Technological Time Travel

[DMoriarty]

One notion I hear often is that if the designers of the classic courses had had modern technology, they most certainly would have used it, moving more dirt and generally creating more 'man-made' courses.

We've debated this before and I dont really want to start at it again, at least not directly.  

My questions are:  
-- If the architects of the classics had access to the technology and resources of today's architects, what specifically would they have done differently?  
-- Would these changes have improved the course?  

For example, on a recent thread, one poster indicated that if MacKenzie had access to modern construction equipment he would have flattened the reverse cant of the eighth fairway by moving soil from the left side to the right side (raising and increasing the angle of the slope between No. 8 and No. 9.)  The same poster suggested that while he wouldnt like the change to be done now, it may have improved the hole if MacKenzie had done it originally.

(My thought was earth moving technology, but I see no reason to limit the question there.  How would they have used any technology which was unavailable during their time.)
______________________


Believe it or not, I am not trying to disparage anyone, I just thought it would interesting to carry out the logic of the above notion.

[George Pazin]

Most of them stated their own desire for variety and not holding steadfast to constraints; therefore I tend to think they wouldn't have looked to eliminate variables that Mother Nature threw in.

Additionally, they may have lacked the tools (I don't know what they had), but there were enough construction marvels (Yale, Lido) that I tend to think they could've moved the earth if they really wanted to.

Look what Pete Dye built at The Ocean Course and Casa de Campo, largely without modern machinery, if I'm not mistaken.

[RJ_Daley]

Darn good question David.  I tend to think that a big factor would be to use the technology (as efficient earth moving capacity) where they wouldn't have dreamed of it in their day.  They might have tackled even tougher sites.  But, the vastly more desirable natural sites available, and the lower restrictions on them regulation wise, were more of a factor than having the tech to hammer out tougher site problems.  I still think that their respect for the collaboration or utilization of naturally favorable sites would dominate their thinking beyond being able to pound out engineering and construction marvels.  I also think that they might have used the technology to do everything more efficiently or economically, just because they seem to me to tend to be more frugal men.  But, I sure might be wrong, especially with a nod towards Raynor and the Lido project.  

[Mike Benham]

Yes David, a good question and one that I was thinking about on my recent tour of Scotland, specifically the blind holes at Prestwick ...

Why build a "Himalaya" hole?  Was it a lack of space that could have avoided the blind shot?   Was a blind shot an "acceptable" design intent back then?  And of course, if they had the equipment, would they have moved some dirt to avoid the blind shot?

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, maybe guys like George Bahto who have a deeper insight into writings of SR and CB and such can say whether they would have avoided the blind shot if they had the tech to knock it down.  But, until proven by their specific writings otherwise, I'm going to hold on to the romantic notion that they would have seen the beauty and uniqueness of the natrual land form and stayed with what was given naturally as somehow superior.  

[Steve Lang]

My questions are:  
-- If the architects of the classics had access to the technology and resources of today's architects, what specifically would they have done differently?  
-- Would these changes have improved the course?  

I wouldn't look as much to what they could have done in any site specific case, but as to what their experience base would have become over time with access to the technology and how their eye to the possibilities of various landforms might have been corrupted.. I suspect their keen eyes would have been relaxed over time.. perhaps like some moderns..

[Lou_Duran]

I do recall that avoidance of blind shots is mentioned by some of the "Golden Age" architects.  Did they purposefully set a tee at an angle to create blindness?  I doubt it, unless other design criteria made it desirable (routing, distance between green and tee, length, lack of budget to move the dirt, etc.).   If someone can cite something in the literature contrary to this, I would like to read more about it.

Today, however, it may be different.  I can see someone like a Keith Foster purposely looking for a hill and stepping back to a possible tee site with the intent of making the drive blind.  Dye, Doak, and others often move quantities of dirt to a side of the hole making the shot to the green blind from the safer side of the fairway.

Regarding MacKenzie and #8 at CPC, I didn't mean to assert that he would have done it.  Given the holes mentioned by David Moriarty, it was one where I (me) thought that the Dr. might have moved part of the dune to take out the negative slope.  The Doctor's own writings on camoflauge seem to suggest that he wasn't afraid to move dirt.  His caveat, as I recall, is the need to make it all look natural.

