[Blake Conant]

Is golf still for the adventurous?  Does the mindset, personality, spirit, and adventurousness of the late 19th/early 20^th Century golfer differ from that of the early 21^st Century golfer?  Furthermore, if there is a difference in how the golfer perceives the game, are designers accommodating that and how?


Two quotes in The Links led me to this question (Note: Page numbers will be based on the Sleeping Bear Press reprint edition.)

Pg. 79-80: “The first golfers must’ve been sea-faring folk, loving strenuous battles with natures; and, whether facing the hazard of the ocean with boat and sail, or the hazard of a sand-dune with ball and stick, they were thrilled with the hope of victory, and not cowed and depressed with the fear of failure. They did not look upon the ocean or upon the links, with their various degrees of hazard and their unequal penalties, for lack of skill and for failure, as places of torment, but as wonderful fields for glorious achievements.”

--and--

Pg. 70: “We should, however, not forget that some higher Power presides over links-land, and to those inclined to be critical that Power hands down an ultimatum much like this: There is the green which generation after generation has played.  There are its pronounced slopes, its sharp ridges, its blind approach, and its other violations of your so-called sound principles.  However lamentable all this may be, there it lies, and shall lie.  Play it, or leave it, as you like.”

As Hunter says, the “play it or leave it” attitude of links golf is easier to have when generation after generation have navigated the same problems.  Golden Age American courses are reaching a similar level of “immunity”. However, even on links there was a first generation of golfers that played them, and yet, despite the difficulty or “unfairness”, the original players forged on.  They didn’t complain, or if they did, it never went as far as refusing to play the course or altering its layout.  If you built The Old Course today, and unveiled it to the public for the first time, how would it be received?  Most certainly not well, and likely with some disdain.  So what’s the difference?

Hunter’s reverence for the adventurous spirit of late 19^th and early 20^th Century golfers is summarized in the two above quotes.  He reiterates that reverence throughout the book, but also warns of where golf might lead if that sense of adventure is lost.

Pg. 4: “The leading minds in golf were convinced that if we wished to produce great golfers we had to give the youth something to test the best that is in them.”

Pg. 11: “The keenest delight in golf is given to those who, finding themselves in trouble, refuse to be depressed, and, with some recovery, snatch from their opponents what seemed for them certain victory.”

Pg. 13: “Our architects have not presented to our youngsters some of the most difficult problems which face the player on the seaside courses of Britain.”

Pg. 15: “If I were one of the legislators ruling over the destinies of this noble sport, I think I should outlaw any attempt made by architect or inventor to deprive the game of any of its various strokes, or to take from it any of those features which require skill to play.”

Pg. 15: “Those who… wish to make the game easier and easier would very soon, if they could have their way, deprive it of all interest and attraction.”

Pg. 15: “It is not the love of something easy which has drawn men like a magnet for hundreds of years to this royal and ancient pastime; on the contrary, it is the maddening difficulty of it.”

Pg. 35: “[St. Andrews] is the most captivating and unfair, the most tantalizing and bewitching, of all courses.”

Pg. 78: “Without well placed hazards, golf would fail to arouse and to satisfy man’s sporting instincts.”

Pg. 78: “Without hazards golf would be but a dull sport, with the life and soul gone out of it. No longer would it attract the lusty and adventurous, but would be left to the those who favor some form of insipid perambulation, suited to the effeminate and senile.”

So, does the modern golfer still view the game the way Hunter and his contemporaries did? Is the modern golfer as willing to be challenged with adventure, as willing to accept bad breaks, funky lies, blind shots, etc.?

Is the modern designer willing to present such a challenge?  Willing to take the criticism of a hole that’s unfair, awkward, or quirky?  What role do modern clients play as opposed to clients 100 years ago?  Clients and clubs today seem less willing to say “play it or leave it”.  Some of that is due to ease of travel and plenty of supply to keep the golf market competitive, but is that the only reason?

Finally, is golf still for the adventurous and the sportsman/sportswoman?  Has golf’s transition to a game of leisure -- a vehicle for relaxation -- impeded on its ability to be as adventurous and sporting as it was during Hunter’s time?  Is one country's version of the game closer to what Hunter revered than another?  Australia and the UK certainly value competition and matches more than the US, but what other differences play a role?

[Thomas Dai]

Nice thread Blake with some delightful quotes to ponder and consider.
It has long amazed me given the terrain and equipment that folks in yee olde early days played over and with that the game of golf ever took-off and flourished at all, let alone developed in the way it has.
Adam L has a nice line akin to "I can hit it over that hill but I don't think you can" which to me nicely describes the thrill, adventurousness and spirit within early golf (and the competitive nature of mankind too I guess).
At least to me a very different attitude compared to today was prevalent within the original rustic nature of the game as maybe highlighted by the way the rules have been watered down over the decades and the rise over the same period of what I shall term 'conditioning is king'.
atb

[Adam Lawrence]

Adam L has a nice line akin to "I can hit it over that hill but I don't think you can" which to me nicely describes the thrill, adventurousness and spirit within early golf (and the competitive nature of mankind too I guess).

I was just thinking about that -- my theory as to why all the very old links originally had a hole that went straight over the top of the largest dune on the property. The answer is because golf has always been played principally by guys, and guys have always been the same testosterone fuelled competitive animals... so, of course, if you're wandering through some dunes in about 1885 with your mates, looking for golf holes, and you have equipment that makes getting the ball airborne difficult, and you come to the highest dune on the property, someone is going to say 'I bet you a groat I can hit my ball over there and you can't."

[Tim Gallant]

Blake,

Thank you for taking the time to lead the discussion, and think it’s a worthwhile exercise.

I was just listening to George Waters on the Feed the Ball podcast, and I was interested in their discussion about approaching design without intent. It was very much as Adam and Thomas make mention of: the flag is over there, we’re starting here; pick the path that will get you there in as few strokes as possible.

I think that speaks to the essence of a true adventure. A true adventure is likely so because there is no defined path - it is as much about the unknown as the known that sends tingles up the spine. And in GCA, I feel it’s no different. As soon as something becomes a known, or a predicted result, it ceases to be adventurous.

And again, as Derek and George speak about, in early golf, there seemed to be a higher propensity to embrace that unknown with vigour.

From my own personal perspective, I think it’s really interesting to see golfers, who travel to Scotland for golf, embrace that adventurous spirit, and in the process, create memories that last a lifetime. Sure, the courses are likely to be better than the ones they play at home, but more to the question, I believe it is a shift in their mentality which creates this zeal and enjoyment. They laugh when their ball hits the wall at the 13th at North Berwick. They embrace the Alps hole at Prestwick as a thrilling golf hole full of wonder and mystery.

So why is it that they don’t have this same spirit when they go home? The only thing that I can think of is score, and the importance that has been placed on score relative to whether you had a good round or a bad round. I see it less in the UK, but I do see score having a drastic impact on how a challenge is perceived. With a score on the line, one is less inclined to embrace adventure, and wants what Hunter advocates against: predictability.

So what can architects do to bring adventure back to the game? I believe there are already some great examples of courses being built that put that sense of adventure at the heart of what the game is all about. Employing unconventional techniques that break how we think about golf might be the way forward. Examples:
Hanse’s Ohoopee throws the idea of score away, and the spirit of the course is about match play. This, coupled with the fact that there are more than 18 holes, and multiple ways to play each hole means players stop focusing on score, and focus rather on the adventure of facing the challenge with excitement. Doak’s Par 68/9 at Sand Valley. Again, by breaking down barriers on what a course should be, it simultaneously challenges how players should face the course.Askernish goes back to the roots of pre-golden age design and in the process, makes golf less of something that needs to be won, but rather, something that must be experienced.
More to post, but those are just my initial thoughts.

[Sean_A]

I just started listen to the latest Feed The Ball episode. George and Derek discussed what is essentially the idea of random golf. I often describe essentially the same thing as recovery golf. Adventure is at the heart of enjoying golf which is why it is so important to provide the temptation to go for awesome recovery shots. The bottom line is width is the essential element for recovery. Thus, imo, the modern ideal isn't quite the same as 120 years ago. Those psychos were hitting over what may as well have been mountains when we consider the equipment. All I can figure is it didn't matter so long as one could hole out in one less stroke than the opponent. For sure that was extreme golf. Regardless, we can still capture an element of this bygone era if courses offer temptation from tee to green without the fear of a lost ball or getting stuck in bunker for 4 shots...for the most part.

Ciao

[John Emerson]

Some of the absolute most memorable golfing experiences burned into my brain are similar to the type of person he is referring to.  My Scotland trips are the most memorable, but a strong second was my time playing back yard golf.  As a kid we had a large unfenced back yard that connected to the neighbors yard who had roughly the same set-up.  A small creek running parallel to our houses and many large trees and tons of grass.  My dad and neighbor would bet tons of money seeing who could “go around the tree, over the creek and into the small rose bush” in 3 strokes or less.  From memory, I believe we had at least 6 short par 3’s and one par 4.  The day I was invited to play with the “men” is still one of the most memorable days of my life.  Rugged golf with close friends and family.  Hard to beat it, especially as a kid!  Seems much hasn’t changed for me

[Tim Gallant]

I just started listen to the latest Feed The Ball episode. George and Derek discussed what is essentially the idea of random golf. I often describe essentially the same thing as recovery golf. Adventure is at the heart of enjoying golf which is why it is so important to provide the temptation to go for awesome recovery shots. The bottom line is width is the essential element for recovery. Thus, imo, the modern ideal isn't quite the same as 120 years ago. Those psychos were hitting over what may as well have been mountains when we consider the equipment. All I can figure is it didn't matter so long as one could hole out in one less stroke than the opponent. For sure that was extreme golf. Regardless, we can still capture an element of this bygone era if courses offer temptation from tee to green without the fear of a lost ball or getting stuck in bunker for 4 shots...for the most part.

Ciao

Is Sheep Ranch going to be the 1st 'Random golf' course 'designed' in the last 120 years? No bunkers, but excellent ground movement, that will play different depending on the wind/other variables.


Or was it more random before when you could tee off anywhere and go anywhere? Was that adventurous?

[Thomas Dai]

Some of the absolute most memorable golfing experiences burned into my brain are similar to the type of person he is referring to.  My Scotland trips are the most memorable, but a strong second was my time playing back yard golf.  As a kid we had a large unfenced back yard that connected to the neighbors yard who had roughly the same set-up.  A small creek running parallel to our houses and many large trees and tons of grass.  My dad and neighbor would bet tons of money seeing who could “go around the tree, over the creek and into the small rose bush” in 3 strokes or less.  From memory, I believe we had at least 6 short par 3’s and one par 4.  The day I was invited to play with the “men” is still one of the most memorable days of my life.  Rugged golf with close friends and family.  Hard to beat it, especially as a kid!  Seems much hasn’t changed for me

Back yard golf.
I remember it well. As a 6-7-8 yr old lad I played in the field behind our house and in our gardens with my mates. A couple of shared clubs, hand-me-down golf balls. Cross country golf too. Indeed I believe I recall reading about Bobby Jones playing along the roadways and gully areas near his house as a youngster.
Bit like 'back alley soccer', 'back yard cricket' etc. Great fun and a way to develop skills without even realising it. Not so prevalent amongst first world youngsters in these modern times I suspect.
And as to adventure and thrill and temptation (and no doubt laughter and frustration) within golf here's a photo that I rather like -

atb

[Tom_Doak]

Is Sheep Ranch going to be the 1st 'Random golf' course 'designed' in the last 120 years? No bunkers, but excellent ground movement, that will play different depending on the wind/other variables.

Or was it more random before when you could tee off anywhere and go anywhere? Was that adventurous?

Well, in the original version it depended more on your own personality, but I personally thought that was pretty adventurous.


The Ballyneal custom of having the winners of the last hole decide where to play from [including the apron of the previous green] is also pretty adventurous in the right company.

[Tom_Doak]

Blake and Tim:


For sure, match play golf is more acceptable for adventurous golf, because if your ball hits the wall at North Berwick, or you get in the Road bunker, it can only cost you the loss of that hole and not three shots.


I have tried to build golf courses that were adventurous my whole career -- bunkers in seemingly random places [though they were mostly deliberate on my part], hazards that were more fearsome, routings that took a turn you did not expect.


In part, that's the advantage of working with big properties.  It's a luxury that not many architects have had in the past 50-100 years as the game became more standardized and it was decided you needed "150 acres" or whatever for a course.  Back on the early links, they had all the ground in the world they wanted to use . . . and of course they didn't need so much of it, because they couldn't hit the ball nearly as far.  The distance issue has taken some of the adventure out of golf.

[Blake Conant]

Thomas and Adam, your point about the "testosterone fueled competitive animals" is well taken.  Most sports start that way -- as a test of braun and pure strength -- but sport gets really interesting and evolves when the guy who isn't the strongest, fastest, or hits the farthest thinks of a cunning way to beat the dude who is.  That's the perfect melting point of adventure and refinement.  Still wild, but more than a test of strength.


Tim hit on the idea of tourists coming to the UK embracing the adventure and spirit of golf when they play links courses.  Score plays a huge role.  As does design. Match play lends itself to risk and adventure more than medal play.  I think the tourist golfer is attracted to stuff that breaks the rules, but to your point, I don't know if that's what they want all the time.  Maybe a taste of it is enough for most people? 


For example, my group of golfing buddies in Omaha love going to Ballyneal and they have a blast.  They all say it's the most fun they have all year even though they bitch like hell about walking, bad lies, wild greens, etc. etc., They also all belong to the housing development Arnold Palmer course in the suburbs and they love getting back to that.  Predictable, prescriptive design, standardized, and formalized.  That's the golf they're comfortable with.  Part of the adventure for them is just trying to beat their score from yesterday. 



I'm curios about this idea of Coore Crenshaw's Sheep Ranch being the most "random golf course" built in the last 120 years?  I've only seen the site when Tom's course was there, but that was so free form it's sort of in its own category.  It can be as adventurous or as mundane as you wanted.  Although I don't know if anyone purposefully played that course in the dullest way imaginable, I'm sure several groups passed through and never realized how adventurous it could be. 


Tom, it does seem width can go too far and begin to lessen the adventure.  The density of golf holes on links courses encourages adventure, in my opinion.  I suppose a lot of links courses also had a finite amount of land to work with, and they had to start and end at a predetermined point i.e., close to town.  Often the most creative, adventurous solutions aren't born out of a blank canvas with unlimited freedom, but rather when you're heavily boxed in and have to think of a unique way to even make the whole thing work.

[Thomas Dai]

The distance issue has taken some of the adventure out of golf.

And adventure and thrill etc can include strategy, even restraint. How close to the edge can you go? Can you hold back the testosterone?
As those who have played backyard sports know when you hit or kick or throw the ball over the fence you might not be able to find it again ... or the person next door won't throw it back or even let you into their garden to get. Hence the famous phrase in backyard cricket "six and out".
Other aspects too ..... like Seve learning on the beach with just a 3-iron or Rory chipping into washing machines!
I wonder if the regrettably difficult times the world is currently suffering under will, once alleviated, somehow bring golf back to a more basic, simpler game? I wonder?
atb

[Tom_Doak]

Tim hit on the idea of tourists coming to the UK embracing the adventure and spirit of golf when they play links courses.  Score plays a huge role.  As does design. Match play lends itself to risk and adventure more than medal play.  I think the tourist golfer is attracted to stuff that breaks the rules, but to your point, I don't know if that's what they want all the time.  Maybe a taste of it is enough for most people? 

CONDITIONING is another factor.  If you are in the spirit of adventurous golf, then you are not expecting perfect lies in the fairways and out, and that has always helped courses in the UK stick to a sensible standard.  [Of course their resistance to paying more for golf is also a factor.]


I tried to go that direction with High Pointe -- fescue fairways with lots more wrinkles than other courses of the 1980's.  One of the first of my friends to question that was from Chicago.  But he was also an overseas life member of Ballybunion, and when I asked him how the condition of High Pointe compared to that, he had to double back and say that what was acceptable in Ireland might not be acceptable in America.  He was right about that, and I realized that if I wanted to be known as an architect, sticking out my neck too far in matters of low maintenance was probably not the best career move.

[Tom_Doak]

Blake:  I'm coming back to your thread because you asked a lot of good questions here, and I don't think you got many answers.

So, does the modern golfer still view the game the way Hunter and his contemporaries did? Is the modern golfer as willing to be challenged with adventure, as willing to accept bad breaks, funky lies, blind shots, etc.?

Is the modern designer willing to present such a challenge?  Willing to take the criticism of a hole that’s unfair, awkward, or quirky?  What role do modern clients play as opposed to clients 100 years ago?  Clients and clubs today seem less willing to say “play it or leave it”.  Some of that is due to ease of travel and plenty of supply to keep the golf market competitive, but is that the only reason?

Finally, is golf still for the adventurous and the sportsman/sportswoman?  Has golf’s transition to a game of leisure -- a vehicle for relaxation -- impeded on its ability to be as adventurous and sporting as it was during Hunter’s time?  Is one country's version of the game closer to what Hunter revered than another?  Australia and the UK certainly value competition and matches more than the US, but what other differences play a role?

I think we will mostly agree that the game is not as adventurous as it once was.  So your questions boil down to, who's to blame for that?


Most developers / clients / architects will point to the golfer, and that they are just giving the customer what he wants.


Which kinda puts the blame back on the developers / clients / architects   


I'm not sure it's true that golfers want fairness.  Golfers have always loved to complain about unfairness . . . it's part of the game for them to do so, and it's also up to them to overcome that excuse if they want to be great competitors.




Honestly, I think a big part of the blame goes to modern media.  We've had sixty or seventy years now of listening to golf commentators come into our homes to tell us what's fair and what isn't.  We've had 55 years of GOLF DIGEST telling us Resistance to Scoring is good.  Most golfers today have learned the game not from other golfers, but from talking heads . . . and look what talking heads have done for politics   


I think the talking heads are wrong, and most developers, too.  With all that oversupply of golf courses you mentioned, golf developers should be looking to create their own niche and appeal to a certain segment, rather than trying to appeal to everyone.  Mike Keiser did that prominently by catering to golfers who prefer to walk, but you could also try to appeal to other segments if you wanted -- courses for low handicappers, courses for women, courses for a younger generation, etc.  There are a few courses killing it right now because they've declared their niche and started to identify their natural customers, but most are failing precisely because they're afraid to do that.


For my own career, the key was realizing that I wasn't going to win jobs designing courses in housing developments, because those developers wanted name brands.  So I wrote off 85% of the projects that were being built, and concentrated on the others -- the 15% who were building a golf course for the golf.  Those were the clients I was going to appeal to, anyway, and it's worked out quite well for them and for me.

[Bernie Bell]

"sticking out my neck too far in matters of low maintenance was probably not the best career move."
Tom, now you are in a position to take such risk, do you think you'll have the chance to do so?  And at the risk of asking a stupid question - Is it possible that on the other side of this pandemic there may be opportunity or necessity for clubs to invest some money to quickly "renovate" or modify courses to lower their carrying costs while still preserving or even improving "golf as golf"?  And if so, what might such modifications look like? 

[Sean_A]

Blake:  I'm coming back to your thread because you asked a lot of good questions here, and I don't think you got many answers.

So, does the modern golfer still view the game the way Hunter and his contemporaries did? Is the modern golfer as willing to be challenged with adventure, as willing to accept bad breaks, funky lies, blind shots, etc.?

Is the modern designer willing to present such a challenge?  Willing to take the criticism of a hole that’s unfair, awkward, or quirky?  What role do modern clients play as opposed to clients 100 years ago?  Clients and clubs today seem less willing to say “play it or leave it”.  Some of that is due to ease of travel and plenty of supply to keep the golf market competitive, but is that the only reason?

Finally, is golf still for the adventurous and the sportsman/sportswoman?  Has golf’s transition to a game of leisure -- a vehicle for relaxation -- impeded on its ability to be as adventurous and sporting as it was during Hunter’s time?  Is one country's version of the game closer to what Hunter revered than another?  Australia and the UK certainly value competition and matches more than the US, but what other differences play a role?

I think we will mostly agree that the game is not as adventurous as it once was.  So your questions boil down to, who's to blame for that?

Most developers / clients / architects will point to the golfer, and that they are just giving the customer what he wants.

Which kinda puts the blame back on the developers / clients / architects   

I'm not sure it's true that golfers want fairness.  Golfers have always loved to complain about unfairness . . . it's part of the game for them to do so, and it's also up to them to overcome that excuse if they want to be great competitors.

Honestly, I think a big part of the blame goes to modern media.  We've had sixty or seventy years now of listening to golf commentators come into our homes to tell us what's fair and what isn't.  We've had 55 years of GOLF DIGEST telling us Resistance to Scoring is good.  Most golfers today have learned the game not from other golfers, but from talking heads . . . and look what talking heads have done for politics   

I think the talking heads are wrong, and most developers, too.  With all that oversupply of golf courses you mentioned, golf developers should be looking to create their own niche and appeal to a certain segment, rather than trying to appeal to everyone. Mike Keiser did that prominently by catering to golfers who prefer to walk, but you could also try to appeal to other segments if you wanted -- courses for low handicappers, courses for women, courses for a younger generation, etc.  There are a few courses killing it right now because they've declared their niche and started to identify their natural customers, but most are failing precisely because they're afraid to do that.

For my own career, the key was realizing that I wasn't going to win jobs designing courses in housing developments, because those developers wanted name brands.  So I wrote off 85% of the projects that were being built, and concentrated on the others -- the 15% who were building a golf course for the golf.  Those were the clients I was going to appeal to, anyway, and it's worked out quite well for them and for me.

Tom

All sports have become more "civilized" in the past 100 years.  Sport is but a microcosm of society. 

These days, walking a round of golf is adventurous.  Golfers walk train before going on a trip to GB&I 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

"sticking out my neck too far in matters of low maintenance was probably not the best career move."
Tom, now you are in a position to take such risk, do you think you'll have the chance to do so?  And at the risk of asking a stupid question - Is it possible that on the other side of this pandemic there may be opportunity or necessity for clubs to invest some money to quickly "renovate" or modify courses to lower their carrying costs while still preserving or even improving "golf as golf"?  And if so, what might such modifications look like?

Bernie:


One of the things I learned from High Pointe [and I learned it the hard way] was that once the golf course was built, I hand over the keys to the owner, and decisions about maintenance are no longer my own.  So I can't go too far down the path of low maintenance unless the client is on the same page and going to follow through with that for the long term.


[Note that you can't go down the path of high maintenance, either, unless the client buys in.  On occasion I have done things like build approaches to greens in a way that would require extra maintenance, only to see them not follow through.]


On the rare occasion where I have had some limited financial stake in a project - at Dismal River and on the new course at St. Patrick's - I have specified less complicated irrigation systems as the main point of difference with our other projects. 


Also, at St. Patrick's, on some holes we are going with sod salvaged from the old fairways instead of brand new seed everywhere, as insurance against a difficult year for grow-in on a windy site.  It's much more skewed to the GB & I methods of golf construction and maintenance than what we've done at Bandon or Barnbougle.  This is primarily because the climate requires virtually no irrigation post grow-in, so we cut back drastically on sprinkler heads.




As to your last question, most of the maintenance things that will make golf courses more sustainable are simple changes:


a)  Stop hiring extra laborers for esthetic details like blowing leaves off cart paths or raking bunkers every day.
b)  Raise cutting heights slightly to reduce stress on turf and reduce the need for fertilizer and chemicals.
c)  Water less, which also means less need for fertilizer and chemicals.
d)  Turn off irrigation in the roughs entirely, where feasible.
e)  Limit cart usage to reduce wear and tear on turf -- not likely to happen, but you're about to see the results of an experiment in this due to the restrictions from the coronavirus.

[Sean_A]

I wish more clubs in GB&I would raise their cut height a bit. It's to the point where I prefer the height at the cheap courses. It makes more sense as a way to reduce big hitting and save clubs money.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

I wish more clubs in GB&I would raise their cut height a bit. It's to the point where I prefer the height at the cheap courses. It makes more sense as a way to reduce big hitting and save clubs money.
Ciao

A very valid point.

Indeed some might even suggest that the correct height of cut for fairways is the height the grass would be after some sheep have nibbled at it.
Atb

[Tim Gallant]

Blake:  I'm coming back to your thread because you asked a lot of good questions here, and I don't think you got many answers.

So, does the modern golfer still view the game the way Hunter and his contemporaries did? Is the modern golfer as willing to be challenged with adventure, as willing to accept bad breaks, funky lies, blind shots, etc.?

Is the modern designer willing to present such a challenge?  Willing to take the criticism of a hole that’s unfair, awkward, or quirky?  What role do modern clients play as opposed to clients 100 years ago?  Clients and clubs today seem less willing to say “play it or leave it”.  Some of that is due to ease of travel and plenty of supply to keep the golf market competitive, but is that the only reason?

Finally, is golf still for the adventurous and the sportsman/sportswoman?  Has golf’s transition to a game of leisure -- a vehicle for relaxation -- impeded on its ability to be as adventurous and sporting as it was during Hunter’s time?  Is one country's version of the game closer to what Hunter revered than another?  Australia and the UK certainly value competition and matches more than the US, but what other differences play a role?

Honestly, I think a big part of the blame goes to modern media.  We've had sixty or seventy years now of listening to golf commentators come into our homes to tell us what's fair and what isn't.  We've had 55 years of GOLF DIGEST telling us Resistance to Scoring is good.  Most golfers today have learned the game not from other golfers, but from talking heads . . . and look what talking heads have done for politics   

Tom,


Do you feel that media has shifted somewhat on this view in the last 5-10 years or does it still remain similar to what media might have been saying 30 years ago?


From my perspective, it feels like there is a gradual shift happening - be that hiring Ran to run the GOLF rankings, or Golf Digest bringing in Derek Duncan as it's Associate Architectural Editor.


I'm probably too young to know what golf media was really like in the 90s, 80s and even before that, but curious on your thoughts as you used to run one of the panels.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

Do you feel that media has shifted somewhat on this view in the last 5-10 years or does it still remain similar to what media might have been saying 30 years ago?

From my perspective, it feels like there is a gradual shift happening - be that hiring Ran to run the GOLF rankings, or Golf Digest bringing in Derek Duncan as it's Associate Architectural Editor.

I'm probably too young to know what golf media was really like in the 90s, 80s and even before that, but curious on your thoughts as you used to run one of the panels.

Tim:


I probably shouldn't have said anything about the golf magazines at all.  They don't move the needle 1/10th as much as television does . . . maybe their web sites do, now.  But I don't know that Ran is any more progressive as the Architecture Editor for GOLF, than I was, thirty years ago, aside from the fact that they give architecture a bit more space now.


And golf TV is even worse today than it was 30 years ago.

[Blake Conant]

Raising the height of cut is beneficial for all those reasons + it makes the game more adventurous by introducing more hanging lies.  Hunter spoke of the merits of uneven lies, particularly found at Deal, on pg. 14.  He seemed to take great pleasure in quoting dumbfounded American champions that couldn’t play shots off the uneven ground found on links courses.
 
Tom, you've talked about asking new clients or consulting clients to write a mission statement about who they are and want to be. Not for you, but for them, to let them, as a club, decide/clarify what they're about.  That's good advice for every course, because it would help them stop trying to appeal to everyone and instead focus on their niche, their segment of the market.  That exercise requires reaching a consensus and some staunch objectivity, but if done earnestly it could start to reverse the trend of keeping up with the Jones'. 
 
That trend has taken some adventure out of the game.  It promotes standardization and homogenization and slowly all the little quirks and idiosyncrasies that make that course unique start to disappear.
 
I also find it funny that developers/architects are trying to give the golfer what he wants i.e., let’s make the golfer happy, but at the same time the golfer may be happiest when complaining about unfairness.  Is there an actual disconnect there or is it just ironic?  In my opinion there’s a speckle of truth to it.  Should an architect or his team ever consider the golfer’s happiness during the design/build process?  I think that’s a mistake, and a very slippery slope.
 
I wouldn’t mind touching more on media and professional golfers, too.  For 15 years I watched Tiger Woods complain about every bad break and bemoan every unlucky lie he got. The announcers go on and on about it, Stevie Williams is yelling at people, imploring them to put away the cameras, folks.  Then a few minutes later Tiger would hit an incredible shot and we’d be mesmerized.
 
The problem is the announcers never connected the bad lie and the incredible shot as a fundamental aspect of the game, and what ultimately makes it great.  Maybe the viewer should've made that connection, but in hindsight every announcer should've been hammering home that connection.  It was always a minute of talking about the bad lie and then 3 minutes of replaying the great shot.  The bad break becoming an opportunity for the great shot should have been the teaching moment for kids at home watching, but instead it was the isolated tantrum and the isolated heroic shot.  Now every young superstar, who went and mimicked all those heroic shots, also drops his club on the followthrough multiple times per round, whines about an unfair lie in the bunker, rough too thick, bunkers in unfair spots, etc. etc.  That’s been happening long before Tiger, certainly, but the hysteria surrounding Tiger shined a brighter light on it. 


Now we see that manifesting itself by the Tour taking bigger and bigger steps to remove or "fix" the vehicles of bad breaks.  Sand is standardized, green speeds and slope standardized, heights of rough standardized, bunker placement standardized.  All of that takes adventure out of the game.

[Bernie Bell]

"Has golf’s transition to a game of leisure -- a vehicle for relaxation -- impeded on its ability to be as adventurous and sporting as it was during Hunter’s time?"

Hunter addressed this, and didn't see the two as inconsistent, in fact thought it the mark of the best architecture to marry the two ideas.  He was obviously a person of independent means who could and did apparently golf as much as liked.  "I used to spend my winters in Pinehurst, where I played almost daily on the championship course."  To quote Lou Reed, "some people like to go out dancing, other people like us, we gotta work."  But Hunter was cognizant of the distinction.

"I should be sorry if the reader were to get the impression that I am without sympathy for that large majority of golfers who have little time to improve their game, and who wish to enjoy their limited leisure in some pastime not too exacting. . . . Skillful golfers should be able to control their shots, and few of them resent punishment when they fail to do so; but high handicap players and older men playing indifferent golf are punished quite enough by their own incompetence without having to suffer additional penalties.  [I can attest!].  The fewer the better of those hazards which simply levy fines on bad shots."

He goes to say that the "best architects feel it to be their duty to make the path to the hole as free as possible from annoying difficulties for the less skillful golfers, while at the same time presenting to the scratch players a route calling for the best shots at their command."  I would imagine that to be the hardest thing for an architect to do.

[Tom_Doak]

He goes to say that the "best architects feel it to be their duty to make the path to the hole as free as possible from annoying difficulties for the less skillful golfers, while at the same time presenting to the scratch players a route calling for the best shots at their command."  I would imagine that to be the hardest thing for an architect to do.

It's not that hard, really, except that the scratch players complain vehemently about how unfair it is, and tell everyone that the architect must not know what he is doing.

[Tom_Doak]

I wouldn’t mind touching more on media and professional golfers, too.  For 15 years I watched Tiger Woods complain about every bad break and bemoan every unlucky lie he got. The announcers go on and on about it, Stevie Williams is yelling at people, imploring them to put away the cameras, folks.  Then a few minutes later Tiger would hit an incredible shot and we’d be mesmerized.
 
The problem is the announcers never connected the bad lie and the incredible shot as a fundamental aspect of the game, and what ultimately makes it great.  Maybe the viewer should've made that connection, but in hindsight every announcer should've been hammering home that connection.  It was always a minute of talking about the bad lie and then 3 minutes of replaying the great shot.  The bad break becoming an opportunity for the great shot should have been the teaching moment for kids at home watching, but instead it was the isolated tantrum and the isolated heroic shot.  Now every young superstar, who went and mimicked all those heroic shots, also drops his club on the followthrough multiple times per round, whines about an unfair lie in the bunker, rough too thick, bunkers in unfair spots, etc. etc.  That’s been happening long before Tiger, certainly, but the hysteria surrounding Tiger shined a brighter light on it. 


Now we see that manifesting itself by the Tour taking bigger and bigger steps to remove or "fix" the vehicles of bad breaks.  Sand is standardized, green speeds and slope standardized, heights of rough standardized, bunker placement standardized.  All of that takes adventure out of the game.

Yes . . . that is EXACTLY what I was talking about.


I wrote an article for GOLF Magazine in the 1990's about how courses were prepared for TOUR events.  The biggest shocker to me was being told by David Eger how much effort was put into making the bunker sand consistent from one week to the next.  He credited the golf course superintendents for having the turf under control, so they could concentrate on little things like bunker consistency.  To me, some of the preparations sounded crazy . . . using wetting agents, irrigating the bunkers, even replacing all the local sand with something from somewhere else.


And then consulting clients started demanding this when they rebuilt their bunkers.


P.S.  I remember asking David Eger [who had won the Crump Cup at Pine Valley recently] why they couldn't play a TOUR event with Pine Valley's rules of no raking during the day.  He said they could, but he didn't think the average TV viewer would enjoy watching players hitting a shot back out into the approach, as he sometimes did at PV, because trying to hit the ball onto the green would probably result in them going over into a bunker on the other side.  I had to agree with him there . . . that's another casualty of greens becoming so fast, you can't play a shot from a difficult lie and hold the green, so you need to eliminate difficult lies.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()