate to give thrill and fun back into the game, also it will bring back some good hazards that will actually work making the purpose of golf that of thinking while navigating around the design in the least number of strokes.

Design is as important as walking, but diminish both and you end up with a Pitch and Putt course which IMHO is just not Golf.

I just want golfers to enjoy the game as it was when it because so popular and was exported worldwide, I want you to really enjoy the challenge but all done by your own efforts, nothing more.

Respectfully yours

Melvyn 

PS Sam 6 pages ?

[Sam Morrow]

6 Pages of the same old bitching and moaning.

[Mark Saltzman]

Melvyn,

I don't know that I've ever been in a debate with you, but...

I do not understand your criticism of the hole I posted.  Of course, I don't know if it was a tribute or a template or just coincidence, but I do think it was Norman's attempt to recreate the road hole, I'm sure within constraints given to him by the developer of this residential community.

What, might I ask, do you mean by this:

"Come on guys show some respect for the game and golfers, this is just not acceptable. It looks like the designer ran out of ideas and time so placed what appears to be a hard firm bed of crushed sand around what seems like half the bunker. Just what sort of deterrent or hazard is that – well in my opinion it seems to offer none, an easy out shot and subject to the density/compatibility of the sand  may offer very little in the penal department."

Have you ever played out of crushed sand?  It is very firm, much like playing off of a road.  The shot from that back bunker would be extremely difficult and no doubt plays in the mind of every golfer that knows it is there.  I bet you that the great majority of golfers who find that back 'bunker' do not find the green on their first attempt to get out of it.

The hole mimics many of the attributes that make the Road Hole great.  The ideal line challenges the right side, while a tee shot that is left is not lost, but will require a much more difficult approach to the green.  The Road Hole bunker is placed very similarly to the one on this hole, and is deep and scary and the focus of the second shot.  Golfers will want to take enough club to carry it, but must fear a shot that runs through the green because recovery from over the green is almost impossible for many and requires a clean strike and a perfect judge of distance from a difficult lie.   

So, Melvyn, I would argue that this hole is hardly what is wrong with the modern game.  If all modern holes had the strategic merit that this one does, the modern game would not be where it is, and the mere ability to hit a driver 300 yards would not a good score make.

[David_Tepper]

Mark S. -

You make some excellent points. Well said.

Out of curiosity, how is this crushed sand area played ?(and is it crushed sand or crushed shells?)
It is considered a bunker/hazard and raked after play or is it played as a waste area, where you can sole the club?

DT
 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mark

Shallow bunkers with hard or firm sand are not hazards IMHO. They offer the player all the options of escape limiting little.  Also add to that  these bunkers can act as a skimming or running zone for a moving ball to the point that it might escape the shallow bunker, so I see no trap whatsoever.

The idea of leaving a vast expanse of hard sand or lake on or around a Green is a poor substitute for real hazards, as I mentioned the shallow bunker already. Let’s look to Green side lakes and Island lakes - they kill the game as a bunker can't, they interrupt the game and flow of all golfers at that Hole if one fails to hit the Green. And in Matches its kills the players chances sometimes stone dead. For me that is not the point of hazards or for that matter good GCA, so with all respect I do consider this type of design poor lacking in forward thinking and it appears to be the equivalent of a Fridays afternoon late rush on the drawing board.

I know that design can be a hit or miss thing, but I also know of many good new designs and courses that are working with the traditional inputs creating some interesting courses. The designers are out there many good so why do we have to suffer modern art on our courses when all we seek is good golf design.

And sorry this one IMHO is very, very poor and if from the Norman School of Art then fine but not acceptable if from the Norman GCA company.

Melvyn

[Sam Morrow]

So why do we have 2 threads basically about the exact same hole?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sam

Oh Sam be it on Facebook or here you have to put your name forward usually saying nothing new or of any interest. Tell me what you opinion is of the Hole but I am not interested is your non constructive bullshit, I see enough of it on Facebook.

As for your question, read the topic and the answer may unfold before your eyes   

Melvyn

[Sam Morrow]

Sam

Oh Sam be it on Facebook or here you have to put your name forward usually saying nothing new or of any interest. Tell me what you opinion is of the Hole but I am not interested is your non constructive bullshit, I see enough of it on Facebook.

As for your question, read the topic and the answer may unfold before your eyes   

Melvyn

What are you talking about on Facebook? I kind of like the hole from what I see in the pictures. I'm just confused why you started another thread when Mark had a thread about it already. I think Mark's pictures are some of the best on this site.

[Mark Saltzman]

Mark S. -

You make some excellent points. Well said.

Out of curiosity, how is this crushed sand area played ?(and is it crushed sand or crushed shells?)
It is considered a bunker/hazard and raked after play or is it played as a waste area, where you can sole the club?

DT
 

David, crushed shells (what the heck is crushed sand? my bad!).

It is waste area, there is no rake and I presume you can sole the club.


Melvyn, you are obviously convinced that your opinion is the correct one.  You can call the bunker whatever you want, and if you wish,  can say it is not a hazard, but all of that means little to the golfers who hit it just over the green in two and walk away with a six on the scorecard.


Sam, because Melvyn started a new one.  I appreciate the comment re the pictures... I do my best!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sam

As I said read all this thread for your answer and yes great photos, but they do not guarantee the quality of the design let alone Hole

Melvyn

PS Mark its my opinion, yes  the  correct one,  who knows but for the money one has to ask did the club really get value for money, from what I have seen I think there is a question mark on that - again just my opinion, which I believe is the purpose of this site to voice opinions or do the modern designers always get it right?

[Sam Morrow]

Sam

As I said read all this thread for your answer and yes great photos, but they do not guarantee the quality of the design let alone Hole

Melvyn

Of course the photos don't guarantee the quality of anything. I never said that, so what I like the hole, you don't like it, what's the problem with that?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sam

No problem put that way but not if its come out as "6 Pages of the same old bitching and moaning."

Melvyn

[Anthony Gray]

6 Pages

  I'll take the over Sam.

  Anthony

[Guy Nicholson]

It doesn't look like such a shallow bunker to me -- that's a fairly significant lip to overcome. Mind you, it's not in the foreground in the photo, so hard to be conclusive. But a bit reminiscent of CBM's road hole template at Mid Ocean: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/bermuda/midocean/midocean2/