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.


Jason Hines

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #75 on: February 03, 2020, 09:09:34 PM »
On page 72 in Chapter 3 -


Does anyone know which course in the California dunes he was speaking of?  It was around violating his principles of a well place and molded green.  Might be interesting to see what happened to this course?


One other point or question that has been touched upon a bit so far, would Hunter be opposed to the current implementation of technology in designing and producing a course as long as it fit his many principles?  My guess is that he would -

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #76 on: February 04, 2020, 01:47:53 AM »
Tom D.,


Eureka! Eureka!


I wrote " Somewhere near the beginning of the book Hunter mentions  " .... golf course anatomy.." and I wondered if this had given rise to Tom Doak, subconsciously, giving the title "The Anatomy of a Golf Course" to his book.


Well the phrase was nearer the end of the book and wasn't quite the phrase I'd remembered and quoted!


However the word anatomy was present on page 158 where Hunter talking about the aim of (t)his book writes
"Here my task is a limited one, and might be referred to as the anatomy of the links and their offshoots"


I thought I was going crackers and had to "speed read" The Links twice before picking up on the ruddy phrase. So my thesis stands!!


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

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #77 on: February 04, 2020, 03:48:39 AM »
Isn't retyping a manuscript tantamount to copying it? It may be love, but it's fishy nonetheless ;D .

Ciao

Copyright laws existed before copy machines.
As did fair user exemptions.  Tom's mum copied the book so that he could study.  Under UK law, that fits an exemption.  Anyway, when did Hunter die? (1942, apparently, so at least in the UK we can copy away now, so long as we don't copy a particult typographical arrangement).


As to the position in the USA, as a pre-1978 work the position will depend on whether (and when) copyright was originally registered and whether (and when) the original term was extended.  And I am not an expert on fair user exemptions in the USA.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 03:56:26 AM by Mark Pearce »
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #78 on: February 04, 2020, 04:02:25 AM »
Mark:


One reason THE LINKS is so easy to find is that there are several newer editions, all produced after the copyright ran out in 1996 (seventy years after publication).


In 1998 the law in the US was changed from 70 years to 95 - just coincidentally (or not)in time to protect Steamboat Willie, where Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse.  Mackenzie's and Hunter's and Thomas's books all went into the public domain before then, so it was too late for them. Wethered and Simpson's 1929 book is harder to find because new editions would require the original publisher's cooperation.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 04:13:00 AM by Tom_Doak »

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #79 on: February 04, 2020, 04:15:22 AM »
Mark:


One reason THE LINKS is so easy to find is that there are several newer editions, all produced after the copyright ran out 15-20 years ago.


Books from the 1920's did not quite fall under the extended copyright laws passed in the US Congress just after that.  All of those just coincidentally start just before Steamboat Willie, where the created Walt Disney character of Mickey Mouse is still under copyright.
Thanks, Tom.  As an IP lawyer the historic differences in term of protection between the US and Europe are a pain in the backside.  Fortunately we are moving towards homogeneity but every so often we still have to dig through the historic statutes. 


Interesting how, wherever you look, copyright extension laws are linked to individuals (Disney, Sonny Bono, Cliff Richard).
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Drew Groeger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #80 on: February 04, 2020, 09:30:15 AM »
As a side, would Hunter be happy with the standard of courses being built around the world now?

Tim,
I think the short answer is yes. In his summary to the chapter "Laying Out the Course" he lists 15 points, most of which center around providing variety and quality holes/shots as much as possible. I'd venture to guess many courses being built now also adhere to the concept of variety and interest so he would be happy to see most of them. A few pages later, in the chapter on greens, he lists ten principles for green construction and upon first reading I thought these were less likely to be true today ("ridges are bad" "terraces are bad" "sharp down slopes at the edges of greens are bad" <-- I'm thinking Pete Dye here) but upon re-reading them just now I think he would see many of those principles still being used today with great effect.