Doak and Shackelford can speak to this much better than I can, but, unlike Fazio, MacKenzie was seldom if ever blessed with an ample budget.  On the other hand, he did seem to have access to better sites with little intrusion from interveners.  That he considered such major engineering projects as an island back-tee on CPC #18 does suggest to me that he was not shy about enhancing one of Mother Nature's masterpieces.  

[THuckaby2]

I'm intrigued by these notions that blind shots and reverse cambers are 4 letter words.  Work your damn golf ball and learn to know where it's going!  If you can do that, these shots are immensely satisfying.  I just don't get all the furor over them.  I think they're among the most satisfying shots in golf to successfully execute.

Easy for you to say.  Put up that picture again of where you got your drive to on #8 CPC.  

Just messing with ya.  I'm with you on this sentiment.  I wouldn't want EVERY hole to be blind and/or have reverse camber, but absent challenge the reward is less, no?

TH

[THuckaby2]

Yahooooo!  That's the one, my friend.  And my bad, I meant "tee shot".  The only way you could hit driver there is straight at the green.

Damn that shot impresses the hell out of me.. and I don't even care what the result of the 2nd shot was.  

TH

[Jay Carstens]

This time travel idea has me thinking of stepping back in time with my equipment.  Anybody playing hickory shafts?

http://www.hickorygolf.com/frameset.html

[T_MacWood]

Assuming their developmental process as architects did not change, I do not believe modern technology would make a significant difference....perhaps slope in their greens would be lessoned. Cypress Point and ANGC were both constructed with the help of heavy equipment.

[Lou_Duran]

TMac,

When will you give that up.  The heavy machinery used at ANGC, CPC, and even Scarlet cannot be compared with what is available today- not the amount of work, the level of detail, or the economics.  There are numerous references in the literature about architects having to accept whatever shortcomings the land hand because of effort and money (the two are closely intertwined).  The concept and acceptance of connector and lesser holes among the 18 is not "in" today, specially at the top levels.  I just have to believe that creative minds with the means to shape the canvass would have done so.  Could Fazio rationalize an indifferent hole today by stating that he just followed what the land had to offer?

David Scmidt,

Do you like #17 at Olympic-Lake?  Perhaps if I was so studley I too could love defying the laws of gravity.  #8 at CPC is a hole that probably violates a number of the Doctor's principles.  It is far, far easier for a long, talented player such as yourself.  It has blindness that frightens short-knocks like me.  With a firm fairway, it is difficult to find it.  Then you have the steep climb to a difficult green.  And if the wind is blowing from the ocean, forget it.  BTW, aren't lost balls a real issue there?

I keep hearing that golf as a sport is declining in part because it is too difficult.  Reverse doglegs and blindness in over-abundance (more than a couple of times per round), may make it more interesting for a few, but they are vexations for the majority of players.  I like places like North Berwick, but I sure would not like a steady diet of them.      

[Lou_Duran]

Who is talking about the issue of fairness?   Though I suspect that those who can execute the shots are "luckier" more often than those who cannot.  Any reference in olde English is wasted on me- I have enough trouble with the modern language.  As far as crying, I strive to be like Huckaby and not like the whiners I hear on televison nearly every day.  There are plenty of variables in the weather, ground conditions, the swing and the equipment to provide the element of luck that some of us find so charming.  I don't need a side board to knock me into the rough so I can't hit my next shot to within 30 yards of the pin.  Maybe if I had Division I skills, I would feel differently.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  do you think that the himalayas would be a better hole if they simply blew the himalayas into small pebbles to be removed from the property?

I am glad you brought up Prestwick, because I think the "Alps Hole" at Prestwick might answer Shivas' and Lou's questions of whether an architect of that era would go out of their way to make a hole blind.  Well not the actual Preswick hole but its progeny-- the Alps at NGLA.

According to Mr. Bahto, the Alps hole was nearly unanimously voted best par four in the Hutchenson/MacDonald survey of the top golfers.  (The Himalaya hole did well amongst the par threes.)  And I believe that MacDonald set out to copy it, blind shot and all.  So the high hill at NGLA would have to be considered a natural enhancement, not a natural hinderance.  

