News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2012, 07:05:58 PM »
Thanks, Sven.  I'll check that out tonight.



Michael...

I don't pretend to speak for everyone.  Simply voicing my opinion and highlighting some of Dr. Mackenzie's thoughts.

On the three courses you've listed, I'd be curious which ones you've played and what your thoughts were regarding them.

To call Chicago Golf Club "flat" is not accurate.  Does it have the dramatic dunes or sea side cliffs that other courses do?  Of course not.  But there are slopes, hills, and ridges which are highlighted brilliantly both on the fairways and on the greens.  I'd also add that the bunkering alone on Chicago Golf Club makes it a must play and a must study for every golf course architecture fan/student in the world.  The bunkering scheme is extra special.  

I've also played two other Chicago area golf courses, Shoreacres and Old Elm.  Old Elm is the only one I'd call "flattish" but it isn't flat as the fairways haven't been ruined by an architect wanting to make a flat and "fair" course.  In fact, the flattest fairways I've seen were on a course in the mountains of North Carolina, of all places.  Beautiful mountains surrounding the course.  A few natural streams.  Potentially some really great land.  Nope.  All the slopes and undulations taken out of the fairways AND greens and the result was the dreadfully monotonus and "fair" conditions that Dr. Mackenzie advised against.

Regarding Pine Valley and Augusta National, I haven't played them...so I can not speak to them.  Every single person I know, to a man, who has played Pine Valley says that the fairways are VERY wide.  But regardless, you point out an error in my typing.  Perhaps I should have said, "tightly tree lined courses."  On Augusta, again, I've never played it.  Only walked it during a Masters Practice round.  It appeared that it would play fast and firm, so, therefore, it wouldn't be "overly green"...but I have no idea as I haven't played it.  Has the perfect appearance of Augusta National driven people to be like sheep and try to copy their lush appearance?  Has this led to overly wet golf courses that don't play fast and firm?  Most likely.

In the end, I stand by every word of my last paragraph...

 It is the flat, tree lined, overly green courses with unthoughtful bunkering schemes that bring the game down.  And, then if you are a golfer who only plays on these watered down courses...will you ever realize the true enjoyment that the game can bring?  Sad thing is, you may never know the true joy of playing on a well-laid out course.  You may like it...you may love it, regardless...but you won't feel the wonder of it at its full magnitude.  And sadly, some may quit the game because it never lives up to all it might be.

Frankly, a lot of this was stolen from Mackenzie, Behr, and other great minds on of the game.  Then bolstered by my own experience playing the game on a variety of courses.  You can fight against my opinions and disagree if you want...but strangely enough you said you agree.  I want to alert people who love the Sporting nature of the game to options that are available and let them know they don't have to settle for watered down golf.  In fact, you were telling me some of the changes you wanted to see at Sharon.  Removing trees, adding in more strategic bunkers, and the like.  Why would you want to do this?  I'm sure you like/love the course and many others do...as the full membership with a waiting list implies.  Oh yeah...you probably want to do this to improve the course so you and your other members can feel the game's full magnitude of greatness, which of course we know can be experienced on a well designed golf course.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 07:09:37 PM by Mac Plumart »
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2012, 07:21:35 PM »

In this section on Beauty, he also bangs on geometrical bunkers and square greens.  I've mentioned this before, but this seems like a shot at Raynor and, perhaps, CBM.   


Mac:

I think this may have been directed more at the early days of golf design, specifically the school of design that Walter Travis called "The Willie Dunn" system.  This article from Travis describes that thought in detail:

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1920/ag2333f.pdf


I do not think that MacKenzie was knocking any golf architect in particular with those comments.  I think he was knocking the idea of square ANYTHING in the landscape.  He did much the same in his articles on camouflage, berating the people who built trenches with perfect edges because it made them stick out in the landscape.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2012, 10:19:05 PM »
I mentioned previously that I'd post some of Max Behr's thoughts on Beauty.  Here it is:

Art in Golf Architecture May 16, 1925

We are too apt to mistake that which is pretty, or picturesque, for the beautiful.

Beauty practically always accompanies economy of structure.

