We've Been Here Before

[Adam Lawrence]

One of the things that has become very clear to me from my researches into the early 20th century history of golf is the extent to which today's architectural issues caused by equipment are just a rerun of those caused by the introduction of the rubber-cored ball.


It is very evident that one of the key drivers of the success of Golden Age architects like Colt and Fowler was the need for courses to change to keep up with equipment.


This article by Garden Smith from the London paper the Globe, November 24 1911, illustrates the point clearly.

[Niall C]

Adam

As a fellow traveller through the archives I agree it is amazing how the same themes and issues seem to keep occurring. I wonder what he'd have thought about his comments if he were still alive today, in particular the bit about courses being fully stretched and nowhere left to go.

However at least part of his argument is the type of changes being made particularly with regards to green complexes. Something tells me he wouldn't approve of modern design, and not just because of the length. Any idea which architect he was referring to ?

I also note that Garden Smith did at least acknowledge that players were getting better and it wasn't all down to the rubber cored ball. I don't watch a lot of TV golf but it struck me watching a bit of the FedEx comp which Johnston won that these guys are so  big, athletic and fit these days that golf at the top level is for athletes.

Niall

[Robin_Hiseman]

Responding to equipment advances is fundamental to the continuing success of the golf architectural trade.


Stasis is not good for architects.

[Niall C]

Robin

I believe I once said something along the same lines on here with reference to the golden age being at least partially a consequence of advances in technology. That idea didn't get a lot of traction.

Niall

[Robin_Hiseman]

Niall


Doesn't mean it was wrong. Lots of good comments on here get overlooked.

[Ben Hollerbach]

It very much feels that the counter to growth in distance 100+ years ago was a heightened demand on accuracy and placement. It was one thing to have distance but could the architect make it risky for you to use it to your advantage. I like to think about the courses back then being aware of space limitations, what difficulty they would presume had to be undertaken in order to expand their courses and what observations they may have if shown the modern day state of some of our too short courses land locked by municipal and residential properties. I'd imagine their response may have been very different and course specific ball like the Cayman may have become more common.



I like the comparison with billiards, but I feel like the analogy is a bit off. The introduction of the rubber ball in golf may be more similar to the size of the billiard balls changing, freeing up more space and angles on the table and making shots easier to connect. If restoring the balls to their original size was not an option your limited to changing the scale of the table or changing how the balls move across the table.

[Thomas Dai]

There is certainly a good deal of round-n-round in circles about the distance debate within the game.

One aspect within the article that caught my eye is that it specifically mentions that to cure the effect of distance “golf architects are endeavouring to increase the difficulty of the short game, both in approaching and putting.”

‘Bomb and gouge’ is a phrase that’s sometimes used. But imo it isn’t just the distance-bomb aspect that has changed the game but the gouge aspect too. The ability to gouge shots not just onto greens but to still be able to attack greens in pin-seeking ways as well. Something that the ball, the clubs and the sheer strength of players has permitted ‘gouge’ to do whereas previously shots were more a ‘just get it out’ recovery in nature now there’s rather more ‘get it close’. And even from the fairway and sand clubheads now allow approach shots to be played in a very different way for now not only do we have the modern SW but we now have lob wedges as well and soft, irrigated greens to play into.

Modern irrigation and maintenance techniques have also significantly altered putting surface upkeep standards plus superior quality in the design and construction of both putters and balls, yes balls coz once upon a time all wound balls weren’t all actually perfectly round, has made a difference too as has the softening of the Rules, eg more liberal use of GUR areas, lift, clean and place and my hobbyhorse, raking bunkers.

To near summarise it isn’t just distance that’s changed the way the game is now played, a combination of many things has done so including that the approach and putting game has changed significantly as well. Which is where other equipment aspects over and above just a ball rollback or Driver head size come into the debate, eg a max loft on clubs and a lower limit in the number of clubs a player may have in the bag during play. I’d still roll the ball back a lot though!

Off now to dream about playing firm and fast and windy animal grazed courses with humps and hollows galore all maintained to a less than perfect standard carrying a small bag containing only a few clubs. Care to join me?

Atb

[Sven Nilsen]

Go and look at the distances for courses that Bendelow was espousing from 1905 on.  He was an early advocate of making courses longer to keep up with (and some might say get ahead of) the changes in equipment.


Early golf was meant to be a hard.  The most interesting comparison to me is not the length of shots required in the different eras, but the clubs that were being hit.


It is also of interest to note Mackenzie's early thoughts on architecture which were being developed right around this time.


In a 1914 article, the author described Mackenzie working on the principle of "postponing punishment for errors in length and direction until the player attempts to reach the green." 


This is the single best quote I've read describing the difference between the Victorian era of design and the more strategic style that emerged in the early part of the 20th century.  There is so much wrapped up in this simple statement that perhaps it deserves a thread of its own.


Sven

[Kalen Braley]

In a 1914 article, the author described Mackenzie working on the principle of "postponing punishment for errors in length and direction until the player attempts to reach the green." 

Sven,

That's an interesting quote, but doesn't seem to fit for holes like 8, 9, and 17 at CPC which are largely considered among the best for the course...

But I would agree, I think it does deserve its own thread for a deeper dive and exploration.

[BCrosby]

Adam -


That Garden Smith article and others by him from about the same time were important in the fight over ball regulation. He was not troubled by the Haskell and opposed a ball rule until 1911. As editor of Golf Illustrated, Smith had been one of Low's most formidable foes in those debates.


But by 1911 Smith had seen enough and joined Low in seeking ball regulation. Sadly Smith died in August, 1913 and was of limited help in that fight.

Like Low, and as indicated in the quoted passage, Smith thought increasingly powerful balls were eviscerating the function of architectural features and few clubs had the money to make the needed changes. 


Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

The notion of returning to the 'old balance of conditions' seems to me telling, and indicative of a difference between then and now -- especially given that Smith isn't focused on championship courses (for top amateurs and early pros) but on the best designs for members & average golfers.

[Niall C]

It very much feels that the counter to growth in distance 100+ years ago was a heightened demand on accuracy and placement. It was one thing to have distance but could the architect make it risky for you to use it to your advantage. I like to think about the courses back then being aware of space limitations, what difficulty they would presume had to be undertaken in order to expand their courses and what observations they may have if shown the modern day state of some of our too short courses land locked by municipal and residential properties. I'd imagine their response may have been very different and course specific ball like the Cayman may have become more common.



I like the comparison with billiards, but I feel like the analogy is a bit off. The introduction of the rubber ball in golf may be more similar to the size of the billiard balls changing, freeing up more space and angles on the table and making shots easier to connect. If restoring the balls to their original size was not an option your limited to changing the scale of the table or changing how the balls move across the table.

Ben


In 1911 strategic design was still in it's early years relatively speaking and "scientifically" designed courses with cross hazards still proliferated. From what I recall of reading his columns I suspect the root of Smith's objection was that many of these cross hazards were becoming obsolete because of the new ball. I might be doing him a disservice in saying that and misremembering some of the things he wrote, but either way I don't think any of the golden age guys would have been too unhappy about the demise of that kind of design, or with the opportunities that came there way because of the rubber cored ball.


As an aside, on the billiard table comment and Smith's objection to contoured greens, when the the golf boom was in its peak in the 1890's commentators bemoaned the fact that new courses were being laid out with perfectly flat greens like billiard tables.


Niall 

[Niall C]

Adam


Can you remind us where Colt stood on all this ? I can't recall him necessarily campaigning one way or the other but again could be wrong. I do recall he at one time he spoke about designing courses with no par 5's which at least suggests he was pragmatic about what was happening.


Niall