Jamie Donaldson

[Mark_Rowlinson]

You may remember Jamie Donaldson playing the winning shot in the Gleneagles Ryder Cup. He's had a miserable time since then with injury, though a 62 in the Middle East the other day shows he might be coming back into form.


I met him today to walk Prestbury with him, making notes for their centenary book. He was charming, full of insight into the course seen from a professional's point of view. He was very interesting and perceptive on the architecture and I can quite imagine him becoming an architect when he eventually hangs up his clubs.


As it happens when we had finished we bumped into Beth Wardle the young lady who has just won the Portuguese Amateur and is pencilled in for the Curtis Cup. She has also agreed to take me round the course to view it from the point of view of a very good, young, female, talented golfer.

[Jim Franklin]

I saw him at the William Hill championship last year. He looked like he was having a blast.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:


Could you share an observation that he made that you had not considered before?

[jeffwarne]

Mark:


Could you share an observation that he made that you had not considered before?

Not meant to be sarcastic,
but that's a pretty high bar.
Mark is one of the most thoughtful architectural enthusiasts we have and I daresay few would have nearly as many thoughts as Mark on Prestbury or any other course he is intimately familiar with.


Just the fact that he was good converation and interested in architecture at all is is win-and if he did offer worthwhile insights Mark hadn't considered--all the better.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:


Could you share an observation that he made that you had not considered before?

Not meant to be sarcastic,
but that's a pretty high bar.
Mark is one of the most thoughtful architectural enthusiasts we have and I daresay few would have nearly as many thoughts as Mark on Prestbury or any other course he is intimately familiar with.


Just the fact that he was good converation and interested in architecture at all is is win-and if he did offer worthwhile insights Mark hadn't considered--all the better.

Jeff:


I know it was a high bar.  But Mark seemed genuinely impressed, and pegs him to get into architecture someday.  I thought that might require more than just agreeing with what he already believed.


But I'll admit, I also asked because I think golf pros get a lot of extra credit for knowing the same things about architecture as everyone else.  For example, the two of us agree that Mark Rowlinson knows a ton about golf courses and architecture, but we didn't speculate that he should become an architect [and probably neither did Jamie Donaldson]. 


There's a double standard at play, and as someone who did not make his name as a player, I tend to look out for the other guys.  It's not mean-spirited ... it's just a different view of the playing field.

[jeffwarne]

Tom,
I have found with Mark that the glass is nearly always half full.


and as you know, to get his real opinion on nearly anything you have to be quite familiar with him and his writing, and read the fine print between the lines to find anything approaching a negative review.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Most of his comments were to do with bunkering. You can't significantly alter the structure of the course because it is a Colt original. Only the 11th hole is slightly different because they lost some land years and years go, when they didn't own the course. However, many of the bunkers have been moved, and that's where he had many views, largely because if he takes a driver on a hole he is driving into a part of the hole where there are no bunkers. He has a pretty easy run, especially so on the three par 5s. A 320-340 yard drive takes almost all the trouble out of the course, and it was noticeable that he selected driver, rather than 3- or 5-wood, on almost every hole.


However, the 8th hole is a shortish par 4, dog-legging steeply around trees and uphill to a green bunkered on either side. They are working on the hole at the minute. He pointed out that despite the alterations being made he would still be able to take out the dog-leg and hit directly for the green over the trees, which are quite high these days. He said that the left-hand bunker, in particular, was in the wrong place allowing him access. The work being done by the club is monitored by Mackenzie and Ebert who are the consulting architects.


Generally he felt that many bunkers were not close enough to the putting surfaces and that some of them presented no challenge to him being too shallow or with too much room to work the ball. There were exceptions, of course, and many times he said, 'Aim for the middle of the green, wherever the hole is cut.'

[jeffwarne]

 A 320-340 yard drive takes almost all the trouble out of the course, and it was noticeable that he selected driver every hole

It stings more when you see it in print from a reasonable person


Pretty hard to maintain any "architectural intent" for the elite  when the scale changes that much from the original design intent

[JESII]

A - who cares if the top 0.01% lose out?


B - he’s not carrying it more than 290 so that’s where the hazards need to be, which does offer value down the handicap scale.

[Tom_Doak]

B - he’s not carrying it more than 290 so that’s where the hazards need to be, which does offer value down the handicap scale.