My question would be if he would be happy with the standard of courses if he came back in 1970 or 1980? I'm guessing an emphatic "No!" which leads me to believe that this book is finding renewed popularity among the GCA crowd because his ideals have come back in style in the last 20 years or so. Lucky for us key people re-discovered them!

Tim Gallant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #81 on: February 04, 2020, 12:52:43 PM »
Hunter talks early on in the book about links golf at the likes of Deal being so unfamiliar to American golfers that they simply didn't have the shots to contend when travelling to the UK to play.


Since Hunter's day television, instruction books and how to guides on youtube have all meant there must be fewer surprises as to what you will find. You could even throw Bandon into that as well.


So here's a slightly contrived question on relevancy (to stay on Tim's topic!) for our cousins across the pond. When you travel to the UK do you believe you are prepared for what links golf brings, and what are some of the biggest surprises that still come to mind?


I've been to the UK over and over again, yet every time I come back I am amazed at the little intricacies of links courses, how there is never a level lie for example.  Clyde and I were walking a course this evening that I hadn't seen since before he was born, and there is just so much detail there that it would be impossible to remember it all.  When I mentioned that I probably didn't remember it so fondly because I had just spent so much time at St. Andrews and Dornoch and a few others, we agreed that all the links are so intricate that you get to a saturation point where it's hard to be impressed anymore, until you see something that's strikingly different -- which is probably why places like Brancaster or Rye are said to be "overrated" by overseas visitors compared to the locals' view of them.


Also, it's worth noting that Hunter talked about "all the shots in one's bag," and not "hitting every club in the bag" as some more modern architects did.  Back then, the clubs were not matched sets, so every club in the bag was a better standard than today, but Hunter was after something much more than that.


I think there is real discussion in these points. Do the links courses today allow one to play 'all the shots in one's bag'? I would say links courses on the whole do a better job of this than just about any other type of course. But! I do think that for the full idiosyncrasies and oddities of a course to shine, and make playing those shots imperative to play, the conditions must be right. What I mean by that is that the course set-up must be in such a way that allows these shots to be played: allowing the running shot to be possible (ie not too soft), allowing recovery shots to be possible, if challenging (keeping rough/fescue at a density and height that is appropriate for the task at hand), and so on.


Example: Hoylake in 06 - the man with all the shots in the bag won. How often is that the case though where the player with the right imagination and right shots is able to prevail?




Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #82 on: February 04, 2020, 05:43:27 PM »


But! I do think that for the full idiosyncrasies and oddities of a course to shine, and make playing those shots imperative to play, the conditions must be right. What I mean by that is that the course set-up must be in such a way that allows these shots to be played: allowing the running shot to be possible (ie not too soft), allowing recovery shots to be possible, if challenging (keeping rough/fescue at a density and height that is appropriate for the task at hand), and so on.


Example: Hoylake in 06 - the man with all the shots in the bag won. How often is that the case though where the player with the right imagination and right shots is able to prevail?


Tim:


Contrarian that I am, now it's time to heat up the discussion.


First, to your last point, the player with the right shots always prevails, as it should be.  But you are attempting to define the "right" shots as some sort of ideal that should always be sought, and I strongly disagree with that.


You live in the UK, so you should by now have accepted that golf is played outdoors, and men do not control the weather.  In a rainy year (or season), the rough is thick and the ball runs less, and if you want to beat your opponent, you must adapt to the realities.  If it's bone dry and hard to stop a ball:  same.  The Scots roll with the punches; the idea of spending a lot of money to produce different conditions is unseemly to them.


To be sure, when it's windy, the game is more testing in the three dimensions, but we don't control that either.

Tim Gallant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #83 on: February 04, 2020, 06:18:07 PM »


But! I do think that for the full idiosyncrasies and oddities of a course to shine, and make playing those shots imperative to play, the conditions must be right. What I mean by that is that the course set-up must be in such a way that allows these shots to be played: allowing the running shot to be possible (ie not too soft), allowing recovery shots to be possible, if challenging (keeping rough/fescue at a density and height that is appropriate for the task at hand), and so on.


