Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: John Kirk on December 07, 2007, 12:50:44 AM
-
My father worked his entire career at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, a high energy physics lab affiliated with the university. One of my father's contributions was to help establish the tradition of an annual softball game. After the game, everyone would go to Dr. Sidney Drell's house on campus for beer, sodas and snacks. There was a kid's game most years, and when some of us got big enough, we got to play in the main game.
The game was always the "Theorists" versus the "Experimentalists". There are two main types of high energy physicists. Theoretical physicists use math and physics to try and explain experimental data. Experimental physicists are the ones who gather and interpret data, both in controlled experiments and observed phenomena (go to Wikipedia for a better explanation). The two disciplines often overlap, but not for the purpose of selecting softball teams.
The game itself was a combination of reasonably adept Americans, combined with a large contingent of foreign physicists to which softball was very foreign. Many came from countries which played cricket, though that did not seem to help much. "Run, RUN! No, the other way!", is my favorite way to describe it. Great memories.
Over the last couple months, TEPaul, Paul Cowley, Pete Pallotta, and a few other guys have been delving deeply into architecture. It reminded me of theorists and experimentalists, and how the terms apply nicely to our group. Theorists are the guys who study the game in theory, what should and shouldn't work, and why. In addition to the three already mentioned, I'll add the following:
Bayley
Crosby
Some of the young fellas who like to draw holes, like Wall
Experimentalists use their experiences to draw conclusions. Even though I'm known here for a time theory, I'm clearly an experimentalist. I play and offer my opinion. I'll put a few others in my category, though I think most of us belong here:
Ward
Morrison
Bernhardt
Lichtenstein
Guys like Mucci, Sullivan and Kavanaugh are immersed in both sides of the study. Where do you belong?
Google Sidney Drell to find out more about this most impressive man. More often than not, there were a couple of Nobel Prize winners on that softball field each year.
-
Experimentalist. Experimentalist golf architecture in its purest form would be creating on the ground (after establishing a routing) sans plans. This isn't quite where I'd fit, as plans are necessary to some degree; in some places to the 9th degree.
To me a theoretical physicist (golf architect) would be someone who believes they can set their plans to paper and walk away for long periods. Deducing most everything to paper (mathematics); Remembering what a new member here wrote about a decade ago about plans and planning, Jim Engh comes to mind.
John,
Small world.
One of my in-laws family worked at the Genf accelerator and I'm positive he spent time at Stanford. He's been retired for a handful of years. I'll have to ask him about the ball games, Dr. Drell, and what team he was on when I see him next time. He looks like an experimentalist but if his family background is any indication, he'd be a theorist. Then again, his brothers and sisters run across the board... will be interesting to find out.
-
John
I'm not sure if this thread is going anywhere, as to try to make out GCA as some sort of rocket science (Experimental, or Theoretical or Both) is doomed to failure. After all, it's just a bloody game!
Your 1st pass at classifications highlights the folly of the exercise. Tom Paul is no more a theoretician than is Paris Hilton. To compare two GCAer's of similar game and level of passion, Gib Papazian could theoretize the pants off Tom Paul (if he already has not already done so) even though Tom, through his tremendous experiential skills would probably beat Gib in any match when the two of them were playing at their peak.
I'm willing to hear more, however.
Rich
PS--I can't stop laughing at the concept of a softball game between two groups of physicists. The score each year had to be either 0-0, infinity-infinity or some combination of the two, depending on whether either or both teams managed to recruit a competent shortstop.
Oh yeah, they'd need a decent 1st baseman too. The experimentalists would struggle as every candidate would be trying to activate their palm tops to calculate the consequences of apparent acceleration and mass as the throw came toward him (or her) with the result that few 6-3 outs would occur. The potential theoriticist 1st basemen, on the other hand would probably be sitting on the grass and looking at the clouds when the throw came from deep in the hole.
Was there a time limit on those "games?" ;)
-
What a great start to the day...reading that opening post. thanks John...and the company you put me in (or is there another Sullivan I haven't met?), what a group. It would appear to be a great start to a foursome...I wonder if there is any chance we could get a fourth though...certainly some spectators...
"Run, RUN! No, the other way!", is my favorite way to describe it.
Hysterical!
-
Jaka and Pat are Provocateurs, but Theorists is a stretch!
I am 100% Experimentalist.
-
John:
The Observational Theorists versus the Experimental Analysts?
-
I think anyone answering this thread is a gca theorist.