So at least in this case, it looks like the architect is quite happily embraced the blindness.  Also, didn't Raynor often imitate the concept of this hole by making a blind green even when the topography didnt allow for it?  

Also, isnt the punchbowl usually blind?

Lou,  I dont think the MacKenzie ever advocated that a golf hole should be easier for the worse golfer.  My recollection is that he advocated that the course should allow the duffer to golf his ball without losing it and have a good time, even when his score was sky high.   There may be a thing or two, but I dont see this hole as inconsistent with MacKenzie's writings.  

Shivas.   Perhaps I wouldnt be so interesting to you if you didnt try to filter everything through a politics lense.  

I think you and I and some others are saying something similar.  Golf isnt just about technology.  There is another element . . . I recently called it art and here you call it desire of pleasure.   Depending on how technology is used, pleasure may be dimished by the very act of "improving" it through technology.  

But doesnt anyone have any other examples?  Would MacKenzie have leveled the 15th at Pasa?    

[Lou_Duran]

David S,

You don't need to remind me of my current status in life and the game.  I am more painfully aware of it each day.

Fairness is something I've long learned not to expect, nor to  demand.  Perhaps with maturity one learns to accept the results of his actions and the vicissitudes of life (golf) as gracefully as possible and to make the best of them.  

Modern gca probably goes overboard to minimize the element of chance.  Perhaps the large amount of dirt work is at the expense of detail or what some would call art or craftsmanship.  Maybe if Fazio and Nicklaus would spend more time on their sites, this important element of design might receive more focus.

As to needing side boards because I've seen everything else, you vastly overestimate my experience base.  This is something I am trying to do something about, however, only with limited results.

David M,

I am going to reread "Golf Architecture" here shortly.  I do understand that MacKenzie's principles were really ideals which he strived for, probably knowing that success could only be partial.

CPC #8 has gunch on the right, and often plays against or quartered by the prevailing wind.  Most "long handicap" players have a problem with the slice.  My recollection is that the left side of the fairway and perhaps even the tee is also protected, which may make playing for a big slice a bigger problem.  I suppose that the negative camber would steer the ball back toward play, but not if the wind blows the weak slice further into the vegetation-covered dunes.

MacKenzie also talked about avoiding blindness on the approach shot and not climbing hills.   Not that I would recommend lowering the green site, but a short right shot is nearly blind (though the layup is not), and the left side of the faiway does not give you a good look at the green.  Again, these are not criticisms, though I have to wonder if MacKenzie would not have made some adjustments if he had some modern machines which get a lot of work done for relatively little money.

As to Pasatiempo, #15 is a very nice par 3 which I would not change (though I don't think that the set of 3s at Pasa are world-class by any means).  Perhaps you were referring to #14 and the collection area running perpendicular along the entire width of the fairway some 250 yards from the tee (I was in it in a very poor lie during the KPII).  I don't recall how this hollow integrates into the surrounding; whether it was part of the natural surface drainage or perhaps constructed.  I think that a modern architect, and maybe MacKenzie himself, would have found another way of moving the water, perhaps providing a side of the fairway to avoid it.  As it is, the hole favors the long hitter who can fly or skip a ball through the depression and have a much easier second shot with a wedge to a well protected green.

Tom MacWood claims that MacKenzie used heavy machinery at CPC and ANGC.  The Doctor, ever the Scot, talks about the use iof equipment to save on costly labor.  Does it not make sense that if he had at his disposal the technology of today that he would use it?  Would this not perhaps entail making his courses closer to his "ideals"?

 

[DMoriarty]

CPC #8 has gunch on the right, and often plays against or quartered by the prevailing wind.  Most "long handicap" players have a problem with the slice.  My recollection is that the left side of the fairway and perhaps even the tee is also protected, which may make playing for a big slice a bigger problem.  I suppose that the negative camber would steer the ball back toward play, but not if the wind blows the weak slice further into the vegetation-covered dunes.

Take a quick look at Geoff's CP book.  The left side looks to be playable-- grass and some bare sand, definitely the golfer could keep golfing his tee ball.  There is trouble on the right but there is plenty of room for the duffer to steer well clear of it.  Perhaps you are assuming the duffer is trying to play more aggressively than might be prudent?  

