OT - Golf Architecture Ain't What it Used to Be

[Peter Pallotta]

In 1894, the first time the Open was played at RSG, JH Taylor won with scores of 84-80-81-81, for a total of 326. The next year, at St Andrews, Taylor won again, this time with a 322 total. Then Vardon won at Muirfield with a 316, and Hilton won (over Braid) the year after that with a 314, at Liverpool.

Obvious statement I know, but once upon a time and for many many years, gca must've 'meant' something very much different than it does today. Its function, its quality, its ethos, its challenge, its principles etc -- how was any of that 'measured' when the best golfers in the world shot, and expected to shoot, 310-330?

I don't know the answer, but it must've been 'measured' in ways that no one is doing -- or even conceiving of -- today,  or has done for almost 100 years, no?

That somehow seems significant.

[Peter Flory]

Those competitors must have been playing from the "wrong" tees. 

[Kalen Braley]

Those competitors must have been playing from the "wrong" tees.

Audible laughs!! 

Peter P, I'm pretty sure if todays players were playing with same balls, equipment, and course conditions they would shoot something similar...

P.S.  I wonder if golf course architects were even known as such back then, just guys who figured out how to get from point A to point B.  Didn't Dr. MacK basically try to invent the designation several decades later?

[Peter Pallotta]

Those competitors must have been playing from the "wrong" tees.

I'm trying to imagine Taylor coming off his 326 at RSG and saying 'Man, that is one great golf course!', or finishing up at St. Andrews after his 322 with 'I'm telling you, I simply love this golf course! I could play it every day and never get tired of it.'

Kalen - you're likely right, but what's interesting are the 'metrics' by which those golfers might've judged/ranked/rated (or the 19th century equivalent to judging-ranking-rating) those courses back then. I can't quite wrap my head around that.

[John Kavanaugh]

It's always been the same conversation with fewer people listening.

[MCirba]

"I had to think and execute effectively on every one of those 326 shots.  That to me is the mark of a great course."

[John McCarthy]

Those competitors must have been playing from the "wrong" tees.

Audible laughs!! 

Peter P, I'm pretty sure if todays players were playing with same balls, equipment, and course conditions they would shoot something similar...

P.S.  I wonder if golf course architects were even known as such back then, just guys who figured out how to get from point A to point B.  Didn't Dr. MacK basically try to invent the designation several decades later?

Kalen: when I was a teenager I caddied at a course that was a PGA tour stop and considered quite a test.  Our golf pro emeritus was none other than Errie Ball, an accomplished professional who played in the first Masters. (This was the 1980s).


Errie had the benefit of health and with modern clubs and balls could shoot par on a good day into his mid 70s. And speaking as a caddy he was the easiest loop ever: did not miss the fairway and read his own putts.


My point: superior golfers are good and inherent talent exists.  The ability to repeatedly hit the ball square is not common (look at my index).  If they could get around well at the first Open they could really play not matter the era.

[James Brown]

I was fortunate enough to play 4 rounds over 2 days at RSG in 2016.  Great lunches too!


But I was so wowed by the fact that it shot 310 in 4 rounds, which was the same score Vardon shot in 1899, which really got me thinking about how golf had evolved. 

[Sean_A]

In 1894, the first time the Open was played at RSG, JH Taylor won with scores of 84-80-81-81, for a total of 326. The next year, at St Andrews, Taylor won again, this time with a 322 total. Then Vardon won at Muirfield with a 316, and Hilton won (over Braid) the year after that with a 314, at Liverpool.

Obvious statement I know, but once upon a time and for many many years, gca must've 'meant' something very much different than it does today. Its function, its quality, its ethos, its challenge, its principles etc -- how was any of that 'measured' when the best golfers in the world shot, and expected to shoot, 310-330?

I don't know the answer, but it must've been 'measured' in ways that no one is doing -- or even conceiving of -- today,  or has done for almost 100 years, no?

That somehow seems significant.

Back in the day golf was far more difficult than today. I have said before, but when playing old courses I am still a bit shocked at how difficult these courses must have been. As is always the case, when more people engage in an activity, the activity invariably gets dumbed down. In the case of golf, I thank the stars for the game being much easier. I doubt I would ever have started to play again after a ten year hiatus if courses were as brutal as back in the day.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Those competitors must have been playing from the "wrong" tees.

Better athletes these days.
atb

[Adam Lawrence]

Those competitors must have been playing from the "wrong" tees.

Audible laughs!! 

Peter P, I'm pretty sure if todays players were playing with same balls, equipment, and course conditions they would shoot something similar...

P.S.  I wonder if golf course architects were even known as such back then, just guys who figured out how to get from point A to point B.  Didn't Dr. MacK basically try to invent the designation several decades later?

No. The earliest reference I can find to the term is in a 1902 article about Brancaster by Garden Smith in the Tatler:


Brancaster, the Eastward Ho of Norfolk and the home of the Royal West Nor folk Golf Club, has a magnificent natural golf links. From the point of view of the [/size]golfing architect[/color][/size] its holes are well-nigh perfect, both in their length and in the disposition of their natural hazards.[/color]

[jeffwarne]

Listening to Lee Westwood opine on why The Open.
Super nice guy-always pulling for him.


Speaking about luck in general,luck at The Open and in particular luck at RSG.
Now opining on how RSG should/will "water the fairways" to soften them and reduce the possibility of odd bounces.
"You can't have firm fairways with the bounces you get around here"


"Biggest challenge will getting the ball to the hole with the greens so slow"
"It will be frustrating if I can't get the ball to the hole"


He goes on to describe how it was OK for the fairways to be firm 60 years ago when the ball would merely run off into rough and the players had to control spin/fliers on a 6 or 7 iron from ordinary light dry rough, but now the fairways run off into super thick gunch.
He says now they hit it so far that the ordinary dry thin rough would be no problem with players hitting sand wedges due to how far they hit it, so the thick gunch is needed because they are coming in from so much closer with wedges they can gauge spin more easily with.
i.e. a scale problem solved with widening the target and increasing the penalty for missing.
Ick.

BTW-I think he and many others simply underestimate the effect of a wet spring/early summer and the heavy rough is a mere side effect of that-usually crispier by now.





So.....the ball is being struck 30-50 yards farther than 30 years ago, and the answer for a links course that has tested players for well over a hundred years is....
1. more water on the fairways to create "fairer" bounces,
2.greens that roll faster(so he can get it to the hole-though to be fair I think he gets that's on him)Which isn't really possible given the undulations on the greens-a good thing!
3. heavy rough to penalize those who couldn't hit the (now)widened by watering fairways.


He is a very thoughtful guy clearly, but when operating in an echo chamber, it's amazing to me what passes for good thought.
and the drones that ask the unthoughtful questions with zero challenges to the line of thinking he's espousing.


he did identify the issue(scale) and I guess he believes the scale issue can't or won't be addressed by the simplest and most obvious element(equipment) so EVERYTHING ELSE should change.


Super nice guy, I' pulling for him, but it's increasingly clear to me why he hasn't won a major.
Tiger, Jack, Ben, Palmer, Player, didn't think it was luck, and most recently Mickelson has embraced the links game, with great success.


edit:Brendan Porath with similar thoughts and actual text



https://twitter.com/BrendanPorath/status/1415278765219926034/photo/1

[Thomas Dai]

So.....the ball is being struck 30-50 yards farther than 30 years ago, and the answer for a links course that has tested players for well over a hundred years is....
1. more water on the fairways to create "fairer" bounces,
2.greens that roll faster(so he can get it to the hole-though to be fair I think he gets that's on him)Which isn't really possible given the undulations on the greens-a good thing!
3. heavy rough to penalize those who couldn't hit the (now)widened by watering fairways.

Great total post Jeff.
The section above is a terrific indication of how so much about the game many of us have played and loved for decades has evolved into ‘snowflake’ golf.
Atb

[Jeff Johnston]

In 1894, the first time the Open was played at RSG, JH Taylor won with scores of 84-80-81-81, for a total of 326. The next year, at St Andrews, Taylor won again, this time with a 322 total. Then Vardon won at Muirfield with a 316, and Hilton won (over Braid) the year after that with a 314, at Liverpool.

Obvious statement I know, but once upon a time and for many many years, gca must've 'meant' something very much different than it does today. Its function, its quality, its ethos, its challenge, its principles etc -- how was any of that 'measured' when the best golfers in the world shot, and expected to shoot, 310-330?

I don't know the answer, but it must've been 'measured' in ways that no one is doing -- or even conceiving of -- today,  or has done for almost 100 years, no?

That somehow seems significant.

Back in the day golf was far more difficult than today. I have said before, but when playing old courses I am still a bit shocked at how difficult these courses must have been. As is always the case, when more people engage in an activity, the activity invariably gets dumbed down. In the case of golf, I thank the stars for the game being much easier. I doubt I would ever have started to play again after a ten year hiatus if courses were as brutal as back in the day.

I think that's right Sean on difficulty level generally then. Plus - per the content of the The Fried Egg podcast highlighted by Matthew Mollica - as on the ground in 1894, St Georges seems to have been a particular house of pain in that iteration.

[Peter Pallotta]

And yet I imagine there was no early British version of Sandy Tatum there answering complaints with "RSG is not trying to embarrass the best golfers in the world, it's trying to identify them".

[Steve Lang]

   I thought all golfers were masochists, at least to some degree, and difficulty is all relative to that which you can and that which you can't control, only discerned by the golfer human being.

[Kalen Braley]

P.S.  And don't forget when Vardon won in 1899 with that 310, everyone else would have been like "How in the hell did he do that? I sure wish I had the mad-sick game he does" 

Especially considering his score was 16 shots better than the winner just 5 years prior.

[Mike Hendren]

I'm inclined to disagree with the premise.  I can't help but think that most of the difference in scoring was attributable to the poor quality of:  1) the golf ball; 2) flat sticks (which wasn't really flat as loft was required);  and 3)  putting surfaces.    It's unlikely every ball at the turn of the century was perfectly round and it's likely the quality and height of the greens were a mixed bag - I'm always amazed by how strong a putting stroke - more of a strike was required on old film.  Also, at lower green speeds architects could get away with more slope, making holing putts all the more difficult.


It would be interesting to know the percentage of 10 feet putts made then and now.   


Bogey

[Peter Pallotta]

Bogey-
I'm not questioning how good those early golfers were, and I wouldn't disagree that the golf ball & putting surfaces may have had much to do with winning scores in the 320s. But the fact is that the gca + the equipment + the conditioning back then did combine to make such winning scores the norm/the expectation. And I'm just wondering how fields of play upon which the champion golfer of the year shot four rounds in the 80s were judged/measured. I mean, do many folks believe that Winged Foot, as set up by the USGA for the 1974 Massacre there, was an example of great golf course architecture? And what if Irwin's 287 was a 320 instead -- would we still think the gca was serving its proper/ideal function? So imagine back to the 1890s when every Open was a 'massacre' -- did they see that back than as a good thing, a bad thing, or 'no thing' at all?

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,

If you look at the history of The Open, specifically starting in 1892, the first year it was a 72 hole tournament at Muirfield the winner shot 305. Over the following 25 years the scores were all over the place, so I'm guessing their reference point was more about which course was being played as compared to modern norms where the winning scores are far more tightly bunched around from 270-280.

So my answer would be "no thing"

[Tim Gallant]

Listening to Lee Westwood opine on why The Open.
Super nice guy-always pulling for him.


Speaking about luck in general,luck at The Open and in particular luck at RSG.
Now opining on how RSG should/will "water the fairways" to soften them and reduce the possibility of odd bounces.
"You can't have firm fairways with the bounces you get around here"


"Biggest challenge will getting the ball to the hole with the greens so slow"
"It will be frustrating if I can't get the ball to the hole"


He goes on to describe how it was OK for the fairways to be firm 60 years ago when the ball would merely run off into rough and the players had to control spin/fliers on a 6 or 7 iron from ordinary light dry rough, but now the fairways run off into super thick gunch.
He says now they hit it so far that the ordinary dry thin rough would be no problem with players hitting sand wedges due to how far they hit it, so the thick gunch is needed because they are coming in from so much closer with wedges they can gauge spin more easily with.
i.e. a scale problem solved with widening the target and increasing the penalty for missing.
Ick.

BTW-I think he and many others simply underestimate the effect of a wet spring/early summer and the heavy rough is a mere side effect of that-usually crispier by now.





So.....the ball is being struck 30-50 yards farther than 30 years ago, and the answer for a links course that has tested players for well over a hundred years is....
1. more water on the fairways to create "fairer" bounces,
2.greens that roll faster(so he can get it to the hole-though to be fair I think he gets that's on him)Which isn't really possible given the undulations on the greens-a good thing!
3. heavy rough to penalize those who couldn't hit the (now)widened by watering fairways.


He is a very thoughtful guy clearly, but when operating in an echo chamber, it's amazing to me what passes for good thought.
and the drones that ask the unthoughtful questions with zero challenges to the line of thinking he's espousing.


he did identify the issue(scale) and I guess he believes the scale issue can't or won't be addressed by the simplest and most obvious element(equipment) so EVERYTHING ELSE should change.


Super nice guy, I' pulling for him, but it's increasingly clear to me why he hasn't won a major.
Tiger, Jack, Ben, Palmer, Player, didn't think it was luck, and most recently Mickelson has embraced the links game, with great success.


edit:Brendan Porath with similar thoughts and actual text



https://twitter.com/BrendanPorath/status/1415278765219926034/photo/1

Jeff,


I read the comments too and had similar thoughts. The one thing I would point out is that this can't just be put down to a wet spring. I have it on good authority that the R&A asked Sandwich to fertilise the rough back when there was no rain in April as they weren't seeing the growth that they would expect - so there is a manmade element to it. Everything around the Open feels manufactured when compared to normal links golf. I think the most obvious evidence of that was when play was halted at St Andrews a few years back while locals played the surrounding courses with no issues

[jeffwarne]

Tim,
heavy sigh.
Always distressing when one believes an organization is doing the right thing(playing the courses in a reasonable manner dictated by mother nature), and therefore is given the benefit of the doubt..then you find out they are merely playing catch up


with


bad


ideas


 

[Tim Martin]

Those competitors must have been playing from the "wrong" tees.

I'm trying to imagine Taylor coming off his 326 at RSG and saying 'Man, that is one great golf course!', or finishing up at St. Andrews after his 322 with 'I'm telling you, I simply love this golf course! I could play it every day and never get tired of it.'

Kalen - you're likely right, but what's interesting are the 'metrics' by which those golfers might've judged/ranked/rated (or the 19th century equivalent to judging-ranking-rating) those courses back then. I can't quite wrap my head around that.

Peter-You’ve shown to be an advocate of the Bedouin style of dress. I wonder how many shots JH could have shaved off if he was wearing a silk lined thobe, keffiyeh and ankle boots lined with animal fur? A way less restrictive ensemble than the woolen sport coat, clunky shoes, dress shirt, tie, tam and plus fours he usually sported.

[Steve Lang]

   Doesn't the word "set-up" really get one to the point that the romantic notion of olden gca, as displayed at the Open rota courses, really gets run over by man's folly in thinking he impacts or controls nature?  Human nature remains the same, its the means that have changed.  Architecture designs and builds things, applying nuances becomes the art, making it challenging or difficult for man's skill's or tools at hand.  It is what it used to be.

[Niall C]

Peter-You’ve shown to be an advocate of the Bedouin style of dress. I wonder how many shots JH could have shaved off if he was wearing a silk lined thobe, keffiyeh and ankle boots lined with animal fur? A way less restrictive ensemble than the woolen sport coat, clunky shoes, dress shirt, tie, tam and plus fours he usually sported.

Tim


Apologies for being a pedant but it was Vardon who wore the plus fours. John Henry tended to wear an ordinary pair of breeks.


Niall