[Michael Whitaker]

Has consideration of golf as a sport or a game had an affect on course design?

Could this explain why some courses demand more "athletic" play than others? Could this explain why golfers who primarily consider golf a game tend to enjoy courses with "quirk," while "sportsmen" sing the praises of courses that reward skill?

[Dan Kelly]

Has consideration of golf as a sport or a game had an affect on course design?

Could this explain why some courses demand more "athletic" play than others? Could this explain why golfers who primarily consider golf a game tend to enjoy courses with "quirk," while "sportsmen" sing the praises of courses that reward skill?

If I've understood anything from all of the Max Behr game vs. sport discussions (and this is possible, if not likely):

Sports-men, in the Behrian sense, would prefer courses with "natural" quirk.

Games-men, in the Behrian sense, would prefer courses solely designed to identify the player with the greatest skill.

P.S. And as for Bob Newhart -- The only time I've seen him in the flesh, he was seated at a lunch table at Bel Air CC as we teed off on No. 10.

Lunch in L.A. must surely be a game, not a sport -- eh?

[TEPaul]

"Could this explain why some courses demand more "athletic" play than others? Could this explain why golfers who primarily consider golf a game tend to enjoy courses with "quirk," while "sportsmen" sing the praises of courses that reward skill?"

Michael:

If one was to consider those questions in the context of the philosophy of Max Behr as he made that distinction of golf as a sport as opposed to golf as a game, I believe there's no question at all that Dan kelly is very right to say basically it would be the other way around--eg the sportsman would enjoy the course with quirk and the golfer interested in a course that solely rewarded skill would be what Behr considered the golfer who looked at golf as more of a game and less as a sport!

Did Behr believe that golf as a sport vs golf as a game should or could affect design? Definitely!

[Tom_Doak]

I think it does affect design, but as in all things design these days, I think the semantics confuse the issue.  Most of us love SPORTS, and we want to call golf a SPORT, because we don't want it compared to chess or hunting.

If I read Tom P's other thread correctly, Behr's point seemed to be that the golfer should be battling natural hazards as much as possible ... in Britain and Bandon and Barnbougle this would include the weather, although not in southern California where Max wound up.  So the thread should not be about the semantics about whether you call that SPORT or GAME, and whether it falls in with football or with hunting, but whether you believe that golf architecture should have something to do with nature.

And what you believe on that score certainly affects design at the most basic level.

[Joe Hancock]

Shivas,

"Hi Bob" was popular while I was attending Michigan Tech up in Houghton. Of course, there was little else to do in the dead of winter there. It's a 30 minute way to be drunk, for sure!

Joe

[TEPaul]

"If I read Tom P's other thread correctly, Behr's point seemed to be that the golfer should be battling natural hazards as much as possible ... in Britain and Bandon and Barnbougle this would include the weather, although not in southern California where Max wound up.  So the thread should not be about the semantics about whether you call that SPORT or GAME, and whether it falls in with football or with hunting, but whether you believe that golf architecture should have something to do with nature."

TomD:

Exactly! To Behr, golf to be considered a sport depended on the inclusion of Nature's part both in the way of natural landform (or having it look that way) and in the way of weather. As to architecture's part certainly the architect had more control over the physical use of nature than he did the weather.

As for how he viewed hazards (bunkers etc), I'd love to get into how he explained his view of that as portrayed in his essay "The Use of Penalty in golf architecture", but I don't know, this has been tough sleding so far.

[Michael Whitaker]

Tom P - You're correct, I've gotten myself turned around on Behr's Sportsmen vs Gamesmen concept.

This may seem elementary, but... I guess what I am really asking is if architects consciously design courses to represent a "philosophy" of playing the game.

If Architect-A truly believes that a golf match should only be won by virtue of superior athletic skill wouldn't he design a totally different type of course than someone who thinks golf should be less a battle of pure athletics and as much a strategic challenge in which the "lesser" player can overcome an opponents superior physical skills with cunning and execution? And, if that is the case, wouldn't courses designed by Architect-B have fewer punishing heroics designed into them? Wouldn't his courses incorporate a LOT of strategic elements of angles and slopes that the cunning player could take advantage of in order to offset a physically superior opponent?

(I hope the above makes sense... I'm still celebrating Clemson's victory over the Mighty Vols in the Peach Bowl!)

[DMoriarty]

. . . Behr's point seemed to be that the golfer should be battling natural hazards as much as possible ... in Britain and Bandon and Barnbougle this would include the weather, although not in southern California where Max wound up.  

Not that it is really relevant to this thread, but Southern California should be so lucky.  In the past few months my home course has suffered a major fire, multiple dust (and ash) storms, extremely high winds, flooding (and probably more today), and an earthquake.  Max didnt have it much better.  Much of Behr's Lakeside was washed away in the flooding of 1938 (along with parts of many other courses, including Riviera.)  

The only day one can be sure of nice weather in Southern California is New Years Day, for the Rose Bowl.

So the thread should not be about the semantics about whether you call that SPORT or GAME, and whether it falls in with football or with hunting, but whether you believe that golf architecture should have something to do with nature.

There a little more to it than this isnt there?  Doesnt the old understanding of "sport" also include a large element of chance, and an acceptance that, despite one's best efforts, "nature" will often times prevail.  

[TEPaul]

"There a little more to it than this isnt there?  Doesnt the old understanding of "sport" also include a large element of chance, and an acceptance that, despite one's best efforts, "nature" will often times prevail."

DavidM:

Precisely! That's much of what Behr was talking about. A recreation (golf) that includes what you just said in the form of its playing field is quite different from a tennis court, for instance, the dimensions of which are standardized by man throughout the world. There's very little to none of the randomness of nature (chance) in a tennis court (completely man-made game). He obviously believed golf courses (golf architecture) should avoid standardization in all forms as much as possible to preserve randomness (chance) in golf.

[A_Clay_Man]

Ergo, Variety being essential.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()