[Pat Burke]

I'm sorry, it's my fault for mentioning FROLF.
[/quote]

    Nicely played

[Lou_Duran]

I got a strange IM from an individual who I know very vaguely through his postings, ripping me a new one for my reply.  He construed that I was directing the thread at him- nothing he has written even crossed my mind- and that I am somehow advocating the banning of walking the course.  For the coup de grace, he wrote that I sounded like government.  Ouch!  

David Moriarty and I do have a history now going for more than 10 years.  While I was hoping that some of the animus would have dissipated by now, it appears not.  I have no interest in litigating sentence by sentence, so, for the record, I will try one last time to state my case.

First of all, for me, walking is a very important part of playing golf.  I used to be able to carry my bag for 36 holes; as recently as last summer, I pushed a trolley at Dismal River Red for 27 holes, probably in the minority of the field who did not take a cart for at least some of the two matches that day.  My personal preference for reasons expressed by Tom Doak is to walk, however, I don't think any less of people who choose to ride.  Though I prefer to walk, I can still enjoy golf using a cart when the situation calls for it.

Second, I play relatively widely (74 different courses in 2013).  While I am no Evan Fleisher or Craig Disher, there are a relative few modern golf courses I couldn't manage on my feet.  Surprisingly, two of the more difficult walks for me were a classic (Prairie Dunes) and a neo-classic (Sand Hills) because of difficult terrain, hikes to some elevated tees, and weather.  In comparison, my residential development home course built in the early 2000s with some 50-100+ yard transitions is no harder to walk in comparable weather.  I think the labeling of modern courses as "monstrosities" is extreme and grossly inaccurate.

Perhaps unnecessarily, it does concern me that a number of people on this DG look down and disparage those who ride as "lazy", "cart-ballers", creatures who don't "get it".  Melvyn, very likely a nice man, may be gone, but he seems to live here in spirit.  The pejorative extends to modern golf architecture and the leading designers (Fazio, Nicklaus, Rees Jones, etc.), stereotyping the genre with the creation of all types of straw man arguments.  Maybe I am overly sensitive or have way too much time, but I don't think the interests of this site are served if "we" are considered to be a whacked-out fringe group.  (BTW, that is close to how this site has been described to me by several non-DG people who check in on occasion- some good content, but way too heavy on crazy, prejudiced opinion.)

I love classic golf courses, specially the work of MacKenzie, Tillinghast, Maxwell, Macdonald/Raynor, and Thomas.  I think highly of Doak, C & C, Hanse, and other modern designers in the neo-classical style.  I am a big fan of Fazio, like a lot of what Nicklaus has done, and have no quarrels with Rees Jones (Cascata near Vegas would be one tough course to walk).  Jeff Brauer's work here in TX and in KS has been outstanding.  Ditto for Keith Foster, Gary Stephenson, John Colligan, and Tripp Davis.

In TX, without modern gca, we would not have much of interest to play.  The same is true in Columbus and some other parts of Ohio in the public segment.  I don't think modern gca has much to apologize for.  The range of product is greatly varied and a number of areas previously lacking playing opportunities now don't.  Unfortunately, not all of us can live on a sand belt next to an ocean.  Instead, we're widely dispersed and sometimes heavily concentrated in less than hospitable areas where it takes great effort to get around 18 holes, not to say anything about needing to get costly permission from the government to do such a simple thing as change a toilet fixture.  Yep, I choose to cut modern gca some slack.  

Last but not least, except for instances where carts can cause damage, unreasonably impair playing conditions, or delay play, I see no compelling reason for banning them.  Ditto for not allowing walking.  Having said this, clubs have the right to determine these things, just as members and daily-fee players have the option of where to spend their money.  I do believe it is in the broader interest of the game to be as flexible, inclusive, tolerant as we can be, and this should apply to members of this DG as well as the "normal" golfer who would just shake his head that we're even talking about this.

[Rich Goodale]

Very interesting question, Lou.

IMO, if golf were conceived today it would spring into birth ~ 9 months from now, unless conceived by an elephant.....