When we perceive it, we first become aware of truth; and only in the presence of truth do we
recognize stability and permanence.

What, then, is art in golf architecture?  'Vhat are the values we should seek to achieve it?

If we analyze golf architecture in general, we shall discover that,
wherever beauty manifests itself in the necessary modifications of the
ground, wherever the work done seems inevitably to be so, we can be relatively
sure the work promises to endure.

,What are the requisites to perfection and thus
art? Repton, the great landscape gardener of the X VI lIth Century, has
perhaps most concisely and perfectly stated them. " .
"First it must display the natural beauties and lude the natural defects
of every situation. Secondly, it should give the appearance of
extent and, freedom by carefully disguising or hiding ,the boundary.
Thirdly, it must studiously conceal every interference of art, however
expensive, by which the scenery is improved, making the whole appear the
production of nature only. and fourthly, all objects of mere convenience
or comfort, if incapable of being made ornamental, or of becoming proper
parts of the general scenery, must be removed or concealed."

the golfer of the future will demand
of a golf course that ." relief to be found in the athletic pleasure to be derived
from landscape which expresses not man's will but the operation of
na tural forces."

It must be evident that there are two methods. in which golf architecture
is pursued. In the one were the architect, with plastescine or
contour lines, inventing regardless of the nonconformity of situations to
his ideas; and, thus, feeling himself free to modify the ground to his will,
it is his destiny' to be in bondage to the winds of fashion and reflect in
his work the psychology of his time. Driven by a self-complacency in his
omnipotence, the bark of his architecture, without the rudder of geological
law, must drift from one fallacy of design to another. Only thus
it would seem that "freak" architecture can be explained.


But the golf architect who looks upon his work as a true art will
ever be humble, for his search is beauty. 'With so high a purpose, his
will is ever subservient to his quest. I t becomes the handmaid by which
. he brings to fruition his intuitions of truth. He must first feel before he
thinks. And thus with no matrix of irrelevant ideas to' dim his sight, he,
with innocent eyes, perceives the forms of nature and rearranges them
as they.might once have been, or anticipates what they are to be, blending
with his work that modicum of necessity that golf demands.

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2012, 10:40:36 PM »
Mac:

I have not played any of the 3 that I mentioned (and you know that), but I don't think that was my point.  I think my statements about them are still correct.

As I said, I agree with many of your thoughts on golf course architecture.   And as you mentioned, I would love to see more of them on my home course.  

I am just trying to be devil's advocate re: applying uniform standards to golf course architecture.  The field is big enough and the sport is widely played enough to allow different styles of golf courses.  The Spirit of St. Andrews is one of my favorite books.  I agree with almost everything written. But I have also read Macdonald's and Fazio's and Nicklaus and can appreciate their views.

For instance, Mackenzie suggests that all artificial features should have so natural appearance that a stranger is unable to distinguish them from nature itself.  In general, I agree with this statement.  However, I also LOVE many Pete Dye golf courses that have many artificial features that are clearly distinguishable from nature.

Further, Mackenzie stated that "There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls."  Yet, Macdonald states in Scotland's Gift that "Searching for a lost ball is not a pleasant vocation but since golf was first played a lost ball has always been a part of the game.  So reconcile yourself to tradition".   I don't like looking for lost balls, but I also enjoy tall fescue around the edges of golf holes.  So who is right.. I don't know.  Maybe neither of them.

Golf enjoys many great places.  Some minimalist, some man made.  Some with many blind shots, some without any blind shots.  Some hilly, some flat.  As I said, I know much of what you like in a golf course and I agree with you.  However, I don't think our views are the only reasonable voice on the issue.  
« Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 10:42:56 PM by Michael George »
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #29 on: August 28, 2012, 07:52:54 AM »
Michael...

Great post.  Thanks.

I had a long response typed up, but lost it last night as I got "timed out" by the site.  Ugh!

Long story short, your point on the contradiction of ideals by architectural greats certainly highlights the fact that there aren't any absolutes in architecture in terms of what is good/great.  In fact, Mackenzie contradicted himself on his first principle.  Nevertheless, I do think that there are certain things that should be avoided and certain thing that always need to be embraced.  Perhaps we can discover those things as we review Mackenzie's 13 Principles.

Principle 8...There should be a number of heroic carries from the tee, but the course should be arranged so that the weaker player with the loss of a stroke, or portion of a stroke, shall always have an alternate route open to him.

In between his discussion of Principle 7 and 8, he talks about Cypress Point and there is a photo of the iconic 16th.  Maybe this sums up Principle 8 perfectly.

Nevertheless, he talks about the Real Object of a Hazard, which is not to simply punish bad shots but rather "to make the game more interesting."

He then goes on to discussing Giving the Player Thrills and he mentions the idea of giving "players as much pleasurable excitement as possible."

He also discusses the Spirit of Adventure in this section and highlights how The Old Course embraces many of these ideals.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #30 on: August 28, 2012, 08:23:58 AM »
Mac - my favorite quote from The Spirit of St. Andrews:

“Golf is a game and talk and discussion is all to the interests of the game.  Anything that keeps the game alive and prevents us being bored with it is an advantage.  Anything that makes us think about it, talk about it and dream about it is all to the good and prevents the game becoming dead.”
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #31 on: August 28, 2012, 12:05:59 PM »
golf is a hunt

it's not always about putting it in the hole

it's a retrun to our "human instinct" of fulfilling a journey to bring home the bacon
It's all about the golf!

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #32 on: August 28, 2012, 02:09:05 PM »
Will, Mac,

The atavism of golf has always been something that I believed in!  The flight of the golf ball, the carrying of implements, the roaming over the land, the search for betterment. All these are elements which hark back to the ancestral!
A daft idea of mine and one which has not been accepted with universal acclaim at my golf club.

William, maybe you could proselytize the idea for me Down Under!

Cheers Colin
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #33 on: August 28, 2012, 02:13:00 PM »
I figured I’d wrap up the 13 Principles in this post, then take a day or two off from the site.  However, if there aren’t more architectural related discussions being actively participated in when that small break is up…I’ll start adding to this thread with some of George Thomas’ (or maybe CBM’s) concepts.  You’ve been warned!!   :)

Principle 9…There should be infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes.

Principle 10…There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls.

Principle 11…The course should be so interesting that even the scratch man is constantly stimulated.

Principle 12…The course should be so arranged that the long handicap player or even the absolute beginner should be able to enjoy his round.

Principle 13…The course should be equally good during winter and summer, the texture of the greens and fairways should be perfect and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens.




Commonly, I see Principles 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 13 violated.

In fact, the U.S. Open conditioning seems to violate the concept behind principle 10 without hesitation or remorse.  In fact, that seems to be totally accepted; grow the rough to absurd and obscene levels to test the best players.  Shouldn’t the best golfer be the best thinker?  Set up a course to have the golfers think there way around the course…not ridiculously punish any and all wayward shots.


Are there some of Mackenzie’s 13 Principles that I don’t agree with?  Yes.  1 is one that I don’t fully support, but I “get” why he put it on there.  And I’m not totally on-board with his concept behind 7 and that everything must be totally natural.  I’d accept “nothing hideous and jarringly man-made”, but “completely natural”…eh, I don’t know.  Raynor, Dye, CBM…there work isn’t totally naturally looking but has made for lasting and engaging golf.

What say you?


EDIT...Colin posted as I was posting.  Colin, frankly, I think you are correct.  Something inherent in our nature just might be calling us to the raw nature of golf.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 02:26:56 PM by Mac Plumart »
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #34 on: August 28, 2012, 02:58:30 PM »
Here is my response to MacKenzie's principles.  I don't know 1/2 of what he knew, but it is just my opinion, so I will give it.

1-The course, where possible, should be arranged in two loops of nine.  DON'T CARE IN THE LEAST.  I ACTUALLY LIKE COURSES THAT SEND YOU OFF FOR A HIKE AND DON'T RETURN UNTIL 18.  

2-There should be a good proportion of good two shot holes, and at least four one shot holes.  I GENERALLY AGREE, BUT AGAIN, DON'T THINK IT IS MANDATORY.  IF I PLAYED A COURSE WITH THREE 1 SHOT HOLES AND I LIKED IT, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HURT THE COURSE.

3-There should be little walking between the greens and tees. I AGREE, BUT A COURSE CAN OVERCOME IT ESPECIALLY WITH CARTS.  HOWEVER, THERE IS A SYMMETRY BETWEEN GREEN AND TEE THAT IT VERY IMPORTANT TO A GOLF COURSE.  BALLYNEAL DOES THIS EXCEPTIONALLY WELL AS DOES OLD MACDONALD.

4-The greens and fairways should be sufficiently undulating, but there should be no hill climbing.  THIS IS CERTAINLY LESS IMPORTANT WITH CARTS.  HOWEVER, I HAVE PLAYED GOLF COURSES THAT I THOUGHT WERE TOO HILLY.  IN SUM, I CAN TOLERATE SOME HILL CLIMBING (#7 IS MY FAVORITE HOLE AT OLD MACDONALD SO I OBVIOUSLY DID NOT MIND THAT HILL), SO LONG AS IT IS NOT EXCESSIVE.  

5-Every hole should be different in character.  I AGREE FULLY WITH THIS.  UNIQUENESS TO GOLF HOLES KEEPS GOLF FROM BECOMING MONOTOMOUS.  GOLF COURSES THAT REPEAT THE SAME CONCEPT EVENTUAL BECOME BORING TO PLAY.  THIS IS ONE REASON THAT I THINK IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DESIGN A GREAT STRAIGHT PAR 4 OR 5.

6-There should be a minimum of blindness on the approach shots.  I AGREE, BUT WILL SAY THAT I LIKE THAT MINIMUM AMOUNT OF BLINDNESS TOO.  A COURSE WITHOUT ANY BLIND SHOT LACKS THE EXCITING ASPECT OF HITTING AND THEN MARCHING TO SEE WHERE THE BALL WENT.

7-The course should have beautiful surroundings...and all artificial features should have a natural appearance.  I LOVE BEAUTIFUL GOLF COURSES (COUNT ME ONE THAT CAN ENJOY AVERAGE OR BELOW AVERAGE GOLF IF THE SURROUNDINGS ARE BEAUTIFUL ENOUGH) AND CERTAINLY PREFER NATURAL APPEARANCES, BUT IT IS NOT A MUST.  I LOVE PETE DYE GC AND IT IS NOT NATURAL LOOKING.

8-There should be a number of heroic carries from the tee, but the course should be arranged so that the weaker player with the loss of a stroke, or portion of a stroke, shall always have an alternate route open to him. AGREE IF THE COURSE IS INTENDED FOR ALL PLAYERS.  I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IF A COURSE JUST WANTS TO BE A CHAMPIONSHIP COURSE OR JUST A BEGINNER GOLF COURSE.  I MAY NOT ENJOY IT, BUT IF THEY CAN MAKE A BUSINESS OF IT, THAT IS FINE.  FOR THE GOLF COURSES THAT I PLAY, I AGREE THAT HEROIC CARRIES PROVIDE GREAT EXCITEMENT THAT IS OFTEN UNPARALLELED IN GOLF.  A LESSER PLAYER SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A ROUTE TO THE GREEN.  HOWEVER, I THINK THIS OFTEN GETS CONFUSED WITH ALLOWING A LESSER PLAYER TO SCORE.  I DON'T CARE IF THE LESSER PLAYER MAKES DOUBLE BOGEYS AS LONG AS THEY HAVE A ROUTE.  TOO OFTEN, GOLF COURSES MAKE THEMSELVES OVERLY PLAYABLE IN THE INTEREST OF THE LESSER PLAYER.

9 -There should be infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes.  AGREE.  THE MORE OPTIONS THAT A PLAYER HAS RE: SHOTS, THE MORE INTERESTING THE ROUND IS INVARIABLY GOING TO BE.  THIS IS THE REASON THAT GOLF IS BETTER PLAYED ON FESCUE IF THE WEATHER PERMITS AS YOU CAN PLAY HIGH AND ALONG THE GROUND.    

10-There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls.  THERE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN THIS STATEMENT AND THAT OF MACDONALD THAT I QUOTE ABOVE.  A SLIGHTLY MISSED SHOT SHOULD NOT BE LOST UNLESS IT IS A WATER HAZARD.  HOWEVER, A HORRIBLY HIT SHOT CAN BE LOST ON OCCASION BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE FREQUENT.  FOR INSTANCE, TALL FESCUE GRASS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10-15 YARDS INTO THE ROUGH AND NOT ALONG FAIRWAYS UNLESS THE FAIRWAYS ARE EXTREMELY WIDE.  IF THERE IS BLIND SHOTS, YOU REALLY SHOULD NOT BE IN JEOPARDY OF LOSING A GOLF BALL, EVEN IF IT IS THE FIRST TIME PLAYING THE GOLF COURSE.  

11-The course should be so interesting that even the scratch man is constantly stimulated.  AGREE.  AGAIN, A COURSE SHOULD BE PLAYABLE BY ALL CATEGORIES OF PLAYERS BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A LESSER PLAYER CAN SCORE ON IT.  

12-The course should be so arranged that the long handicap player or even the absolute beginner should be able to enjoy his round.  AGREE.  BUT A PLAYER HAS TO BE REALISTIC ABOUT HIS SCORE.  BANDON IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THIS.  ANYONE CAN PLAY EACH COURSE, BUT YOU MAY NOT BREAK 100.  JUST ENJOY THE EXPERIENCE AND KNOW THAT YOU WON'T LOSE MANY BALLS.

13-The course should be equally good during winter and summer, the texture of the greens and fairways should be perfect and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens.  DON'T AGREE.  IN MY RECENT TRIP TO NEBRASKA, I LOVED THE FESCUE FAIRWAYS AND BENT GREENS.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2012, 03:06:26 PM by Michael George »
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #35 on: August 28, 2012, 03:04:12 PM »
golf is a hunt

it's not always about putting it in the hole

it's a retrun to our "human instinct" of fulfilling a journey to bring home the bacon

William:

Dr. MacKenzie was an avid deer stalker when he traveled north to Scotland with his family in summertime.  I had never thought much about it before until reading this from my co-author on his biography, Dr. Scott, but the connection made complete sense to me.

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #36 on: August 28, 2012, 03:11:36 PM »
But to your last sentence..."However, if you can try to create a great course WITHOUT spending more than the competition, maybe that will work."

I think you may have absolutley hit the nail on the head.  In fact, what ways can people get this done?
Warren Buffet holds the answer, and it comes from his mentor Ben Graham. Three simple words: Margin of Safety. There are many ways to get there... good land reducing costs, a benevolent community, tax breaks, etc. etc. At the end there must be a Margin of safety so when the economy hits a bump, and it always does... reduced revenues will not kill the project.

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #37 on: September 02, 2012, 10:37:02 AM »
Margin of safety is a good motto for living life, no?
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #38 on: September 02, 2012, 10:56:51 AM »
Depends on your outlook on life, RoMo.

Richard Branson, Larry Ellison are probably not keen on margin of saftey...or at least weren't at times in their life.

Phil Mickelson doesn't appear to play golf with Margin of Saftey in mind.

However, Warren Buffett and Bobby Jones might have.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do we not get the point of golf?
« Reply #39 on: September 02, 2012, 03:55:47 PM »
Exactly.  Living your life with a margin of safety is a good way to live the longest life, but probably not the most interesting life.  Likewise, playing golf with a margin of safety is a good way to shoot the lowest score, but probably not to have the most fun.

Patrick Mucci once accused me of not being a real golfer, after I said that shooting the lowest score is not my main goal in a round of golf.  This is not because I always take crazy risks (I do more often than most, but often play safe as well) but because I'll choose the most interesting way to play a particular shot or a particular hole, not caring if it is highly unlikely to be the way that gets me the lowest score.

Dismal River is a great example of course to play like this, there are often all kinds of ways to play a particular shot or hole, many of which are stupid to varying degrees if you want to shoot a number, but which are also more fun for me than shooting a number.
My hovercraft is full of eels.