News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
"The game has changed..."
« on: January 17, 2012, 08:03:28 PM »
I've frequently listened to detractors of so-called restoration projects throw this line out... ie "you can't put that bunker there, the game has changed." My question is, has it? What exactly does it mean to say "the game has changed", knowing that routing and the design of the green surface and its surrounding hazards means most?

I posted at my blog on this subject the other day, but barely scrap the surface of this complex, and interesting topic:
http://www.mingaygolfcoursedesign.blogspot.com/2012/01/game-has-changed.html

Most recently I've received objection to "restoring" a couple bunkers at par 4 holes some 15-30 yards short of a green. Apparently these bunkers are "no longer in play". (Frankly, having been around golf now for almost three decades, I'm yet to see a feature on a golf course that's legitimately not in play.)

It continues to amaze me how many people think about golf course design scientifically, as if almost everyone - even low-handicap club members - play golf like robots... so, bunkers should be placed in spots where those low-handicap players are going to miss their drives. Who misses tee shots in the same spots, day after day?

This is an interesting subject with many angles...
« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 08:10:04 PM by Jeff_Mingay »
jeffmingay.com

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2012, 08:06:43 PM »
I've frequently listened to detractors of so-called restoration projects throw this line out... ie "you can't put that bunker there, the game has changed." My question is, has it? What exactly does it mean to say "the game has changed", knowing that routing and the design of the green surface and its surrounding hazards means most?

I posted at my blog on this subject the other day, but barely scrap the surface of this complex, and interesting topic:
http://www.mingaygolfcoursedesign.blogspot.com/2012/01/game-has-changed.html

Most recently I've received objection to "restoring" a couple bunkers at par 4 holes some 15-30 yards short of a green. Apparently these bunkers are "no longer in play". (Frankly, having been around golf now for almost three decades, I'm yet to see a feature on a golf course that's legitimately not in play.)

It continues to amaze me how many people think about golf course design scientifically, as if almost everyone - even low-handicap club members - play golf like robots... so, bunkers should be placed in spots where those low-handicap players are going to miss they're drives. Who misses tee shots in the same spots, day after day?

This is an interesting subject with many angles...

Keep up the good fight, Jeff!

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2012, 08:16:50 PM »
Thanks for the encouragement, Bill :)

Trust me, I don't advocate excessive use of bunkers; read this:
http://www.mingaygolf.com/Bunker_Blitz_at_Augusta.pdf

But, there are times and places where bunkers can be used brilliantly for landscape effect and purposes other than simply 'trapping' low-handicap golfers who miss hit a shot by 5 or so yards left or right... I think. I mean, just think of the bunker arrangements at the world's top-20 courses, according to GOLF magazine, posted at my blog.

What are these committee people, who think 'the game has changed', thinking?
jeffmingay.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2012, 08:17:55 PM »
Jeff:

The game HAS changed.

What has changed most is people's idea of what the game is all about -- that it's all designed around certain players, or that certain holes or hazard placements are fair or unfair.

Tell them you are trying to change it back.

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2012, 08:21:25 PM »
It continues to amaze me how many people think about golf course design scientifically, as if almost everyone - even low-handicap club members - play golf like robots...Who misses tee shots in the same spots, day after day?

I wonder if any of this scientific thought process comes from people playing Tiger Woods golf on a computer? 
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2012, 08:26:50 PM »
Tom,

Trent Jones' affect on so many golfers' understanding of what the game is all about continues to amaze me. So much response I get is based on a 'Trent Jones ideology' per se; even if those golfers spouting off don't realize where their ideas are coming from.

At a project I'm working on, I was recently advised 'not to mention your intention is to restore'. I like your advice, I'll just tell 'em I'm trying to change the game 'back'... to a time when you played over an attractive landscape, with appropriate contour. It's as simple as that really, isn't it.  
jeffmingay.com

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2012, 08:27:19 PM »
I've frequently listened to detractors of so-called restoration projects throw this line out... ie "you can't put that bunker there, the game has changed."


Jeff,

I have worked over 35 years now on golf courses and I have seen a lot of golf played all those years. The truth is that golf holes are played differently by everyone. Even the better players of your club play holes differently from day to day. Few golf holes are really played as the golfer scripts his shot sequence from the tee.