Example: Hoylake in 06 - the man with all the shots in the bag won. How often is that the case though where the player with the right imagination and right shots is able to prevail?


Tim:


Contrarian that I am, now it's time to heat up the discussion.


First, to your last point, the player with the right shots always prevails, as it should be.  But you are attempting to define the "right" shots as some sort of ideal that should always be sought, and I strongly disagree with that.


You live in the UK, so you should by now have accepted that golf is played outdoors, and men do not control the weather.  In a rainy year (or season), the rough is thick and the ball runs less, and if you want to beat your opponent, you must adapt to the realities.  If it's bone dry and hard to stop a ball:  same.  The Scots roll with the punches; the idea of spending a lot of money to produce different conditions is unseemly to them.


To be sure, when it's windy, the game is more testing in the three dimensions, but we don't control that either.


Tom,


Absolutely - we are in agreement...sort of :)


I'm not defending one type of shot being 'right' and another 'wrong', merely pointing out that, like Hunter, I believe that the quantity of types of shots required usually is telling in the course design. Ie - if you always have to play the high, soft shot, that isn't very interesting. But if you have to hit stingers, bump and runs, pitches, etc, then to me that means that the conditions are such that it allows for options and all the macro & micro contours to shine.


To your second point - I do play a fair amount of links, and I do agree that conditions of the season should dictate play. That said, I also believe that weather being even, courses should strive to set the course up in a manner that allows for the most amount of shots to be played. To your point, sometimes a wet summer will mean terrible rough and softer conditions, and yes, part of the game is adapting to that challenge. But we can't pretend that a soft North Berwick with thick rough is as interesting as one that is dry, firm and fast. It might be more challenging, but IMHO, it certainly isn't more interesting from a number of shots one can play perspective.


And I think it's sad when you see courses watering fairways for a certain aesthetic even though it's not required from a playability standpoint. This is something I've encountered more and more over the last few years.


Overall, I do think courses should strive to create conditions that allow the most shot options and types of shots to be played. Weather may not always cooperate with this, and that's fine, but the goal should be there nonetheless. The good news is that I believe the conditions that often provide the most interesting shots are also the conditions that are economical to maintain :)


Edit and Caveat: I agree that clubs shouldn't try to override 'weather' and be hell bent on getting a certain condition of a course at all costs, but I don't think that's what we're debating. Merely that I do believe there is a certain condition that should be viewed as 'better' for bringing out the most amount of shots in one's bag, and thus, have more playing interest.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 06:23:16 PM by Tim Gallant »

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #84 on: February 05, 2020, 07:54:06 AM »
Dan,


" ...I (you) took pictures, many pictures, of my favorite pages and passages...." with your iPhone!

From memory you were (are) an editor for a local paper in the U.S. so as such your favourite pieces in "The Links" interest me.


Care to share a couple?

Cheers Colin

« Last Edit: February 05, 2020, 03:49:47 PM by Colin Macqueen »
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Jay Mickle

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #85 on: February 05, 2020, 03:26:11 PM »
Mark,  More later but I have seen pictures with horses wearing boots while pulling mowers.


As I am likely the only horseshoer on this site it is up to me to provide a photo of the leather boots worn by horses that mowed the fairways.


I have throughly enjoyed the book and find myself recommending it to my few friends who who still play with me and believe that some day I will understand that angles refer to loft rather that width. With the new USGA/R&A distance report I suspect that a reading of The Links will be found relevant to a broader audience.

@MickleStix on Instagram
MickleStix.com

JHoulihan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #86 on: February 05, 2020, 07:51:07 PM »
What follows are my favorite single page and 5 basic principles spelled out below.