Any number you pick, you're going to be wrong in a matter of time.

[Tom_Doak]

 A 320-340 yard drive takes almost all the trouble out of the course, and it was noticeable that he selected driver every hole

Pretty hard to maintain any "architectural intent" for the elite  when the scale changes that much from the original design intent

Yes.  On holes where there's no room to move the tee back, you're talking about a landing area 50-75 yards beyond the original intent.  If the site has topography, that often means it's over the crest of a hill, and blind from the tee, with no good place to fit a bunker into the topography.

[jeffwarne]

A - who cares if the top 0.01% lose out?


B - he’s not carrying it more than 290 so that’s where the hazards need to be, which does offer value down the handicap scale.

If I were at the top .01 % I would care
and there are plenty of athletic people not in the top .01% who hit it similar distances.
Just a shame that so many classics bear no resemblance to the scale they were designed for.
That's not saying golf is too easy(for anybody), just that "original architectural intent" is a fairy tale when an athletic golfer is hitting SW to a 450 yard hole that once was driver 3, iron


In the real curmudgeon department, most recently I've decided that the three point shot has ruined basketball.
Initially, it opened up the game and kept unathletic teams from playing packed zones,(though I would argue that a well coached zone defense is a thing of beauty) but now players are so skilled (great shooters) that there's no real reason to shoot anything but 3's or gimme layups. 3 pointers are like full wedges-they're easier than an athletic touch jumper from 12 feet.(unless you're in position to use the backboard)
I'm seeing this even at the high school level.
Coaches have figured out that shooting 33% from a full wedge 3 range with less defense is far easier than shooting 50% from anywhere else especially factoring in the extra passes could be a turnover.
and kids have adapted by practicing and getting very good at that distance.
and teamwork is just about out the window.


You almost never see great post up moves now-other than to kick it right back out


Get rid of the three point reward and let's see who has the courage to Pistol Pete it from 35 feet when the reward was equal to a layup-but devastating to the opponent.

[James Brown]

One question about the distance factor relative to this discussion. 


If we say the distance gap between the tour pro or top amateur and the best expected club level player is perhaps 50 yards today, what would that gap have been in 1930 or 1900?  And isn’t it this gap that is really the issue, not the absolute difference in length between eras?

[Tom_Doak]

If we say the distance gap between the tour pro or top amateur and the best expected club level player is perhaps 50 yards today, what would that gap have been in 1930 or 1900?  And isn’t it this gap that is really the issue, not the absolute difference in length between eras?

Well, the issue is both, because courses were designed around certain [outdated] distances, not just in the placement of bunkers but in the relationship of tees to the topography in landing areas.


But the distance gap is important, too, if you're trying to design a course for "all levels" today.


I'm not sure what the gap was in the 1930's or before that.  It might have been more [at least on a percentage basis] than it was in the 70's and 80's, because the equipment was so unforgiving to an off-center hit.  In the late 70's I would say the distance gap was only about 30 yards ... and if a good club player caught one on the screws and the pro didn't, they'd be in about the same place. 


To me, that's the real difference between then and now:  back then, the best players only swung at it maybe 85%, because the margin for error on the club face was much smaller, and that gave the amateur a better chance of keeping up, when they hit a good one.  Now, the pros can use their advantage in athleticism to swing at speeds the amateur can't touch.

[Jeff Schley]

One question about the distance factor relative to this discussion. 


If we say the distance gap between the tour pro or top amateur and the best expected club level player is perhaps 50 yards today, what would that gap have been in 1930 or 1900?  And isn’t it this gap that is really the issue, not the absolute difference in length between eras?

This is an interesting observation and good point.  Is the delta between pro-club player throughout the decades similar? That would be a very good masters thesis for a statistics major actually. The problem is access to data from the historical period, I doubt there is much if any. We do have some from the 80's onward for the PGA tour which would be easy to crunch.  It is the club player data which would be tough (I'm assuming we are talking about like a single digit to mid teen handicap).

Tom makes a good point as well, that it isn't the absolute distance deltas, it is the fact that the pros can swing 100% with driver as the forgiveness of the club still gives them the distance. They don't really care about accuracy (except in US Open) so much as the distance, the announcers continually remind us.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Jamie played with Rory in the middle east and he remarked on how much further Rory hits the ball than most other people.


Yes, you are right. They all take driver nowadays because it goes so much straighter.