Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Melvyn Morrow on February 01, 2012, 05:46:12 PM
-
Playing golf requires stamina, the ability to navigate around the course, (if playing traditional golf that means walking), so is the intention of pushing the golfer, forcing him to utilise energy part of the designers tools as one gets from say placing a bunkers, narrow fairways, deep rough etc.
Or is it now so out of date that many modern designers have never considered such actions as hazards? Is that why we see so many 18 Hole days when 36 was the norm. Is there the need for the modern golfer to rest between rounds unlike their predecessors?
Any views either way?
Melvyn
-
This had to be something that used to be considered...I don't know about anymore.
Who was the architect (ODG) who said you don't want 18 to finish as an uphill hole as the golfer will be tired?
-
You can get worn down mentally, too. A lot of hard holes in a row ...
as well as Wind Rain Cold Heat (I am from the American South) singularly or in combination ...
This part of the difficulty of Bandon, conditions take out on you, ... more so if older.
-
Melyvn,
Believe it or not, but based on the golfers I know and have talked to...and I suspect its the same for most on here...
...the vast majority of golfers spend their leisure time and money...neither of which is normally a trivial amount... because they want to do something that is actually fun. While I realize there are some who are masochists, most golfers do not want to be brutalized, humiliated, made to feel like crap, or otherwise down trodden on the golf course. They don't want it to be a painful slog. They don't want sprained wrists from hitting out of knee high lush rough.
They want it to be actually enjoyable, so perhaps they will return and spend more of thier precious time and money on an activity that is fun. Golf is meant to be a fun activity, not a personal marathon of how long you can endure pain.
Say it 10 times Melyvn, and maybe you might get a smile on your face too
(http://www.rainbowplate.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/grinch-smile.jpg)
-
Melvyn, I've seen this aspect used. I'm not sure if it was intentional, but, due to a climb out of a canyon, after the 15th hole, I viewed it as a tool in the Archie's arsenal. The sad part... the course I recall figuring this aspect out, has changed the config and now that climb is much earlier in the round.
-
I wonder if this isn't something that Colt used to practice? I can think of three courses of his that I know reasonably well with steep climbs late in the round (Rickmansworth, long par 3 16 involves a walk down into a valley and then back up to the green on the other side, Brancepeth Castle, 18th tee shot plays across a ravine, with most drives landing on the upslope and Northumberland, 18th fairway plays across a valley with tee shot landing on upslope and 2nd playing steeply uphill). Actually, thinking about this, the same is true to an extent of Swinley Forest.
Kalen,
I hate to come across sounding like MHM but golf is a sport. Yes, it's one most of us play for fun but it is and should be a physical activity. Being a bit knackered at the end of a round is no bad thing and, frankly, if most of us were as fit as our predecessors, it wouldn't be the problem it might be now for some.
-
Melvyn,
An interesting question which is closer to the truth than you can imagine. Yes the designer does consider the potential draining of energy, in the sense he tries to AVOID this in his routing. In a golf course in Switzerland I designed some of the terrain had extreme elevation changes with steep falls.
One of the design considerations was how to make the “journey” for the golfer not too physically demanding or extreme. It was obvious that going up and down the same hill more than once is not the answer – so the routing allowed the golfer to descend fairly quickly, giving some exciting shots from elevated tees. However the return journey from the lowest part of the course has a milder ascent traversing the slopes.
The same reasoning would apply to a routing where the walk from the green to tee is as short as possible, in order to AVOID the potential to drain energy.
-
Bethpage Black after sleeping two hours in a car would be the best example in my humble opinion.
-
Melvyn
I'm not sure about architects consciously using the physical aspect of losing energy as a tool but I'm pretty sure they are up for wearing the golfer out mentally. Carnoustie was the example I thought of when I read your post. Absolutely love the course and not particularly physical compaered to others but in the half dozen times I've played it, I've yet to get to the last 3 holes in any kind of shape to do myself justice. Tough endings are an architects stock in trade I would have thought.