Page 133.
A principal never to be lost sight of, in the construction as well as in the up-keep of a golf course, is this: no matter where the ball comes to rest a player should have a chance to swing the club and to hit the ball. Nature may, with impunity, present to us obstructions which cannot be overcome. If we do not wish to battle with them we can go elsewhere for our golf. But an architect should neither choose ground with such obstructions nor create hazards from which no shot can be played. The rules permit us, it is true under certain conditions to lift and drop the ball, but this EVIL PRACTICE SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED. The essence of golf is to play from tee to cup – over hazards and difficulties of all sorts – with one ball, which should neither be touched nor moved except in making the stroke. The ideal golf course should have no out of bounds, no water hazards, no unplayable lies, no places to lose balls, no fixtures on tees, near greens, or in bunkers under which balls may lodge, nor any other spot from which the ball cannot be played.
Page 58.
Doctor A. Mackenzie, the distinguished British golf course architect, lays down in his most suggestive little book on Golf Architecture the “essential features of an ideal golf course.” As a preface to the following suggestions, he well says that “the truest economy consists in finality. 1. The course, where possible, should be arranged in two loops of nine holes. 2. There should be a large proportion of good two-shot holes, two or three drive-and-pitch holes, and at least four one-shot holes. 3. There should be little walking between the greens and tees, and the course should be arranged so that in the first instance there is always a slight walk forward from the green to the next tee; then the holes are sufficiently elastic to be lengthened in the future if necessary. 4. The greens and the fairways should be sufficiently undulating, but there should be no hill climbing. 5. Every hole should have a different character. 6 There should be a minimum of blindness for the approach shots. 7. The course should have beautiful surroundings, and all the artificial features should have so natural an appearance that a stranger is unable to distinguish them from nature itself. 8. There should be a sufficient 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 a portion of a stroke, shall always have an alternative route open to him. 9. There should be infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes, viz., interesting brassie shots, iron shots, pitch and run up shots. 10. There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls. 11. The course should be so interesting that even the plus man is constantly stimulated to improve his game in attempting shots he has been hitherto unable to play. 12. The course should be so arranged that the long handicap player, or even the absolute beginner, should be able to enjoy his round in spite of the fact that he is piling up a big score. 13. The course should be equally good during summer and winter, the textures of the greens and fairways should be perfect, and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens.
#10 - Maybe I am just cheap but I HATE losing golf balls.
Page 60.
In conclusion, let us summarize the points worthy of consideration in laying out the golf course. 1. Modern standards require that the full eighteen holes should be of at least 600 yards; and that each nine should start and finish at the club-house. 2. Plan to walk forward to the tees, so that the course may be extended in the case of need merely by putting in back tees. The longest courses these days are approaching 7,000 yards. 3. Holes of quality, providing interesting play and calling for a variety of shots, will make any course popular. 4. The two nines should balance each other in yardage, in interest, and in quality; but the last nine should be the severest as a test of golf. 5. Avoid blind approaches and blind short holes. A blind tee shot is excusable, but blind shots of any kind are rarely interesting. 6. Where there is a prevailing wind do not lay out holes on its direst line. Play it as often as possible at an angle. 7. Eliminate as far as possible parallel holes. 8. Do not lay out holes toward the west, especially one-shot holes, and those coming in the last nine. 9. Do not have holes of the same character immediately following each other. 10. See that each hole presents to the player some problem of interest; and that the whole course presents many interesting problems of various kinds. 11. Wherever possible make and easy and secure route to the hole for the poorer players; but lay this out so that and extra stroke will be required in the play. 12. Have as few penal bunkers as possible, only enough in fact, to protect the quality of the hole. 13. The hazards should be so placed as to test the best shots of the best players. They should be close to the positions most desirable for those seeking to play the course in par figures. They should be so arranged as to call fourth a variety of the best long shots and every variety of approach. 14. The following schedule of holes has been found satisfactory: Ten holes calling for two long shots to reach the green. Two holes calling for three shots. Two holes for a drive and either a pitch or a run-up. Four which can be reached in one shot. (Par 70) No one should be bound by rules in this matter. All the best courses vary greatly. The point is to get variety. 15. When laying out holes of these various lengths, careful attention should be given to the prevailing wind, the slopes of the course, the quality of the turf obtainable, and the average amount of rainfall.
#10 - Just a good sentence that sounds easy but is much more difficult to execute.
Page 65.