In today's world, I very much doubt if it would be played at 100-150 acre venues, 30-60 minutes from centers of population.  Rather, I would see it centered in 30-50 acres pockets of wasteland, close to where the people are and engineered to look like a pastoral setting.  These courses would be mostly 9-holers and would be played with a standardized Cayman ball and whatever implements one could imagine (within reason).  The Rules would be flexible and simple, and speed of play would be rewarded equally with the number of strokes it took you to get into the hole.  Carts would be allowed, but only at certain times in the day.  There would still be classic courses of larger scale and lesser flexibility, but these venues would be limited to fanatics (a la Real Tennis).

Finally, anyone FROLFing within a three mile radius of any Club would be banned from the annual dinner dance for at least one year......

Yours Obediently

Rich

[Don_Mahaffey]

Back to what if golf was conceived today...
As a man of 53 years who still has young children at home....paying some attention to my health has started to occupy a portion of my thinking. I feel I owe it to my kids to be around to do a few things with them in 10-15 years, and I get some benefit as well.

Just like with my agronomy thinking, I'm a bit of a granola head when it comes to human health. So, I look a little out of the mainstream, to wellness doctors who seem to be under similar attacks from the medical establishment as some of my ideas might be attacked by some in the business of selling stuff to build and care for golf courses.

As I learn more about these wellness attitudes...holistic...whole person...whatever you want to call it, it is about trying to stay healthy rather then attacking afflictions.

Anyhow, what they advise:
Regular exercise....they all like walking as a healthy habit
Solving puzzles....keeping the mind active thru challenges, even better if there is some physical activity as well
Nature...getting away into green space...some call it biophillia (sp?) ...the idea that regular contact with nature and living, growing things is good.
Fellowship...getting off the phone, out from in front of the computer, spend a little time interacting with human beings you can see  face to face...

I think I just described playing a round of golf with other people.  If I'm conceiving golf today, I'm selling the benefits of golf in this way.

[Thomas Dai]

I suggest the game would be more a combination of this -

and this -

and a whole lot less like this -


But that's just IMO.

atb

[jeffwarne]

I don't think carts would be an issue, golf might never get off the ground if it was conceived today. The amount of land and resources needed to build a course would put the brakes on it, and even a rudimentary course like those of the early 20th century would cost an arm and a leg to build.
But if it did somehow take hold I would guess that the courses would be shorter, the holes would be more connected to one another, and  the majority would consist of nine holes. And, like disc golf, people would walk.      

Not to mention environmental regulation, water shortages, and, at least out west, the California Coastal Commission.  

Also, if the game was just starting out, the equipment specifications would probably be very different.  I doubt anyone concerned with creating a sustainable, interesting game would be dumb enough to intentionally conceive of equipment where the long hitters could drive the ball 350 yards and the short hitters half that.  That would take up way too much land, and make creating the courses a nightmare.

Exactly.
if Golf were invented today, it would be played with a ball that went say 175 yards max, with the same size width, and shorter holes.
Courses could be 60% of the acreage, would still be a walk in the park,would take under 3 hours, and there would be far less riding ,

[Dave Doxey]

If golf were conceived today, it would be an iPhone app.

One could learn it in 10 minutes, buy codes that allowed lower scores, tweet one's results, and move on to another sport after a couple of months.

[DMoriarty]

Lou,

I do apologize if you perceived my post as based on personal animus. It wasn't. My intention was to disagree and frankly state my case. Looking back at my post that seems to me to be what I did, although since you see it differently I'll try to work on softening my tone with you. I didn't think I had to mince words with you, but apparently I do.   As for "litigating" every point, you yourself made a lot of points (many mentioning me) that I felt were worth addressing.  In the future how would you suggest I respond to your long multi-point posts, if not to address each relevant point?  Isn't that how discussions generally work?

At the risk of offending you yet again . . . I don't think that those who choose carts are being unfairly picked on, and I don't think that those building cart ball courses are being unfairly maligned either.  For all the reasons I stated above.   I do view some but not all of these courses as monstrosities, and I am entitled to my opinion on this matter, am I not?  

This is a website about golf course architecture, and the trend over the past two decades (or longer) in golf course architecture has been toward cart ball courses. That to me is well worth discussing.  If you want to defend the trend, that is fine as it makes for a spirited discussion.  But please don't tell that I ought to hold my tongue because you are afraid of how the golf industry might view the website.  

I'm not sure why you would bring up banning carts, or claim some are calling cart riders "lazy."  No one has suggested either.  (I did refer to "lazy, mediocre routings," so if that is to what you refer you misquoted and/or misunderstood me.)  Perhaps it would be a lot more productive if you actually addressed the points as set out rather than arguing against things no one is suggesting.  That is one big advantage of what you call derisively call "litigating" every point.  Responding to actual points helps clarify the conversation and keep it from getting sidetracked with straw men such as this "banning carts" business.
______________________________________________________


Don,

That sounds like a good, healthy approach.  And one that would be better served if golf architects designed courses to be walkable (whether the golfers chose to walk them or not.)

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - on the other hand, if it were conceived of today, it might serve -- like the extreme sports that have snowboarders racing down isolated mountains peaks over virgin snow -- as  a deeply-needed antidote to all that is concrete and steel and electronics in our world, a rugged and isloated and deeply personal experience to counteract the overly-processed and engineered 'social forums' that we tend to lose ourselves in. I mean, think of it: if the hardy and sensible Scots in the much less mechanized 1800s decided that a game played on the windswept seashores of their land was needed/desirable, how much more so is the yearing for such natural settings today? (Hence, needless to say, the popularity of Bandon and Ballyneal and Sandhills).
Peter

[jeffwarne]

Jeff - on the other hand, if it were conceived of today, it might serve -- like the extreme sports that have snowboarders racing down isolated mountains peaks over virgin snow -- as  a deeply-needed antidote to all that is concrete and steel and electronics in our world, a rugged and isloated and deeply personal experience to counteract the overly-processed and engineered 'social forums' that we tend to lose ourselves in. I mean, think of it: if the hardy and sensible Scots in the much less mechanized 1800s decided that a game played on the windswept seashores of their land was needed/desirable, how much more so is the yearing for such natural settings today? (Hence, needless to say, the popularity of Bandon and Ballyneal and Sandhills).
Peter

agree 100%
but all could be enjoyed on a smaller scale, as it was when the Scots invented it.
and hitting a ball 525 feet still would put it on a larger scale than any other ball and still sport, and seem quite exciting

[Peter Pallotta]

Ha, you're right - never thought of it before, but if golf hadn't been invented until now, a '525 foot' drive would make us all feel like Mickey Mantle!  (Or Prince Fielder, I guess would be more like it)

Peter

[Carl Nichols]

Ha, you're right - never thought of it before, but if golf hadn't been invented until now, a '525 foot' drive would make us all feel like Mickey Mantle!  (Or Prince Fielder, I guess would be more like it)

Peter

Prince Fielder is definitely a cart-baller.   

[Lou_Duran]

David M,

No apology necessary.  I was not offended.  I'll take your word for it that no animus is involved.

Perhaps it is your style as a past litigator to take a statement and reconstruct it to where it bears no resemblance to what was being conveyed, then discredit it.  You don't need to soften your tone or mince words with me.  I don't ask that you agree with me, only that you not reposition what I write to better suit your arguments.  I do admire your facility for turning what you might consider pot shots on the other guy (your reference to litigating and straw man)- your legal education seems to have served you well.

Though I addressed you by name in my prior reply, agreeing with some of your comments, disagreeing with others, I was not directing my comments just to you.  It is your opinion that riders and modern architects are not being maligned by some here.  Of course you are free to hold these views.  My experience on this site leads me to a different conclusion.

The reference to being "lazy" is not misquoting or not understanding what you wrote, but to a motive attributed to riders many times here by various posters over the years.  In fact, the same guy who took offense to my post by PM followed up with another one saying just that- people are lazy- and asked me to delete the thread.