Niall
-
Niall
To breathe we utilise or need energy, same with walking or playing our shots, so I do not want you to confuse my post in any way with penal or strategic which you seem to have done.
Why are sportsmen encouraged to refrain from sex, stop training a few days before or not allowed late nights dancing and drinking before a big game? It’s all about freshness, having a full tank, conserving ones energy for the task in hand. In this case it’s playing golf.
So my question still stands do modern designers first of all actually understand the concept and do they run with it in anyway?
My own opinion is that many are confusing it with penal, yet that all about facing trap rather than a clever design set to drain the golfer’s energy.
Some over the years have looked at energy or how to conserve it in the belief that golf is all about skill which seems to be affected by lack of energy. They seem to believe that the sweat of the brow is unhelpful, yet IMHO is the heart of the game. Well not necessary sweating but having warmed up body to perform more effectively without potential harm coming from a cold body not correctly warmed up.
So in designing courses do modern designers consider this side of design or is it a nearly lost science?
Melvyn
-
So in designing courses do modern designers consider this side of design or is it a nearly lost science?
Melvyn
I don't know how, or even if, it's used by todays architects but perhaps you could tell me how you think it was used in the old days.
-
Jim
I will but not until I see some more comments.
Melvyn
-
I have all the old golf design books. Can someone cite a passage where any gca has considered this factor? It could be, but I simply don't recall it.
-
Playing golf requires stamina, the ability to navigate around the course, (if playing traditional golf that means walking), so is the intention of pushing the golfer, forcing him to utilise energy part of the designers tools as one gets from say placing a bunkers, narrow fairways, deep rough etc.
Or is it now so out of date that many modern designers have never considered such actions as hazards? Is that why we see so many 18 Hole days when 36 was the norm. Is there the need for the modern golfer to rest between rounds unlike their predecessors?
Any views either way?
Melvyn
For me, your question brings to mind the Casey Martin case.
He was the young professional on the PGA tour that because of physical handicaps had a difficult time walking the entire course for an entire round/tournament.
If I recall correctly, Mr. Nicklaus testified in that case in support of the point that walking was an integral part of the game -- that physical as well as mental stamina was purposefully tested.
-
Very interesting bit on the whole thing...10 years later.
To this day, I'm still unsure what my viewpoint is...just like back then.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=6561119
-
Carts are aids they help a player by keeping him fresher than the walker - not an equal or a level playing field - so as an aid it’s should be illegal apart from pleasure round for those who need it for mobility.
If you can't walk, blame a Higher Power for a crap deal; don't try a using aid to get an unfair advantage.
Melvyn
-
I find it hard to believe that anyone who is in even halfway decent physical condition should find walking 4 miles or so on a golf course over a 4 hour period taxing in any meaningful way.
I have seen many golf courses where the clubhouse, the 1st tee and the 18th green are sited on the highest part of the property (such as Riviera and the Olympic Lake). This does often require the last 2 or 3 holes to be played uphill to return to the clubhouse. My guess is that is a result of a choice by the GCA (and the owners of the course) to optimize the views from the clubhouse rather than a conscious choice to make the last few holes of the course more physically taxing for the golfers.
Once again, this notion of golfers taking carts as "cheating" is rather silly. There is golf and there is tournament golf. The rules of tournament golf are set by the committee running the event. The committee either chooses to allow carts or not and each competitor can decide whether walking or riding is a benefit to his game.
If a foursome goes out on a Saturday morning, riding in carts and playing their usual match within their foursome, who is being cheated? No one! In private matches, which is how 99% of all golf is played, the competitors can agree or not that riding is OK. They can also agree whether a mulligan on the 1st tee is OK or whether or not "bumping" the balls in the fairway is OK. Personally, I have never felt I have been cheated by playing against someone riding in a cart while I am walking.
-
I'd bet that when I am playing a reasonable amount of golf I'm two or three shots better when I walk as opposed to riding.
-
One might this something like this if they played Painswick every day. I think the game of golf test all aspects of a person including his stamina. I do not find this to be an active part of the architecture. Please let some of our architects comment if true and to what extent this is in the thought process. My guess is little to none. This is meant to come out over a 72 hole event.
-
David,
I have a recollection that a couple of years ago Lee Westwood was wired up with a GPS tracker for a tournament round, which showed that he walked a total of 13 miles. Not a marathon, by any means but rather more than the 4 you estimated, particularly if that round is in the heat and humidity, say, of the Eastern states in June.
-
Melvyn,
I also don't ever recall reading of an architect using the potential of draining a golfers energy as part of their design philosophy.
I know Colt wasnt a big fan of lots of blind shots, but he was fine with some, so the occasional walkiing up a hill or over a dune was naturally part of this. So if guys like Colt or other designers of that era were making changes to an older existing course that had plenty of blind shots up and over hills and dunes, maybe it was the guys that came before them, who as far as I know didn't write too many books on the subject, that utilised the energy sapping nature of hills and dunes? Afterall, I suspect golfers of the pre golden age era probably considered golf as more of an adventure than a way of taking up their "leisure time" ;)
I like the idea of it in principle as I agree that golf is as much a sport as for the enjoyment. A enjoy a game of 5 aside (occasionally) these days, but I enjoy it a lot more when I'm fitter.
I also think that while I like the idea, I'm more likely to appreciate the challenge of a course that drains my energy, rather than falling in love with it and thinking its fun. But then Painswick and Cavendish are two of my favourites and great fun, but nobody would ever say they were flat courses! ::)
Cheers,
James
-
Niall
To breathe we utilise or need energy, same with walking or playing our shots, so I do not want you to confuse my post in any way with penal or strategic which you seem to have done.
Melvyn
Melvyn
I didn't confuse the two at all. I merely made the distinction between physical and mental. But you shouldn't underestimate the fact that mental fatigue makes us make as many errors as physical fatigue. As Jeff suggests, I doubt that gca's have ever tried to exhaust players by utilising the nature of the terrain in some way other than I suppose by adding length to the holes. Indeed the kind of steep inclines is something I imagine they would look to avoid unless the land dictated that they had to do it.
Niall
-
I'm guessing since ODG archies had great land and little earth-moving equipment they had to route some holes ove hill and dale, thus making for some long and tough walks (and more interesting holes!) but I wonder if even a small part of their reasoning was to physically tire a player out. Mentally, yes; and that does sap some energy.
I've seen pictures of prior generations playing the game in coats and ties, so I don't think the game started out as one that the participant was supposed to get all lathered up, but rather a thinking/strategy/execution game: a gentleman's game.
Off-topic, but growing up and before I played golf I used to think that if you don't sweat it's not a sport. Now that I play, I don't think that anymore....and I sweat a lot when I play! Tiger and hit fitness regime has also re-defined the notion and how fit a pro golfer needs to be. I don't see ANY architect out-witting him physically!
-
Niall
My thread asked a question.
As for mental fatigue I totally agree but usually that is actually more associated with the onset of physical fatigue first, but not necessary on every occasion.
As for the use of energy, I was seeking a more subtle way of milking the golfer’s energy, not necessary by falling back on to mountains, hills & climbing Holes. The usage of the design to force the player to thread his way through a course, which was far more applicable with the limited travel of say the gutty. Today we eliminate many ground hazards by utilising technology in ball and clubs to fly over the course with lengths circa 300yds plus rendering much of the course redundant except for the duffers.
But then perhaps subtle went out with the baby and bathwater when easy became the unspoken word in design.
Energy is a factor that seems to be ignored these days – be it because of the long aerial game or the unwillingness by designers/owners (and even the governing body) to pull this part of the game back to make our courses far more of a challenge (and less expensive). However by introducing the cart we automatically open the doors to saving energy which some believe allows more chance for the development of skill.
Skill in my book comes from a natural talent or more normally from honest repetitive hard work (perhaps aided by a little natural talent). It does not come from robbing part of the game to save energy in the hope of concentrating on developing skill. I thought that at the heart of skill is the commitment to playing the game, not just the bits you like and discarding as irrelevant those that you do not.
Did earlier golfers actually make it their business to force the golfer to navigate a course, you bet they did, one way was the later placement of fairway bunkers months after the course opened to forcing the play to recalculate their shots, the inclusion of walls, turf dykes, mounds etc., none for climbing but a deterrent for the easy straight shot, as in sailing when tacking. Subtle both in mind and body. However the aerial game has put pay to that, alas IMHO not through skill but the ability to hit a long ball which I believe is not down to skill.
I sometimes wonder why we seem to dismiss the intelligence of past generations. Perhaps it may be down to our own generation’s inability to believe that in some ways our predecessors may have known better because they took the time to fully understand what they were doing.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn, will you just get to your eventual point that riding in golf carts is not truly "golf" and should be shunned by any true golfer.
It would save those who don't know your dog and pony show the effort of typing answers to your thinnly veiled shot at golfers who play below your highly held standards.
-
CS
For once in your life actually read my post and learn, in fact remember this article regards energy as it may help you to understand the game you play a little more. Energy or the saving of energy does not mean that skill is the natural benefactor, but yes the cart seems to have been born out of this idea.
Madness really, do you agree or are you just going on about carts again. You many note that other designers have not offered even a thought on this point - does that speak volumes as it’s a question regard design and not a campaign against carts. But yes it is a possible explanation of why carts came about. Or do you already know everything about the game?
I asked a question, asked for comments, answered questions and offered some opinions - is that not the purpose of this site. Oh yes I have asked and raised some interesting questions and some rather deep that do have a connection with GCA. But like a TV there is an ON/OFF button, don't like my posts then do not read them.
Please take my post in the manner they are posted, to raise questions and awareness on the subject of GCA.
Friends???
Melvyn
-
I was born on a Tuesday, but it wasn't last Tuesday. You can't in any way say that the purpose of your post isn't an affront to carts, the golfers that use them, or the designers who include them.
Though I will say, you've come across much less offensively this time around and I wish your crusade well. But please, don't insult the collective intelligence of the group and deny your intent. Your reputation on this topic very much preceeds you.
-
Why humor him. This is a case that cannot be helped nor wants too. I suggest just forget the messenger and look and see if the post is worthy of answering. Anybody with half a brain knows there is a place for carts in golf. It does not have to be nor is for everybody. I prefer to walk myself. Clearly if carts is the theme, then yes some architects do design courses on sites that would not be golf courses without the use of golf carts. These courses will not likely ever hold championships and when they do modifications would be made for the field to transport players like they do now on the various tours of the world.
-
CS & Tiger
Think what you want. The game is in a mess because of closed lazy minds - don't add yours to that list
Melvyn
-
If there's one thing worse than one of MHM's rants about carts it's when the small minded contingent turn a thread about something else into one. I despair of the idiocy that has dragged what had the potential to be an interesting thread into yet another of these petty scraps. And this time Melvyn isn't to blame.
-
If there's one thing worse than one of MHM's rants about carts it's when the small minded contingent turn a thread about something else into one. I despair of the idiocy that has dragged what had the potential to be an interesting thread into yet another of these petty scraps. And this time Melvyn isn't to blame.
Oh BS. Please read post #15 again and try to convince anyone paying attention that wasn't exactly the intent of the thread.
-
If there's one thing worse than one of MHM's rants about carts it's when the small minded contingent turn a thread about something else into one. I despair of the idiocy that has dragged what had the potential to be an interesting thread into yet another of these petty scraps. And this time Melvyn isn't to blame.
Oh BS. Please read post #15 again and try to convince anyone paying attention that wasn't exactly the intent of the thread.
Disengenuous nonsense if you've actually read the thread. Post 15 was a response to post 13, which raised the cart issue. I've followed the thread and you're seeing what you want in it, not what's really there. I have as little time for some of Melvyn's nonsense as anyone but this is not one of his trolling threads and you and Tiger are attempting to turn it into one.
-
If there's one thing worse than one of MHM's rants about carts it's when the small minded contingent turn a thread about something else into one. I despair of the idiocy that has dragged what had the potential to be an interesting thread into yet another of these petty scraps. And this time Melvyn isn't to blame.
Oh BS. Please read post #15 again and try to convince anyone paying attention that wasn't exactly the intent of the thread.
Disengenuous nonsense if you've actually read the thread. Post 15 was a response to post 13, which raised the cart issue. I've followed the thread and you're seeing what you want in it, not what's really there. I have as little time for some of Melvyn's nonsense as anyone but this is not one of his trolling threads and you and Tiger are attempting to turn it into one.
I have no problem agreeing to disagree ;)
-
Melvyn,
One thing I agree with you on is that our forefathers were better men then I....Heck, even some of the women were better men than I, if you count pure toughness! I say that every time I go to Denver and start driving up the foothills and know they hiked, rode horses, or wagons, etc. Living in the American West was certainly not for little sissy men.
That said, it has been a long slog to our current state of convenience culture, with a seemingly new invention every minute making our lives easier. And, if you think about it, all the old time generations continuously worked to make golf easier. But, that has gone on since Day 2 of human life, no? And in golf it has gone on since the second round of golf, too.
There was an uproar when Old Tom took out the heather fw at TOC in favor of turf, as "making it too easy" but most recognized that short turf made golf a bit more like what it "should be" - a blend of mostly skill and some endurance (walking). BTW, wouldn't caddies - with golf from the start - indicate that most felt there was a need to reduce the strain on golfers to best allow them to display their skill?
Most sports naturally calibrate the balance of fine muscle movement/coordination with physical demands over time. Some, like golf, aren't as strenuous as soccer, but require correspondingly more finesse. It's a big world, and no need to make golf something it is not.
Again, think about it - would you as a player be better or worse lining up that big putt to pooped to putt, or as relatively fresh or moderately tired at the end of the day? What about putting or chipping would be better for anyone if done nearly spent? How would the game be better?
I have read of no architect or ruling body that thought golf should be slog. The closest I can recall is the 36 hole final days at the US Open until the 1964 Open damn near killed the eventual champ.
In short, you think the ruling bodies, golfers and competitors across all generations are all wrong. However, it was earlier generations that started the gradual increase in convenience of golf, and yet you make them out to be something else entirely, no?
It is just human nature to try to make ones life easier than it used to be, and golf is no exception. No need to add horse jumps and triathalons to golf, as I don't think it would improve it.
As always, just MHO.
-
Two things come to mind when reading this question, and this thread.
First of all, since many clubs build their clubhouses on the highest ground available on the property, isn't it a common occurrence for the final holes of a course to make their way uphill to the clubhouse?
Second, it is obvious that the golfer with better stamina will have advantage down the stretch as they play these holes.
Maybe this has more of an effect on stroke play than match.
-
Jeff
Thanks, but you have not answered the question. As for slog do you mean challenge, if so then that is what golf is about, but this thread is about energy vs. skill and is it used in today’s CGA?
The ability of the designer to combat the golfer on the course, not with mountains or lakes but simple little obstacles to force the golfer to think his game, to utilise the whole of the Fairway & Green. As I mentioned the aerial game has killed much of that.
Clearly it is not something that modern designers think about but then why should they when they can kill a golfer's game by including an Island Green with all the in-depth thought and planning it takes.
Melvyn
-
Melvyn,
My whole post was about energy, not skill. Granted, I opined that golf is more about skill than engery, and there is no benefit for a gca to include an obstacle course to artifically introduce the latter, more than naturally hilly contours would have to do on some courses.
In reading your response, I am still not sure what you are getting at?
Describe the "simple little obstacles" you envision. I took it to mean dykes that a golfers has to climb over or walk way around in part to tire him/herself out. Just above, it almost sounds like little bumps that you could use for the chip and run.
Not sure how the aerial game would make golf an easier or tougher walk, frankly. You still walk the 4-6 miles either way, no?