Without advising any club to adhere strictly and invariably to the following principles in the building of its greens, I believe they are worth careful consideration. 1. Construct every green so that surface water will readily drain from it, and be careful to see that the water is not carried off into a bunker. Preferably the drainage should be carried over the side of the green and not over its entrance. A slight slope will accomplish this. If the green lies so that a surrounding area is bound to drain over it, cut this drainage off by a grassy hollow. 2. At the edge of a green, sharp down slopes and abrupt rises are in most cases inadvisable, although gentle undulations may often be an attractive feature where one cannot hope to reach the green on the carry, or where it is desired to call fourth some unusual shot. 3. Undulations on a few greens are most desirable, but ridges are almost always bad. They are usually ugly and it is difficult to grow good turf upon them. Furrows and ridges are bad types of undulations. Pimples, chocolate drops, and carbuncles are no less objectionable. The kind which should be moulded is difficult to describe. Those found in the vicinity are often worth imitation. As sand blows up into little swells, or as the waves softly playing on the beach in long graceful curves, so should be the undulations on a golf course. 4. Unless the contour of the ground makes it unavoidable, it will usually be wise not to build terraces on your greens. Where they are necessary the green must be large, and the incline from one level to another very gradual. 5. Let there be no place on the green proper where the ball will gain momentum after it is under way; but if this is unattainable, see that all such pronounced slopes be kept as far as possible from where the hole is to be cut. 6. On most greens about three-fourths of the area should be made available for cutting the hole. To change the cup frequently is necessary if the green is to be kept in perfect condition. A green may have many slight undulations, but it should also have many small areas which are almost flat. One should not be required to aim outside the circumference of the cup when making, let us say, a putt of three feet. 7. Greens should not be banked up so high at the back that every shot will hold; and in the up-keep, greens should not be kept so soggy that every pitch must stop. 8. It is advisable that all slopes to the green and most of the slopes on the side of bunkers should be made gradual so as to permit of their being cut by a triplex or horse drawn mower. There are many good arguments in support of this method of construction. Economy of up-keep and the elimination of weeds are two of the more important. Fringes of weeds around the greens and on the banks of bunkers, which must be cut by hand, are nearly always neglected, and they always punish that neglect by sowing with every wind over green and fairway weed seeds of every kind. From the golfing point of view there is much justice in Duncan’s criticism of many of the abruptly rising mounds which abut the greens on some of the courses in California. Your greens, he remarked, too frequently have mounds around the edges, often turning a poor shot into a good one. The ball almost misses the green, strikes one of those mounds, and maybe runs dead to the hole. Not only this, but all sorts of other ridiculous things happen to the ball when playing to greens so constructed. 9. Each green should be built with a particular shot in mind. Its size, contours, bunkering, and opening should be considered in relation to that shot. 10. Not all greens should be built with the entrance coming in a line with the dead center of the fairway. Some should be entered from the right and some from the left. Still others should have no opening at all – that is to say they should be entirely surrounded by traps.
#9 - Again, another good sentence that sounds easy but is difficult to execute.
Page 128.
Not only beauty but utility must be served when constructing hazards. Careful attention should be given to their shape, position, size – including depth – and the angle at which they are placed in the course. Certain common faults in construction make it worth while to emphasize the following points. 1. Be careful not to place bunkers where surface water will drain into them, or heavy rains wash the sand out of them. If such situations are so desirable that one is loath to give them up, protect them if possible by grass hollows. 2. The inside contours of all depressions should be so moulded that the ball will roll away from the faces of the cavity. 3. Where the banks of the bunkers rise above the level of the ground, make the outside slopes so gradual that a power-mower can cut up to the edge of the depression. 4. See that the side banks are so built that no ball is lying in a hazard will be unplayable. This means that there should be no sharp angles at the bottom or at the turn of the banks. 5. Little hillocks or abrupt rises may often be made into charming hazards by scooping out the faces and placing sand there. 6. It is advisable, but not always possible to place hazards where they can be seen. Where a depression cannot be seen hummocks may often be seen, and they serve equally well as hazards. 7. All mounds should be built so that they will not appear high. The tops should, of course, not be pointed, and their shapes should be as irregular as possible. 8. As a rule – there are exceptions – the bunkers through the fairway should be wide and shallow, and those about the green should be deep. 9. Ridges and hollows lying at the entrance of a green should not rise or fall abruptly, unless it is decided to force they players to run the ball or to pitch well up to the pin. 10. By depressing a large area around a bunker its efficacy is greatly increased, but if the ground rises at the entrance of a bunker many balls will leap over it unless it is made very wide. 11. Grassy hollows, mounds, and the banks of bunkers should be sowed with good seed and not allowed to grow wild, as otherwise they will become breeding-places for weeds. The club which can afford to do so should plough up its rough and sow it also. 12. There are few natural hazards which do not require treatment to make them fitted for golf. No matter where the ball is found, one should be able to play it. 13. Easy access to and egress from all depressions should be arranged. To have to jump into pits and clamber up over their banks makes it impossible to keep them in good condition; and ladders should be used only as a last resort. 14. When it is found necessary, or it is thought advisable, to have traps directly back of the pin, they should, by all means, have sloping banks so that the ball will invariably run to the bottom of the trap. A grassy hollow or a shallow sand-trap from which one can often putt is usually sufficient punishment for a straight shot which is a bit too bold. 15. Care should be taken to make bunkers of adequate depth and width. If they are too narrow the ball will often bound over them, and if they are too shallow the ball, which has not entirely spent its force at that point, will run through them. Wide, shallow bunkers are usually quite effective. I have even seen efficient hazards made by dumping large quantities of sand on portions of the fairway.
#12 - Simple and true.
#13 - Getting into and out of a bunker should not leave you feeling like your knee or shoulder are sore on the next swing or tee box.
Justin