MacKenzie also talked about avoiding blindness on the approach shot and not climbing hills.   Not that I would recommend lowering the green site, but a short right shot is nearly blind (though the layup is not), and the left side of the faiway does not give you a good look at the green.  Again, these are not criticisms, though I have to wonder if MacKenzie would not have made some adjustments if he had some modern machines which get a lot of work done for relatively little money.

I doubt this is the level of "climb" to which MacKenzie refers.  Also, the green is visible from the left and partially visible from the right.  Definitely not totally blind.  Plus as I recall MacKenzie makes special exceptions to his blindness prohibition for seaside courses, where the green can be located in relation to neighboring dunes, etc.  

As to Pasatiempo, #15 is a very nice par 3 which I would not change (though I don't think that the set of 3s at Pasa are world-class by any means).  Perhaps you were referring to #14 and the collection area running perpendicular along the entire width of the fairway some 250 yards from the tee (I was in it in a very poor lie during the KPII).  I don't recall how this hollow integrates into the surrounding; whether it was part of the natural surface drainage or perhaps constructed.  I think that a modern architect, and maybe MacKenzie himself, would have found another way of moving the water, perhaps providing a side of the fairway to avoid it.  As it is, the hole favors the long hitter who can fly or skip a ball through the depression and have a much easier second shot with a wedge to a well protected green.

Darn it I always get the numbers wrong on this part of the back nine.  I was actually referring to 16, with its semi-blind/ deceptive tee shot and its incredibly steep green.  But I had considered mentioning 14 as well.  If the swale on 14 isnt natural then it is a brilliant facsimile.  Given MacKenzies thoughts on fairway undulations and use of slope/ ground flow for strategy, I doubt very much he would have pressed the drainage to the side, where only a bad miss would find it.  Of course the longer hitter would have an advantage, but isnt this true of most MacKenzie holes?  

[Mike Benham]

Mike,  do you think that the himalayas would be a better hole if they simply blew the himalayas into small pebbles to be removed from the property?

David -

I never said I didn't like the hole (of course, when you hit the exact shot your caddie describes for you to 5-feet, you tend to like a hole ...), I was just inquiring if the lack of construction equipment or land space forced its design.

I am glad you brought up Prestwick ...    

Your welcome, I glad I can do something positive every once in awhile ...

I rationalized the greatness of the blindness of Alps more so than Himalaya because the Alps green complex was fantastic and one that needed to be incorporated into the design of the course.

Would MacKenzie have leveled the 15th at Pasa?    

I believe I remember seeing photos of the 15th at Pasa, early after its opening, that showed the 15th not as blind as today.  Yes, the landing zone was blind but the trees down the left side were not there and you could see down the creek line towards the green and low point of the fairway.

Mike

[TEPaul]

DMoriarty:

This is of course that mysterious question, and in fact the dream of some of the "Golden Age" architectural "naturalists" such as Max Behr and those of like mind.

They believed, or some say dreamed, that when technology allowed for easier and more effecient earth moving, as they apparenty believed it shortly would, that then golf architecture would be at a place when architects could take the art to a level where many may never even see where nature ended and man's hand began and vice versa---that in fact with more superior equipment they could perhaps somehow make most all golf courses appear to be the work of nature. Behr did make those four exceptions, though, that he called the necessary elements of golf that never could look completely natural---tees, fairways, greens and sand bunkers (where sand was not indigenously natural). He did say, though, that technology in the future may be able to make those diverse to Nature but necessary elements for golf far more natural looking than they could in their time.

That was their dream and some think they'd be seriously disappointed to see what transpired after most of them were gone during the "Modern Age".

This question of yours, and their dream of the effectiveness of future technology and equipment, does bring up that other subject often discussed on here---that being the subject of minimalism or naturalism in architecture.

Some think "minimalism" in architecture is only moving very little earth to create a golf course. Of course that's true in one sense but in another other sense "minimalism" and "naturalism" to them apparently was a golf course that showed very little of the "hand of man" (the architect) and sometimes that might take a great deal of earth-movement to accomplish. But the trick was to "tie in" to nature's "lines" what they did do (earth moving), even if it was a great deal of earth moving so no one would ever know it was done or what was done.

Naturally "tying in" well architecturally is basically using earth moving to blend or meld the "lines" of man-made architecture with the "lines of nature (the site).