This site also has a few gca terrorists.....so close and yet so far apart! (sorry, couldn't resist the theoretically experimental word play......) :D
-
I love Rich's take on this. And his thoughts on two teams of physicists playing softball... man that had me ROLLING!
;D ;D
That was a candidate for post of the year.
But as for the substance, I'm with Rich: it's just a game, John! I really believe the heavier one gets into it, the sillier he looks.
So I am neither Theorist nor Experimentalist, and it also cracks me up that those are capitalized.
I just play the bloody game (not enough) and like to talk about it (way too much). I feel silly nearly every day about this. But I console myself in that at least I don't spend my life worrying about what Max Behr said or did 50 years before I was born.
;D
-
Typically, I'm a dilettante -- a mixture of dilettante Theorist and dilettante Experimentalist.
But the truth is: I'm neither. I'm just a very simple guy who likes to talk about golf, including its courses.
I side with Rich here: It ain't rocket science (IMO)!
P.S. As it happens, my nephew is a Ph.D. candidate in theoretical physics at Stanford. The young man is a pretty fair athlete (albeit a lousy golfer), who was something of a star on his high-school baseball team.
So if there's any action on this game the next few years, I'd put my money on the Theoreticians.
-
Dan Kelly:
I have to believe our posts crossed in cyberspace... no way you intentionally come out on this EXACTLY the same as me, right?
I like the way you put it though, which is also how I'd characterize myself: I too am just a simple guy who likes to talk about golf, including its courses.
Well put.
But I believe you just issued a challenge to the Stanford Experimentalists... they too can find ringers.
TH
-
... no way you intentionally come out on this EXACTLY the same as me, right?
Perish the thought!
The time when I intentionally come out on something exactly the same as ANYONE else is the time when I hand in my Human Being license.
Never forget the line I live by -- my favorite line from my favorite writer, E.B. White: "I am a member of a party of one."
-
Dan:
As expected. I never doubted you.
Somehow however I do take comfort in siding with you AND Rich Goodale.
-
Dan:
As expected. I never doubted you.
Somehow however I do take comfort in siding with you AND Rich Goodale.
And there are still people out there who don't believe that Christmas is a special time..."Group HuG" ;D
-
Tony - that wasn't meant to be as warm as it seems. But one has to know the history to get it. My bad, inside jokes are not cool.
Let's just say that Rich tends to have little respect for my opinions... or to put it better, has tended to disagree with me 15 times for every time he agrees.
;)
-
Just an analogy to posit there are two ways to analyze golf. I think it's a pretty accurate one. Mostly it served as a way to tell the softball story.
As far as the complexity of golf, if anyone here can describe mathematically what happens when a golf ball is struck with a slightly glancing blow at 100 mph, based on the material characteristics of the ball and club, yielding a launch angle of x degrees and a spin rate of y rpm, with a three dimensional, or spherical axis of rotation, and how that ball is affected by a wind speed of j mph at sea level air pressure, and when that ball strikes the firm, fast turf with a coefficient of restitution of v, well, then I want to know about it. The physics of golf are exceptionally complicated, and that is one of the charms of the game.
But you can just play the game, if that's all you care about.
-
John:
That is pretty much all I care about. I truly could care less about the physics of the game.
But my Dad was an English teacher. Perhaps if he was a theoretical physicist I'd think differently. ;)
It's all good, my friend. I do think we tend to get carried away with things here, and it does remain a game, and while the physics of why a golf ball does the things it does surely can be put up there with rocket science, our need to know about them is about the same as our need to know why they could put a man on the moon. For most of us, the fact it happens is enough.
In any case I did love the softball story, and if this was just a means to tell it, then again, BRAVO!
In any seriousness I can't with a straight face call myself either an Experimentalist or a Theorist, not with those terms capitalized anyway. Though I devote much of my life to the game, it does remain that - a game.
TH
-
Since my strength in school was abstract mathematics, I find it interesting that John classifies me as theorist. In that sense it would seem to be correct. I would have to think about the question more to make a more concrete decision of where I lie in gca.
-
Can I be a theoretical yet heretical existentialist?
I'd like that to be true.
-
I don't know Kirk... I think I'd rather be a theoretical yet heretical existenstial transcendentalist, myself.
-
existentialism, n.
"a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad"
My kind of guy.
-
Yeah, but John, we existential transcendentalists are REALLY cool.
Transcendentalism was a group of new ideas in literature, religion, culture, and philosophy that emerged in New England in the early to middle 19th century. It is sometimes called American Transcendentalism to distinguish it from other uses of the word transcendental.
Transcendentalism began as a protest against the general state of culture and society at the time, and in particular, the state of intellectualism at Harvard and the doctrine of the Unitarian church which was taught at Harvard Divinity School. Among Transcendentalists' core beliefs was an ideal spiritual state that 'transcends' the physical and empirical and is only realized through the individual's intuition, rather than through the doctrines of established religions.
Prominent Transcendentalists included Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Margaret Fuller, Walt Whitman, as well as Bronson Alcott, Orestes Brownson, William Ellery Channing, Frederick Henry Hedge, Theodore Parker, George Putnam, Elizabeth Peabody, and Sophia Peabody, the wife of Nathaniel Hawthorne. For a time, Peabody and Hawthorne lived at the Brook Farm Transcendentalist utopian commune.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism"
-
In one sense, the architects here are the experimentalists, because they do the work, and the rest of us are theorists, because we just talk about it.
Another viewpoint, is that we are all experimentalists, because Mucci forces us to play before say. However, if you check my tag line, Ran would allow us to be theorists that can say without play. ;)
I guess I have to agree that I am a theorist. I am willing to apply my theories without needing to go test them. For example, that horrendous course in Colorado by Norman that Tommy W. put a thread up about. I was barfing at my desk looking at the pictures, and have no need to go barf there in person.
I think in that last sense we can put Arble in the theorists.
-
Great question John.
I would consider myself a Experimentalist, who is trying to increase his Theorist percentage.
As much as I love/read/talk GCA theory, overall, I look at the features of a golf course related directly to my game. I do like the perspective that I generally know where my ball is going when I hit it. I like that my game being close to par is not taking advantage of the course like a long-bombing tour pro, nor having (too much) trouble negotiating the stated requirements of the holes.
I would assume that as I play a bit less and my game goes a bit downhill, I will be more interested in the Theorist perspective.
-
We're getting rather deep into this, and though the last few posts might seem unrelated, they are still pertinent.
I agree with the transcendentalists philosophy as stated, except the notion that the "ideal state transcends the empirical". I make judgements based on experience, which identifies me as an golf architecture experimentalist.
This difference in philosophy, between the writer's son and the scientist's son, makes perfect sense. Are you really free from the doctrine of the church?
Sorry, I have to go for a few hours. I'll be back.
-
John, Just a few q's...
Can one be a serious theorist or experimentalist without studying all the written words ever written on the subject?
On a quality course is this formula a golf ball is struck with a slightly glancing blow at 100 mph, based on the material characteristics of the ball and club, yielding a launch angle of x degrees and a spin rate of y rpm, with a three dimensional, or spherical axis of rotation, and how that ball is affected by a wind speed of j mph at sea level air pressure, and when that ball strikes the firm, fast turf with a coefficient of restitution of v,
longer or more complex, than on an inferior course?
-
John,
Actually we here at GCA are members of that group of disconnected self-proclaimed genuises who have the answers to the eternal questions and that read Scientific American as if it's the bible and write letters to the editor of Discover to explain how the "so-called expert's" article was wrong...
All of us with the exception of Dr. Childs who is the eternal mad scientist in real life and our very own Fred Hoyle...
-
I always thought of existentialism as the theory that "existence predates essence", and transcendentalism as the theory that "essence predates existence".
In golf course architecture terms, do fundamental principles exist a priori, i.e. independently of whether they are manifest on any given/specific golf course?
Is a Vision of Quality out there already, existing in the architect's mind and embedded in the earth, ready for the hand of man to brush away the excess and let it shine?
Or do golf courses exist firstly, and only manifest their essence subjectively and to those who play them a posteriori, leaving it to us to ascribe to them Quality and greatness?
I don't know/I'm not sure.
But I don't play enough golf/golf courses (and certainly not enough of the kind that would be of interest here) to try to contribute experimentally....so I'm glad there's room for both
Peter
John - I think that was an excellent post. To me, all the great books written about gca (then and now) and all the debates waged about what makes it great (then and now) can mean only one thing -- that there IS a theoretical component to gca. I tend to think -- partly because it's the way my mind works -- that it is very important; but I can understand why others think it less so. And I appreciate very much the experimentalist posts, like the ones you tend towards (e.g. an excellent re-cap of a great course played, or some good-player's speculation about a golf shot's "time in the air") - good stuff!
-
First of all, if I am to be considered an existentialist, at least in regards to gca, then I must say I fit more in the Theoretical rather than the Experimental category. I agree with Garland, that the architects themselves are the real experimentalists. Although writing that makes me think that all golfers and gca's probably need to do a little of both. Theorize where the shot should go, might go, and give it a try.
I've never bought into that whole Platonic notion of an ideal form that exists and that the examples of that form that we find in the world are just shadows of the ideal. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that I live in a cave, etc, so I guess I'll go with the existence first, "manifest their essence subjectively" second.
-
I would imagine the physicists are all big fans of quark.
-
I would imagine the physicists are all big fans of quark.
The physicists John was talking about are now all called applied mathematicians. Physics has changed a lot since then.
-
John, Just a few q's...
Can one be a serious theorist or experimentalist without studying all the written words ever written on the subject?
On a quality course is this formula a golf ball is struck with a slightly glancing blow at 100 mph, based on the material characteristics of the ball and club, yielding a launch angle of x degrees and a spin rate of y rpm, with a three dimensional, or spherical axis of rotation, and how that ball is affected by a wind speed of j mph at sea level air pressure, and when that ball strikes the firm, fast turf with a coefficient of restitution of v,
longer or more complex, than on an inferior course?
Question 1. I would assume the answer is no. However, one needs to have a thorough education in the mathematics, knowledge of the currently known particles, and the experimental experience, in order to do either job. In our case, the academic part is the never ending debate on GolfClubAtlas, where we share ideas and pictures, our likes and dislikes. Then, it helps a lot to have seen a great number of golf shots under varying conditions.
Question 2. This is easy. A more varied field of play will yield a greater spectrum of results, and is therefore more complex. Really complex. Once you calculate the third or fourth bounce, even on rock hard turf, the bounce factor is neglible and you would probably assume roll at that point. I wonder how the golf simulators and computer games deal with that.
Thanks so much for responding. I'm not trying to make a grand point, but I'm able to riff on the subject with ease. I love math and physics, but was never a great student, as I loved basketball, girls and intoxicants more. There's still time.
Regarding Peter's remark about The Vision Of Quality, I would say some of our favorite modern architects "see" the course embedded in the land, and brush away the excess. On the other hand, when an architect creates a golf hole schematic in his office at home, isn't he really saying, "Theoretically, this is a good golf hole."
-
John, interesting thread. I would like to think of myself as an Experimentalist whose Theory is either solidified by what I just played or broadened. I always try to to have an open mind and find myself surprised from time to time. Ones theories on what makes good architecure can only be built upon what one experiences, whether they are good or bad. This is probably a cop out answer because I'm sure it sounds like I riding the fence, but I think this to be the case for me.
-
I would imagine the physicists are all big fans of quark.
...and, obviously, st-range-ness and (lines of) charm. ;)
Always happy to discuss the influences of Hawkwind upon golf course design too.... ;D
F.
-
Quantum Mechanics jokes... how CHARMING of both of you.
Must say, that takes G.U.T.S.
;)
-
I would imagine the physicists are all big fans of quark.
...and, obviously, st-range-ness and (lines of) charm. ;)
Always happy to discuss the influences of Hawkwind upon golf course design too.... ;D
F.
...thats 'curves' of charm, or am I just the eedjit. ;)
-
Cowley-sama,
never sell yourself short. You are way more than 'just' the eedjit. ;) (Ahthenkyoo, 'Mr. X' of Bushwood C.C.)
I knew it would only be a matter of TIME before somebody introduced Sonja Kristina to these uninformed masses... now SHE had serious 'curves of charm' - hubbahubba for the impressionable 14 year old scottish lad.........
F.
-
Kirk - just to clarify, I also don't live in a cave (unless bars and casinos count, but that was a few years ago now). It may have sounded lke I was talking about Platonic ideals, but I meant something a little less lofty.
I've read some jazz theory; what I've decided is that in that art form, Louis Armstrong (and others) played what sounded good, and later academics and theorists 'explained' what he was doing/what was going on: e.g. the typical chord progressions and rhythms/patterns that make jazz jazz. In other words, the great music came first (it existed) and then its essence was described later, and upon reflection. And yet, what sounded good coming out of Armstrong's horn sounded good for a reason, didn't it? What 'pre-existing' theory/principles of harmony and intervals etc was Armstrong tapping into, consciously or not?
I'll leave any parallels to golf course architecture alone. But I honestly don't understand how there can be much resistance to the idea of and the value of 'theorizing' about gca: music, film, playwriting etc all have their theoretical components/underpinnings....and at least in the couple of areas I know fairly well, I know that the modern day greats have all studied very carefully those underpinnings. Why would gca be much different?
Peter
-
P,
So you are basically describing an "I'll build it if you figure it out when it's done" type relationship?
J
-
Mr Joe
no, I think I'm describing the opposite. (By the way, are you a minimalist in your non-writing work as well? :))
I'm suggesting that unless we assume the existence of some fundamental principles, what we're LEFT WITH is the type of relationship you describe, in which it is only the, let's call him 'outside observer', who gives the course its 'essence'.
Do we believe that's the case? Are the great students of the game from Macdonald to Tom Doak who have written about (and tried to identify) the world's great courses doing that SOLELY on the basis of personal/subjective opinion? I think that's maybe become the sophisticated answer around here, and maybe I'm the rube; but for some reason I can't bring myself to believe that.
Rich keeps saying that "it's only a bloody game". He might even be right about that; but the grounds on which we play the game is another matter, and one that's been studied/pondered by wiser men than me.
And (I hope needless to say) I try to keep ALL of this talk, pro and con, in a healthy perspective.
Peter
-
John,
Theoretically, could one design and build a golf course on a mobius strip?
-
"I love Rich's take on this. And his thoughts on two teams of physicists playing softball... man that had me ROLLING!
That was a candidate for post of the year.
But as for the substance, I'm with Rich: it's just a game, John! I really believe the heavier one gets into it, the sillier he looks.
So I am neither Theorist nor Experimentalist, and it also cracks me up that those are capitalized.
I just play the bloody game (not enough) and like to talk about it (way too much). I feel silly nearly every day about this. But I console myself in that at least I don't spend my life worrying about what Max Behr said or did 50 years before I was born."
Tom Huckaby:
I know you and you're a nice fellow but that post is just really pathetic. It's probablly one of the worst ever to hit this board but it probably still beats Rich's which is close.
I don't know whether the both of you just have no ability or no inclination to think more deeply into golf and golf architecture, the thing some call "a game", some have called "a sport" or some have called an an actual microcosim of life itself but I think people like you and Rich should do others on here who feel like calling it and looking at it more deeply or differently than you two do a favor and that is try not telling any of us what you think we should feel about it! Tell us what you feel about it but stop telling us what we shouldn't feel about it!
My own opinion is people like you two say the things you do because you neither have the ability nor the inclination to know how to feel about golf and architecture as others on here do!
-
Pete,
You asked, "Theoretically, could one design and build a golf course on a mobius strip?"
Yes, they could, it just couldn't be called Mobius Hills...
-
John Kirk:
Most interesting thread.
Theorist and Experimentalists?
OK. But your story and analogy is theorists and experimentalists in PHYSICS!
Isn't physics considered to be one of the physical sciences?
If so, how does one apply math and science to human feeling and ever expect to qualify or quantify it?
Don't you think if you try you're beginning to get into the realm of epistemology, and that is most definitely as theoretical as it can get?
And believe me I don't mention that term lightly.
This is precisely what Behr was trying to tell Crane about his mathematical proposal for testing the quality of golf course architecture.
A guy like Goodale can't remotely contemplate things like this. All he can think to say is Behr's writing style wouldn't garner an A from an English teacher---and no more!
And all a guy like Huckaby can say is----it's just a bloody game and please don't ask me to think more than that. ;)
-
Man,
If golf and the study of our playing fields ain't any deeper than "just a game", then what the hell are we all doing here 500,000+ posts and almost a decade later?
Guess I might as well be bowling.
I can't understand how some really bright guys can't see any deeper than if they flushed their last 5-iron or whether they scored 4 or 5 the last time they played the 7th hole at Course X. ::)
-
"I can't understand how some really bright guys can't see any deeper than if they flushed their last 5-iron or whether they scored 4 or 5 the last time they played the 7th hole at Course X. ::)
MikeC:
You know, I think they can see deeper than that. But the test, the deal, is sort of on the flipside----it's when they don't flush their 5 iron and their ball gets f...ed, they are what some call---timid people---they can't take the responsibility for it themselves, and so they just say---"Oh, it's just a GAME----and never more than that! ;)
These are the people who need to get in touch with their real feelings!
The problem is they're probably the ones who are so disappointed in themselves they need to rationalize it.
But as Behr correctly pointed out---this is not in the realm of REASON---it's in the realm of EMOTION----eg feeling!
The question here is---is there a true difference---and if so, what is it?
-
... how does one apply math and science to human feeling and ever expect to qualify or quantify it?
...
When the scientific model uses to mimic human feeling produces a behavior that humans cannot distinguish from true human feeling behavior, then it has qualified.
A couple of fellers from your state of PA got the whole ball rolling on that type of scientific endeavor.
-
"When the scientific model uses to mimic human feeling produces a behavior that humans cannot distinguish from true human feeling behavior, then it has qualified.
A couple of fellers from your state of PA got the whole ball rolling on that type of scientific endeavor."
Maybe they did do, Garland, but in my opinon, it's bullshit!
I asked one of the brightest minds in mathematical analysis the other day what he thought of "string theory" and he said he thought it was a bunch of over-confident young scientific minds trying to to use scientific theory in a way he termed not that much different than "mental mastrubation". ;)
-
...
Maybe they did do, Garland, but in my opinon, it's bullshit!
...
Glad you have such a high opinion of my education, research, and career.
:-[
-
Pete,
You asked, "Theoretically, could one design and build a golf course on a mobius strip?"
Yes, they could, it just couldn't be called Mobius Hills...
I find this quite interesting as a mobius strip is perfectly suited to be a course with returning nines with the clubhouse in the middle.
Try it for yourself after having constructed a mobius strip:
Follow your finger [or for some here just close your eyes and imagine] around the strip until your finger ends up on the other side from where you started...that's the clubhouse!
Now continue your finger along until you come back to where you started on the same side of the strip....welcome back to the club!....and a classic figure 8 routing. [I haven't figured out where to put the practice range though ::)].
Note: I am a little confused if this falls into theory or experimentation...clarification requested.
-
I can't understand how some really bright guys can't see any deeper than if they flushed their last 5-iron or whether they scored 4 or 5 the last time they played the 7th hole at Course X. ::)
Examples?
-
Examples?
Dan,
I'm holding an envelope with the names of the accursed violators of cerebral golf.
Until I deem it an appropriate time to release it publicly, I'd much rather posture pointedly at anonymous shadowy figures lurking in the deepest recesses of GCA.
They know who they are. ;)
MIke
-
"Glad you have such a high opinion of my education, research, and career. :("
Well, don't worry about it Garland. I guess when it comes to golf course architecture you just happened to stumble down the same wrong road Josh Crane did. It's never too late to hang a U turn and at least get back to the intersection where you made the mistake.
-
You guys lost me somewhere around post #15. I'm too dumb for discussions like this. But the good news is I'm not as dumb as Richard Farnsworth Goodale.
-
I was approaching this from a purely physical standpoint. I had not considered the emotional component of the game, and many of us here tend to judge our satisfaction on the quality of the course we are playing. There are those who find happiness by playing well.
I've looked up more words in the dictionary for this thread than any previous thread. Thanks for that.
"Golf shots that begin at point A and finish near point B, where the initial angle the player plays away from point B is significant, tend to give the player great satisfaction." There's a theory based on experimentation that addresses emotional state.
For those naysayers, we here at GolfClubAtlas.com are on the cutting edge of golf architecture research, developing a framework for architects who follow in our wake. Soon will come a day when the average golf course will be a Doak 7, as we lift the game to new heights of enjoyment. Concepts like "It's a Hanse, for crying out loud!" and "It's a Fazio, for crying out loud!" move the art form forward.
I stand by my initial statement that there are theorists and experimentalists here, and our group is blessed with a handful of guys that really enjoy breaking the game down. It was Paul Cowley's post on the basic shapes of golf holes that prompted the initial post. As far as taking this seriously, under muffled laughter I proclaim that golf is a game and if there were no golf I'd find something else to do.
-
Hey, John, what is the possibility that the math used by Newton or Einstein or Hawkings is just flat-ass wrong?
What is the possibility that Euclid was just another street smart bullshitter?
What is the possibility that that Stanford Linear Accelerator your dad worked on is nothing but some big grown up toy?
What is the possibility that one of these days Mother Nature and her universe just does a sharp left turn on us and right into complete randomness? (If that happens I suspect she'll do it just for laughs because we think we're so smart).
If you don't happen to know the answers to any of those questions just go with your gut FEELING.
That'll do.
;)
-
Hey, John, what is the possibility that the math used by Newton or Einstein or Hawkings is just flat-ass wrong?
...
For Newton and Einstein, 100% and they knew it.
They knew where it fell down. That is why Hawkings and others are working on string theory, to solve the know failures of Newton and Einstein. It remains to be seen how wrong Hawkings and his fellows will be.
-
"Glad you have such a high opinion of my education, research, and career. :("
Well, don't worry about it Garland. I guess when it comes to golf course architecture you just happened to stumble down the same wrong road Josh Crane did. It's never too late to hang a U turn and at least get back to the intersection where you made the mistake.
I have not stumbled down the same wrong road that Josh Crane did. Josh Crane's methods were too naieve to have any credibility today. However, new methods are developed that bring us closer. I doubt todays methods will get us there, but their shortcomings will be exposed, and new methods will be created to overcome the shortcomings. It is called advancement.
I have to ask you if you ever imagined when you were young (what is that? some 100 years ago? ;) ) that you would one day carry round a small device in your pocket that you could take out and say "call Gary Player" to it and shortly be talking to Gary Player in South Africa with it. Or was that just more BS to you?
-
This thread will have achieved a great purpose if it has opened the eyes of those who previously poo poo'd the mysterious aspects of the sport.
Now everybody...
Feelings, whoa whoa whoa feelings....
;D
-
Pete,
You asked, "Theoretically, could one design and build a golf course on a mobius strip?"
Yes, they could, it just couldn't be called Mobius Hills...
I find this quite interesting as a mobius strip is perfectly suited to be a course with returning nines with the clubhouse in the middle.
Philip, how do you get to the back side? ;)
-
Pete,
You asked, "Theoretically, could one design and build a golf course on a mobius strip?"
Yes, they could, it just couldn't be called Mobius Hills...
I find this quite interesting as a mobius strip is perfectly suited to be a course with returning nines with the clubhouse in the middle.
Philip, how do you get to the back side? ;)
He must have used a vibrating string.
-
The only way that my game resembles physics is that they both have an Uncertainty Principle.
-
"However, new methods are developed that bring us closer."
Garland:
Yeah, RIGHT. That's also exactly what Joshua Crane said!
;)
-
"I have to ask you if you ever imagined when you were young (what is that? some 100 years ago? ) that you would one day carry round a small device in your pocket that you could take out and say "call Gary Player" to it and shortly be talking to Gary Player in South Africa with it. Or was that just more BS to you?"
Garland:
What exactly does that have to do with the importance of emotions and feelings toward golf courses and golf architecture?
My hunch is---almost precisely nothing!
-
Fun string (theory).
I am a theorist when I am not golfing - with plenty of ideas of how golf should be played on what kind of playing fields.
I am an experimentalist when I am golfing - with lots of explosions and complex math to prove it.
The Mobius Strip . . .
(http://www.abhilash.us/images/mobius_strip.jpg) The Mobius Strip
-
Given the membership of this delightful place, I am surprised we haven't yet mentioned the Klein Bottle.
Now there's a properly one-dimensional object (the bottle, that is... ;))
F.
-
Fun string (theory).
I am a theorist when I am not golfing - with plenty of ideas of how golf should be played on what kind of playing fields.
I am an experimentalist when I am golfing - with lots of explosions and complex math to prove it.
The Mobius Strip . . .
(http://www.abhilash.us/images/mobius_strip.jpg) The Mobius Strip
....ah ...the mobius strip.
When I first encountered it as a younger person I almost thought it magic.
But now I get to design a golf course on it, one with returning nines...here goes:
Look to the right of the strip and find where it is connected...and lets call this the clubhouse.
Now follow one side around until you return to the clubhouse, but you will be on the opposite side of the strip from where you started....that concludes the front nine.
Now continue along the same side of the strip until you once again return to the clubhouse...and notice that you have returned on the same side of the strip that you started from...that concludes the back nine...and my first routing on a mobius strip...something that would have been hard for me to imagine as a youngster ;D
-
...now John, please tell me if this little exercise is either theoretical or experimental?
-
Well, I'd say it's theoretical. There are gravitational constraints. You can't golf upside down.
How did we get here?
TEP,
There is nothing wrong with evalutaing golf from a quantitative standpoint. At the end of the day, an experienced golfer knows how golf balls react, whether they know the math or not. It certainly doesn't hurt to understand it, and in the case of golf equipment manufacturers and governing bodies, it is essential information.
The leading questions you pose seem intended to suggest that I'm foolish to be so sure of myself with regards to the nature of things. I don't even know the shortcomings of Newton's laws. But in the context of discussing the physics of golf, the mathematics typically used to describe thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, momentum, energy transfer, and the like, work very accurately. How am I so sure? Because of a different science, statistics. After the first trillion tries where there are no exceptions, you can say with a great deal of certainty that it is so.
So you've hit a bit of a sore spot, because science is under siege in this country, for political and religious reasons. Many scientists have complained their work is being stifled. I believe this is a big mistake.
The answers to your questions are:
1) No, Newton and Einstein are not flat ass wrong, most of their theories continue to be supported by the data, I have no idea about Hawkings, though I've also heard string world theory may not be relevant
2) No. Euclid was smart and brave
3) No. SLAC was not a toy. They discovered tons of new physics, though it didn't yield any useful applications that I know of, unless you consider the fact they were instrumental in the early days of the Internet.
4) None. The laws of Mother Nature will never change. If they do, I owe you a dollar.
-
You've probably heard of the Chris Comer fiasco in Texas but here is an exerpt . . .
"
The latest on the Comer controversy
"We were actually told in a meeting in September that if creationism is the party line, we have to abide by it," the former director of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency told the Austin American-Statesman (December 6, 2007). Chris Comer, who was forced to resign from her position with the TEA in November 2007, related that over the past year, the TEA began increasingly to scrutinize and constrain the activities of its employees in the curriculum department: "We couldn't go anywhere. We couldn't speak," she said. "They just started wanting everything to be channeled." According to the newspaper, Comer maintained "that her ouster was political and that she felt persecuted for having supported the teaching of evolution in Texas classrooms."
As NCSE reported earlier, Comer was forced to resign after forwarding a brief e-mail announcing a talk on "intelligent design" by Barbara Forrest to several individuals and two e-mail discussion groups used by science educators. A spokesperson for the TEA was quoted by the American-Statesman as saying, "Obviously, there was a concern about the forwarding of that e-mail ... that she was supporting that particular speaker and [how] that could be construed ... as taking a position that could be misinterpreted by some people," and as contending that Comer evinced a lack of professionalism in other ways. Until her resignation, Comer served for nine years at the TEA, following a twenty-seven-year stint as a public school science teacher."
-
If quantum theory is right, all of us here at GCA are both experimentalists and theorists.
Of course, quantum theory has never been reconciled with relativity theory. They contradict each other.
And then there's Goedel, who basically proved it's all hopeless anyway...
-
...
And then there's Goedel, who basically proved it's all hopeless anyway...
Shh, Jim, you weren't supposed to let Tom know about Goedel.
:D
-
1) No, Newton and Einstein are not flat ass wrong, most of their theories continue to be supported by the data, I have no idea about Hawkings, though I've also heard string world theory may not be relevant
This depends on whether you think Tom was asking whether they were universally correct or not. Since he had mentioned the work trying to overcome the lack of universality of their work, I assumed Tom was posing the universality question.
-
...at this point I have very little idea what I'm talking about, Garland. Except that golf can be accurately described by the standard methods.
Good morning.
-
"However, new methods are developed that bring us closer."
Garland:
Yeah, RIGHT. That's also exactly what Joshua Crane said!
;)
You understand that I am not refering to mathematical methods don't you? I know this thread is physics and math, so I am just checking whether you had that misconception since I did not make clear that the new methods were not mathematical.
-
Good morning John,
Pretty heavy frost last night, I doubt I'll get on the greens today.
The mathematical description of what you can observe about golf is accurate with respect to Newtonian physics. It is what is going on at the level of the minutia that you can not directly observe that is not described properly by Newton and Einstein.
-
"I have to ask you if you ever imagined when you were young (what is that? some 100 years ago? ) that you would one day carry round a small device in your pocket that you could take out and say "call Gary Player" to it and shortly be talking to Gary Player in South Africa with it. Or was that just more BS to you?"
Garland:
What exactly does that have to do with the importance of emotions and feelings toward golf courses and golf architecture?
My hunch is---almost precisely nothing!
I'll take that as a that was "just more BS to you." ;D
-
Does anybody have a Sensory Deprivation Tank I can borrow?
(http://www.dvdmg.com/alteredstates.jpg)
BTW (At the turn on Mobius Links, how do I buy a hot dog at the clubhouse? I can smell 'em cookin' up there.)
-
Does anybody have a Sensory Deprivation Tank I can borrow?
(http://www.dvdmg.com/alteredstates.jpg)
BTW (At the turn on Mobius Links, how do I buy a hot dog at the clubhouse? I can smell 'em cookin' up there.)
Since it's just me, you, and Garland who are still following this thread, No.
-
You Mobius Strip fans might enjoy this: "A Day in the Life of an M.C. Escher Drawing."
http://tinyurl.com/yudt7t (http://tinyurl.com/yudt7t)
-
I thought the Mobius strip was a shaving pattern to try to make the old famous whale look sexy.....
Now that I think of it...wasn't Mobius a brother to Biggus?
"He has a wife, you know..."
Perhaps a coincidence, but this fresh post comes to you direct from the Bangkok Airport.......
Joe