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #87 on: February 05, 2020, 10:28:16 PM »
#10 - Maybe I am just cheap but I HATE losing golf balls.

#10 - Maybe I am just cheap lazy but I HATE losing looking for golf balls.

At least that's how I feel and it gets me to the same place as you. :P

Thanks for typing (or did you OCR the book) all of this in for a fine read.  Great selections and really almost all of it agreeable. 

I really like this bit of advice:
14. When it is found necessary, or it is thought advisable, to have traps directly back of the pin, they should, by all means, have sloping banks so that the ball will invariably run to the bottom of the trap. A grassy hollow or a shallow sand-trap from which one can often putt is usually sufficient punishment for a straight shot which is a bit too bold.

The shallow sand trap that you can putt from is a great hazard.  We have a few at my course and it's a great fun shot to play.
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

JHoulihan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #88 on: February 05, 2020, 11:55:22 PM »
David,


I did type this out. Not only for this post but also for reference to see how some of my favorite courses, greens, and hazards stack up against the lists seen above.


Justin

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #89 on: February 06, 2020, 06:10:58 AM »
Justin,


I guessed that you had typed it out (shades of Tom Doak's Mom!!) because it was readable.
Often the scanned versions have poor resolution and can hardly be read. Well done.
What I find is if I type it out, rather than just copy a digital version, I internalise the ideas and digest the essence of the piece so much better.  However " being a bear of very little brain" this doesn't mean I can regurgitate it on demand!!


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

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #90 on: February 06, 2020, 08:57:56 AM »
David,


I did type this out. Not only for this post but also for reference to see how some of my favorite courses, greens, and hazards stack up against the lists seen above.


Justin


That's very cool.  Speaking of comparing courses against lists of design objectives, if you haven't read this piece from Bob Crosby regarding the battle between Joshua Crane (list-maker and standard promoter par extreme) and Max Behr, Alister MacKenzie and others you should.  (Also take a listen to Bob Crosby on an episode of the Fried Egg podcast as he discusses John Low and the genesis of unified rules, among other topics from the early days of modern golf.)

I, too, typed out a *much* shorter section of the book.  That's work!

The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #91 on: February 06, 2020, 10:50:51 PM »
What golf architecture book does not have parts that are relevant?