Not many in a position of power are suggesting banning carts- it would be economic suicide and extremely undemocratic.  There have been any number of posters on this site over the years besides Melvyn who have communicated this fantasy- golf sans carts and cart paths.  Having paid a considerable price when the private club I belonged to for many years changed its policy to require carts in the morning rounds during prime golf season weekends, holidays, and tournaments, I am extremely sensitive when I hear people take strong stances about how someone else should play their golf.  Though the number of courses banning carts are insignificant in relation to those requiring them, they do exist and neither, IMO, should be encouraged.

You are right that most courses built in the last 30+ years have made walking more difficult.  Part of this is outside the control of the architects and even the principals.  A good portion is based on consumer demand and the economics of the specific areas.  Though I prefer to walk, I don't feel architects and developers must take into consideration my wishes.  I typically have no trouble finding courses I can walk.  My much bigger problem is finding people who will walk with me.  Three riders and one walker does not work well, IMO.

[RJ_Daley]

Just taking the pure notion of "if golf were conceived today"...  Then I assume no one on the planet would know what golf was, could or should be in the context that we who have experienced it in all its glory understand it to be as a sport, hobby, passion, etc.

Thus, a person born into this modern age, in this present day context of all that is technologically inter-connected, complex, and natural resource depleted in the population centers, where the agrarian and rural life is dying out, and recreation is becoming either extreme pursuits of an expression of revolutionary reaction to the techno-dystopia, or flatline couch potato material.... all this mitigates in my mind towards; golf would be still born if conceived today. 

It is not a comforting feeling to think that humans would loose all the qualities that allowed golf to take hold and flourish as it has for the last 150-200 years, setting aside how obscure it was before that in all the ancient forms, prior.  Golf grew, as human needs, resources and economies allowed it to grow, and blended so many of the humanity values to the resources that allowed its growth on available fields of play, affordable and accessible to allow brilliant minds to design more venues and more equipment into the hands of more people.  But, is that all becoming too scarce and the activity anachronistic?  I don't know.  But I suspect to a new born with no context or ability to know how it has been, I don't think it looks to good for the concept of golf conceived today.

But, I do like how this thread seems to have regained some intelligent and convivial traction in discourse between two folks that I know can still meet and be friends through a round of the game of golf that was conceived and has evolved in a time and era we all seem to generally understand. 

[Lou_Duran]

Not sure I understood the above, but Dick, if you're referring to David and John K, fat chance.  Me, I'll play with most anyone under the proper conditions (good pace, decent course, other people around), even with a good-natured Troskyite with great stories about Aus to tell.  Who knows, if in a good mood, I'd even spring for the beer.   

[Mike Hendren]

It would never get off the ground as virtually every desirable site would have a higher and better use and economic feasibility drives so much of what we do.  The Millenials have an insatiable appetite for urban living, ruling out the possibility of a infill golf course - even Rich's truncated one with nine holes and the Cayman ball.   Conceivably the suburbs will become the new ghost towns - nobody will live near the few desirable surburban sites.  Without tradition, the elite will have little interest in playing.

I have an idea.  The Tennessee State Fairgrounds is a 117 acres site one mile south of downtown Nashville.  A dilapidated short track is limited to 10 events annually due to neighborhood noise restrictions.  Exhibition space consists of dated pre-engineered steel buildings hosting 12 flea markets annually.  It's likely unused 250 days a year.  Start with flattening everything there.  Ring the perimeter with multi-family housing and office space over structured parking with height restrictions.  Include neighborhood services and retail on the first floor.  Perhaps a single 50,000 sf exhibition center divisible into smaller spaces and recreations courts.  Include a YMCA.  Maybe a couple of permanent event tents.   Leave 70 acres in the middle as green space including a traditional public park/playground and seatless amphitheater.   Route a 9 holes golf course over land that includes soccer and other playing fields.  Ring the permieter buildings with low profile stadium style lighting for night play.   Limit weekdays tee times so that golfers are off the course by the time school's out.  Tee times beginning at noon on weekends.  

In other words,  look no further than the town of St. Andrews.  Back to the future.

Random, I know.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()