Is the potential of draining energy from a golfer part of a Designers arsenal?

[Melvyn Morrow]

CS

For once in your life actually read my post and learn, in fact remember this article regards energy as it may help you to understand the game you play a little more. Energy or the saving of energy does not mean that skill is the natural benefactor, but yes the cart seems to have been born out of this idea.

Madness really, do you agree or are you just going on about carts again. You many note that other designers have not offered even a thought on this point - does that speak volumes as it’s a question regard design and not a campaign against carts. But yes it is a possible explanation of why carts came about. Or do you already know everything about the game?

I asked a question, asked for comments, answered questions and offered some opinions - is that not the purpose of this site. Oh yes I have asked and raised some interesting questions and some rather deep that do have a connection with GCA. But like a TV there is an ON/OFF button, don't like my posts then do not read them.   

Please take my post in the manner they are posted, to raise questions and awareness on the subject of GCA.

Friends???

Melvyn


   

[C. Squier]

I was born on a Tuesday, but it wasn't last Tuesday.  You can't in any way say that the purpose of your post isn't an affront to carts, the golfers that use them, or the designers who include them. 

Though I will say, you've come across much less offensively this time around and I wish your crusade well.  But please, don't insult the collective intelligence of the group and deny your intent.  Your reputation on this topic very much preceeds you. 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Why humor him. This is a case that cannot be helped nor wants too. I suggest just forget the messenger and look and see if the post is worthy of answering. Anybody with half a brain knows there is a place for carts in golf. It does not have to be nor is for everybody. I prefer to walk myself. Clearly if carts is the theme, then yes some architects do design courses on sites that would not be golf courses without the use of golf carts. These courses will not likely ever hold championships and when they do  modifications would be made for the field to transport players like they do now on the various tours of the world. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

CS & Tiger

Think what you want. The game is in a mess because of closed lazy minds - don't add yours to that list

Melvyn

[Mark Pearce]

If there's one thing worse than one of MHM's rants about carts it's when the small minded contingent turn a thread about something else into one.  I despair of the idiocy that has dragged what had the potential to be an interesting thread into yet another of these petty scraps.  And this time Melvyn isn't to blame.

[C. Squier]

If there's one thing worse than one of MHM's rants about carts it's when the small minded contingent turn a thread about something else into one.  I despair of the idiocy that has dragged what had the potential to be an interesting thread into yet another of these petty scraps.  And this time Melvyn isn't to blame.

Oh BS. Please read post #15 again and try to convince anyone paying attention that wasn't exactly the intent of the thread.

[Mark Pearce]

If there's one thing worse than one of MHM's rants about carts it's when the small minded contingent turn a thread about something else into one.  I despair of the idiocy that has dragged what had the potential to be an interesting thread into yet another of these petty scraps.  And this time Melvyn isn't to blame.

Oh BS. Please read post #15 again and try to convince anyone paying attention that wasn't exactly the intent of the thread.

Disengenuous nonsense if you've actually read the thread.  Post 15 was a response to post 13, which raised the cart issue.  I've followed the thread and you're seeing what you want in it, not what's really there.  I have as little time for some of Melvyn's nonsense as anyone but this is not one of his trolling threads and you and Tiger are attempting to turn it into one.

[C. Squier]

If there's one thing worse than one of MHM's rants about carts it's when the small minded contingent turn a thread about something else into one.  I despair of the idiocy that has dragged what had the potential to be an interesting thread into yet another of these petty scraps.  And this time Melvyn isn't to blame.

Oh BS. Please read post #15 again and try to convince anyone paying attention that wasn't exactly the intent of the thread.

Disengenuous nonsense if you've actually read the thread.  Post 15 was a response to post 13, which raised the cart issue.  I've followed the thread and you're seeing what you want in it, not what's really there.  I have as little time for some of Melvyn's nonsense as anyone but this is not one of his trolling threads and you and Tiger are attempting to turn it into one.

I have no problem agreeing to disagree 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

One thing I agree with you on is that our forefathers were better men then I....Heck, even some of the women were better men than I, if you count pure toughness!  I say that every time I go to Denver and start driving up the foothills and know they hiked, rode horses, or wagons, etc.  Living in the American West was certainly not for little sissy men.

That said, it has been a long slog to our current state of convenience culture, with a seemingly new invention every minute making our lives easier.  And, if you think about it, all the old time generations continuously worked to make golf easier. But, that has gone on since Day 2 of human life, no?  And in golf it has gone on since the second round of golf, too.  

There was an uproar when Old Tom took out the heather fw at TOC in favor of turf, as "making it too easy" but most recognized that short turf made golf a bit more like what it "should be" - a blend of mostly skill and some endurance (walking).  BTW, wouldn't caddies - with golf from the start - indicate that most felt there was a need to reduce the strain on golfers to best allow them to display their skill?

Most sports naturally calibrate the balance of fine muscle movement/coordination with physical demands over time.  Some, like golf, aren't as strenuous as soccer, but require correspondingly more finesse.  It's a big world, and no need to make golf something it is not.  

Again, think about it - would you as a player be better or worse lining up that big putt to pooped to putt, or as relatively fresh or moderately tired at the end of the day?  What about putting or chipping would be better for anyone if done nearly spent?  How would the game be better?

I have read of no architect or ruling body that thought golf should be slog.  The closest I can recall is the 36 hole final days at the US Open until the 1964 Open damn near killed the eventual champ.  

In short, you think the ruling bodies, golfers and competitors across all generations are all wrong.  However, it was earlier generations that started the gradual increase in convenience of golf, and yet you make them out to be something else entirely, no?

It is just human nature to try to make ones life easier than it used to be, and golf is no exception.  No need to add horse jumps and triathalons to golf, as I don't think it would improve it.

As always, just MHO.

[Kirk Gill]

Two things come to mind when reading this question, and this thread.

First of all, since many clubs build their clubhouses on the highest ground available on the property, isn't it a common occurrence for the final holes of a course to make their way uphill to the clubhouse?

Second, it is obvious that the golfer with better stamina will have advantage down the stretch as they play these holes.

Maybe this has more of an effect on stroke play than match.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

Thanks, but you have not answered the question. As for slog do you mean challenge, if so then that is what golf is about, but this thread is about energy vs. skill and is it used in today’s CGA?

The ability of the designer to combat the golfer on the course, not with mountains or lakes but simple little obstacles to force the golfer to think his game, to utilise the whole of the Fairway & Green. As I mentioned the aerial game has killed much of that.

Clearly it is not something that modern designers think about but then why should they when they can kill a golfer's game by including an Island Green with all the in-depth thought and planning it  takes.

Melvyn

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

My whole post was about energy, not skill.  Granted, I opined that golf is more about skill than engery, and there is no benefit for a gca to include an obstacle course to artifically introduce the latter, more than naturally hilly contours would have to do on some courses.

In reading your response, I am still not sure what you are getting at?

Describe the "simple little obstacles" you envision.  I took it to mean dykes that a golfers has to climb over or walk way around in part to tire him/herself out.  Just above, it almost sounds like little bumps that you could use for the chip and run. 

Not sure how the aerial game would make golf an easier or tougher walk, frankly.  You still walk the 4-6 miles either way, no?