What are the current issues that you wish a golf architecture book would address that this book doesn't address?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Tim Gallant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #92 on: February 07, 2020, 08:56:01 AM »
What golf architecture book does not have parts that are relevant?

What are the current issues that you wish a golf architecture book would address that this book doesn't address?


It would be great to see someone write a book about the shifting needs of golfers and what they expect out of the game, and possibly how that has evolved. In a time when culture values experiences over possessions, and where many derive a sense of self from what they do, it seems there would be a really interesting GCA book in there. How has GCA shifted to meet the new demands that golfers place on the sport. Is it still a sport? Is it recreational activity? Is it an experience?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #93 on: February 07, 2020, 10:19:39 AM »

It would be great to see someone write a book about the shifting needs of golfers and what they expect out of the game, and possibly how that has evolved. In a time when culture values experiences over possessions, and where many derive a sense of self from what they do, it seems there would be a really interesting GCA book in there. How has GCA shifted to meet the new demands that golfers place on the sport. Is it still a sport? Is it recreational activity? Is it an experience?


Good questions.


I would say golf is all three now, at least to some part of the population.  The Experience thing is a relatively new phenomenon.


One of my main takeaways from my year of living in the UK was the idea that golf started out as recreation, more than sport.  It was a fun and challenging thing to do while you got some exercise, walked the dog, etc. 


I believe it was probably always that way, but that part of the game was never much written about because all the authors were on good players and competitors, who focused on the sporting adpect in their writings.  (As they say, history is written by the victors.)

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #94 on: February 09, 2020, 03:48:12 AM »
......golf started out as recreation, more than sport.  It was a fun and challenging thing to do while you got some exercise, walked the dog, etc. 
+1
Small children hitting stones with sticks etc ..... or pushing stones into holes in the ice ice on frozen canals (?!)
Below is an extract from a letter by Lindsey Ross, a lad from St Andrews who later became a pro in the English Midlands describing his first experiences of the game circa the mid/late 1800's.
atb

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #95 on: February 11, 2020, 04:38:18 AM »
In the past 10 years or so I have become more suspicious of comparing courses to predetermined check list of ideal attributes. I am finding it very helpful to simply focus on what is rather than what I or experts think should be in the ground. That doesn't mean I don't question what I see, but it has enabled me to be more open about concepts. I think this approach has led me to the conclusion that all features and concepts are vital. Their use is more a matter of how much and where rather than yes or no.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #96 on: February 12, 2020, 08:59:48 AM »
In the past 10 years or so I have become more suspicious of comparing courses to predetermined check list of ideal attributes. I am finding it very helpful to simply focus on what is rather than what I or experts think should be in the ground. That doesn't mean I don't question what I see, but it has enabled me to be more open about concepts. I think this approach has led me to the conclusion that all features and concepts are vital. Their use is more a matter of how much and where rather than yes or no.

Ciao


Sean,


Instead of a checklist of features of the course, what would you think of you think of a catalog of experiences from the round?  Some positive: awe, beauty, challenge, accomplishment, delight; some ambiguous: fear, confusion, doubt, frustration; some negative: boredom, fear of physical harm, pointless-ness, drudgery. 


Are the better courses those that more consistently deliver better experiences, possible also a better variety of experiences?  The course features contribute to that and the variety of ways they contribute is, of course, of interest, but it's the experience that matters in the end. 



The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #97 on: February 12, 2020, 11:25:59 AM »
In the past 10 years or so I have become more suspicious of comparing courses to predetermined check list of ideal attributes. I am finding it very helpful to simply focus on what is rather than what I or experts think should be in the ground. That doesn't mean I don't question what I see, but it has enabled me to be more open about concepts. I think this approach has led me to the conclusion that all features and concepts are vital. Their use is more a matter of how much and where rather than yes or no.

Ciao

Sean,

Instead of a checklist of features of the course, what would you think of you think of a catalog of experiences from the round? Some positive: awe, beauty, challenge, accomplishment, delight; some ambiguous: fear, confusion, doubt, frustration; some negative: boredom, fear of physical harm, pointless-ness, drudgery. 