That part of the game hasn't changed and probably never will. And with that I think one can argue that random placement of bunkers is relevant.

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2012, 08:29:15 PM »
David,

If it's not Tiger Woods golf on a computer, getting your full dose of golfing knowledge from weekly television coverage of the PGA Tour doesn't help either.
jeffmingay.com

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2012, 08:31:48 PM »
My point exact, Brad. Thanks.

Tom D.: Have 'changes' in the game over the past 50 years (and more) changed the fundamentals of golf architecture? (I don't think so.)
jeffmingay.com

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2012, 08:32:47 PM »
Really enjoyed the article about Augusta's bunkers.  

Does the archaic bunker fifty yards short of the tenth green not affect members' second shots there?   Many probably can't drive to the bottom and are playing a long second from a hanging lie to an uphill target.   Surely that large bunker is relevant to all but the pros!

Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2012, 08:38:22 PM »
It continues to amaze me how many people think about golf course design scientifically, as if almost everyone - even low-handicap club members - play golf like robots...Who misses tee shots in the same spots, day after day?

I wonder if any of this scientific thought process comes from people playing Tiger Woods golf on a computer? 

Hopefully, with Jeff's help, these people will go back to playing Tiger Woods golf in real life.
"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

Peter Pallotta

Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2012, 09:08:15 PM »
Jeff, Tom - let me play devil's advocate for a bit. If the game has changed, it is ARCHITECTS who have changed it the most.  Sure, you might argue that you were only FOLLOWERS and not leaders; that you were simply RESPONDING to new technologies and client demands and golfers' expectations.  But I'd suggest that, in fact, you as a group/profession have much more POWER and INFLUENCE than you'd care to admit to or be held responsible for; and that it was YOUR ANCESTORS who were in fact the main DRIVERS OF CHANGE, at every stage of American golf and in several different ways.  The very stiff tests of golf that were Oakmont and Pine Valley; the 18 great holes/the ideal golf course that was Macdonald's NGLA; Jones' work on Oakland Hills and Firestone; Pete Dye at Sawgrass ; Nicklaus' early work and that of other player-designers; the monstrosities that are the country-clubs-for-a-day, with their elevated tees and 7000 yard back tees. It was architects/your brethren who FAILED TO PROTECT the fields of play in the first place, who failed to honour -- with the kind of good intentions that pave the road to hell -- the origins and ethos and history of those fields of play, and were and are very quick to suggest CHANGES and NEW STYLES to existing courses and ones yet to be built.  And so, by changing the playing fields you have CHANGED THE GAME. Has it changed otherwise? Well, the marathon is still the marathon, still a very severe test, and STILL 26 MILES; even though there are an elite few who can now run it in 2 hours and 10 minutes, the vast majority of runners/athletes, past and present, would take 4/5/6 hours to finish, if they can finish it at all -- and so the marathon, in essence, has NOT CHANGED.  In the same way, 6,100 yards with random bunkering is a challenging joy to play for the vast majority of golfers, and this has been the SAME CASE FOR 100 YEARS -- and I think architects KNOW THAT.  No, the game has not changed for the vast majority of men and women who play it, or who have ever played it, or who will ever play it in the future.  Unfortunately, for many decades your architectural brothers were amongst the very few, it seems, who DIDNT RECOGNIZE or maybe even DIDNT WANT to recognize this, and who didn't want the game (in particular, its fields of play) to stay the same.  Understandable, really: as in any profession the hot shots and young guns want to make a name for themselves by OUTDOING their predecessors -- it's always longer/faster/louder/more complex.  But let's not pretend that it's the BIG BAD world/client/golfer/equipment company/governing body OUT THERE that has been the cause. It may be time to look in the mirror gents.    

Peter
More harsh than I intended or would've imagined, even for the 'devil's advocate' role. But I'll leave it the way it is, if for no other reason than it is what my fingers typed without a pause, and so it is at least a direct expression of one point of view. (Six posts I see have come in the time I've typed this, maybe it has become redundant).

Anthony Gray

Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2012, 09:14:26 PM »
  Bunkers add aesthetic value to a course whether they are ofton in play or not.


  Anthony



Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2012, 09:40:06 PM »
"Things do not change; we change."
Henry David Thoreau ;)
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2012, 10:56:42 AM »
There is no question archies are the main driving force in, wait for it....architecture.  They can whine about all sorts of restrictions and limitations, but that sort of thing has always been the case. 

Jeff

Back to the bunkers, why would folks think sand 30 yards short of the putting surface is not in play?  Did you ask that?

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Camden, Palmetto Bluff Crossroads Course, Colleton River Dye Course  & Old Barnwell

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2012, 11:49:22 AM »
Peter,

I appreciate your thoughtful post; and, I don't necessarily disagree with you.

I'm away from my library so don't have the source handy, but I recall a great quote from Wm. Flynn stating basically the same - that golf architects have a responsibility as educators. Certainly, some of the architecture produced over the years - where designers strayed from the origins of golf, and the realistic needs of golfers and golf course owners alike - has had a very negative affect on the game overall, with some terrible consequences. Some of this architecture, you must admit, was influence by unchecked advances in playing equipment technologies (R&A and USGA), for one. Advances in green-keeping similarly affected some designers' approach to golf architecture as well, mostly relative to client demands and golfers' expectations.

You go on to make my point though, that for the majority of golfers the game has not changed. And thus (again), why do many golfers believe that it has and, in turn, that golf architecture from the pre-World War II era is irrelevant today? As I've already mentioned, GOLF's world ranking certainly suggests otherwise.
jeffmingay.com

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2012, 11:51:20 AM »
Jeff

Back to the bunkers, why would folks think sand 30 yards short of the putting surface is not in play?  Did you ask that?

Ciao 

Sean,

I have no idea. I'm perplexed by this train of thought, to be honest. Have I asked why they think this way? I'm in the process at one particular club that prompted this post...
jeffmingay.com

Matthew Sander

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2012, 12:19:54 PM »
Jeff

Back to the bunkers, why would folks think sand 30 yards short of the putting surface is not in play?  Did you ask that?

Ciao  

Sean,

I have no idea. I'm perplexed by this train of thought, to be honest. Have I asked why they think this way? I'm in the process at one particular club that prompted this post...

It seems that this line of thought should come from those who intend to play the course once and are %100 certain of his/her ability to execute regardless of the conditions (roughly .0001% of golfers). From my experience that line of thinking is pretty silly, especially since, according to Jeff, this is coming from a club membership that obviously will be playing the course many times.

If someone plays a course enough times and in variable conditions, virtually every feature/hazard will eventually come into play. Due to the player's length and typical shot patterns, some will become more familiar than others, but guess what...even the best players are guilty of some ghastly shots occasionally and will find themselves in interesting positions.

A little off topic, but it reminds me of a nonsensical Phil Mickelson statement from a few years ago - I can't remember if he was justifiying his many-wedge approach or his 2-driver approach. I'm paraphrasing here, but he stated that on a particular course, there were no "7-irons". My first reaction was BULL#@$%. I understand that he would have no problem massaging a 6-iron or turning down an 8-iron if necessary, but rationalizing that there is no way that he will hit the ball (whether due to his execution, conditions, or tee/pin placements) in a place where 7-iron is the right club, seemed ludicrous to me...
« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 12:23:15 PM by Matthew Sander »

Peter Pallotta

Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2012, 12:26:48 PM »
Jeff - thanks for taking the post the way I intended.  There was a thread a while back on great courses of around 6,000 yards, and folks (including architects) posted dozens and maybe hundreds of wonderful examples of real or composite or imagined courses that seem to prove yet again how much fun and challenge the vast majority of today's golfers can and would have on such a course (which course, like the one you described, would likely have features such as bunkers 30 yards short of the green).  As mentioned, i think architects have more power and influence than they may realize.  One day an architect will have the talent and moxie and clout and nerve to convince a client to go for something in the 6,100-6,300 yard range with all the traditional features and with minimal maintenance practices in mind, and I think on that day you will see magazines and raters (and then golfers) falling over themselves to flock to and praise such a course; either that, or we'll get proof that most of us on this board are knaves and fools or, worse, hypocritical dilettantes.  

Peter
« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 12:31:17 PM by PPallotta »

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2012, 12:56:56 PM »
Bill McBride, you mentionned:
Does the archaic bunker fifty yards short of the tenth green not affect members' second shots there?   Many probably can't drive to the bottom and are playing a long second from a hanging lie to an uphill target.   Surely that large bunker is relevant to all but the pros!

One thing is for sure, it probably cost rory mcilroy the masters this year... from 295 yards out on his 3rd shot:

he had about 230 yards or so to carry the bunker. The positionong of the bunker forced him to hit 5-wood from an tough lie in the second cut and he made 7.
without a bunker there, sensible play is a low 5 iron that carries 200 yards and roll almost to the bottom of the green, at worse he makes 6 or maybe get it up and down for 5...  but the bunker was there


Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2012, 01:42:09 PM »
Excellent posts from Philippe and Matthew, using Mickelson and McIlroy as examples.
jeffmingay.com

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2012, 01:56:05 PM »
Excellent thread and posts, Jeff, you hit on one of my biggest pet peeves in golf course architecture and discussion: the notion of applying formulas. To me, anyone that does so really misses the point of the game, and hasn't learned anything from courses such as The Old Course.

For every bunker that is not in play for one guy, it's in play for many others. Far too many people look at design from the simplistic notion of "every pro hits it 300, so we need a bunker right around there". The most interesting courses are the ones that do more than simply penalizing errant play, but also do not simply address strategy by putting bunkers at 300 and greenside, and hope that multiple tees will cover all their lack of thought.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2012, 02:15:35 PM »
Jeff

Back to the bunkers, why would folks think sand 30 yards short of the putting surface is not in play?  Did you ask that?

Ciao 

Sean,

I have no idea. I'm perplexed by this train of thought, to be honest. Have I asked why they think this way? I'm in the process at one particular club that prompted this post...

Jeff,
IMHO they think this way because they base strategies on hitting the perfect shot every time.  And that doesn't happen. 
I know it may seem weird but I think one of the best comparisons we have is a road race track.  Compare Indy to Daytona etc.  Guys have to drive the particular track and if they get in the wrong place they lose time AND each track is driven differently.  Equipment there has changed more than in golf and will continue ( they do keep checks on it)  but the track shave remained the same lengths and the races the same distances.  We just need to convince people to go play golf and quit all the thinking .  Only about 1% or less of golfers can play at a level wher eit matters IMHO. ;) ;)
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Matthew Sander

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2012, 02:34:53 PM »
A question for Jeff and the other professionals looking at this thread - When discussing these issues with clients, do you feel compelled to remind them that the placement of bunkers and water hazards are not the only features that create difficulty or challenge? Obviously you don't want to come across too professorial and talk down to the client. However, do you feel that a large number of golfers/greens committees/your clients understand the value of degrees of difficulty as opposed to strictly penal elements?

There are vast differences of opinion on this site, and it is the better for it. However, I feel that most here appreciate the subtle challenge of an awkward lie, a unique landform, a bad angle to a narrow green, or a green canted away from a certain approach...
« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 02:37:04 PM by Matthew Sander »

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The game has changed..."
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2012, 03:14:08 PM »
Gentlemen,
What an excellent thread with posts that resonate here with me so I cannot add much. Suffice it to say that I don't think the game has changed for a moment but too many folks, uninitiated in the nuances of the game, are blinded by the style of the professional's game.
When I play this game the random and shorter elements are to the fore (hmm....unintended!) and thus formulaic architecture is a nonsense and as George P. says random hazard placement will produce much fun for all and sundry. I loved your devil's advocate position, Peter, and agree that some archies seem to have fallen under a spell that would never produce shorter "fun" golf courses. I guess a very large number of them felt that to challenge the notion of bigger as better might just lose them work and experience. I really do believe that if a modern day architect can get a brief to build a significantly shorter golf course of 6300-6500 yards then the floodgates would, relatively speaking, open and golf may be seen as affordable and fun again.
Cheers Colin
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back