Are the better courses those that more consistently deliver better experiences, possible also a better variety of experiences?  The course features contribute to that and the variety of ways they contribute is, of course, of interest, but it's the experience that matters in the end.

After the round sure, I think of things I like  to see on courses.  But before, I am trying my best to keep an open mind and just see what is there.   In recent years compared to 15 years ago, I have become much more open to more penal architecture if it doesn't entail an easily lost ball.  I also became more open to less bunkers and more features which may be more subtle. 

Ciao   
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #98 on: February 12, 2020, 12:18:47 PM »


After the round sure, I think of things I like  to see on courses.  But before, I am trying my best to keep an open mind and just see what is there.   In recent years compared to 15 years ago, I have become much more open to more penal architecture if it doesn't entail an easily lost ball.  I also became more open to less bunkers and more features which may be more subtle. 

Ciao   


Interesting points.  Particularly the point about more subtle features particularly relative to bunkers.  A couple of themes from the Links that go into the value of subtlety: while "links" land is the genesis of golf, and the genesis of sandy hazards, Hunter has other non-bunker suggestions for hazards: swales, mounds, knobs, and the likes. These don't force themselves onto the consciousness the way bunkers do, so they are more subtle in the experience of a course.  But in his thinking they can exact a similar "penalty" as far as demanding more developed shot making. 


Similarly, Hunter encourages designers to mimic nature in their handy work, recognizing that most of the readers are dealing with creating a course away from links, so away from the native terrain where bunkers exist naturally.


That suggests that inland courses with minimal bunkers (or water/unplayable ground) could be sophisticated tests/challenges, using only movement in the ground. 


A downside of the "subtle" hazard model goes to one precept of good design, that being the player feels like they are taking on more challenge than maybe exists.  So, while a knob guarding a green entrance might actually be more impactful than a bunker in the same spot, a player is likely to feel challenging the bunker version of the hole is experienced as a bigger thrill. 



The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
« Reply #99 on: February 12, 2020, 12:48:04 PM »


After the round sure, I think of things I like  to see on courses.  But before, I am trying my best to keep an open mind and just see what is there.   In recent years compared to 15 years ago, I have become much more open to more penal architecture if it doesn't entail an easily lost ball.  I also became more open to less bunkers and more features which may be more subtle. 

Ciao   

Interesting points.  Particularly the point about more subtle features particularly relative to bunkers.  A couple of themes from the Links that go into the value of subtlety: while "links" land is the genesis of golf, and the genesis of sandy hazards, Hunter has other non-bunker suggestions for hazards: swales, mounds, knobs, and the likes. These don't force themselves onto the consciousness the way bunkers do, so they are more subtle in the experience of a course.  But in his thinking they can exact a similar "penalty" as far as demanding more developed shot making. 

Similarly, Hunter encourages designers to mimic nature in their handy work, recognizing that most of the readers are dealing with creating a course away from links, so away from the native terrain where bunkers exist naturally.

That suggests that inland courses with minimal bunkers (or water/unplayable ground) could be sophisticated tests/challenges, using only movement in the ground. 

A downside of the "subtle" hazard model goes to one precept of good design, that being the player feels like they are taking on more challenge than maybe exists.  So, while a knob guarding a green entrance might actually be more impactful than a bunker in the same spot, a player is likely to feel challenging the bunker version of the hole is experienced as a bigger thrill.


David I agree on all points, except for mimicing nature.  Well, I don't disagree with mimicing nature, but I wouldn't encourage mimicing nature anymore than more obvious man made features.  Its all matter of degrees.  The most important aspects of any feature is to make it impactful without causing grief in terms of drainage etc and budget maintainable.  Depending on the property, I am not bothered if these elements look like Langford & Moreau's or Coore & Crenshaw's work. The "encouragement" runs in cycles.  These days, I would rather see more archies take chances with bold, artificial earth works features rather than what we have seen heralded as awesome thse past 25 years. 


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing