[JESII]

I think the makeup of clubs themselves would change...I think some clubs would attract all the good/long players and the others would attract the rest.

In that scenario, the club operators would recognize the fallacy of trying to cater to the better/longer players with length and fast greens...I guarantee that!

[TEPaul]

"I think the makeup of clubs themselves would change...I think some clubs would attract all the good/long players and the others would attract the rest."

I, for one, certainly in theory, would have no problem with that. I think that kind of thing would serve to play into a philosophy of mine I call "The Big World" theory.

The flipside of that is architecture, and perhaps even golf itself, has probably been hurt in some important ways over the years as too many clubs have tried to make their courses be all things to all people.

I don't care how clever one tries to be that is just a very hard thing to do successfully for various reasons I'm sure you can imagine.

[JESII]

Tom,

Back when they used to play from one tee, how did the architects not try to "be all things to all people"?

Was it understood that someone that can barely hit the ocean from the boardwalk is not necessarily supposed to make very many pars? Or hit very many greens in regulation?

 

[TEPaul]

"Was it understood that someone that can barely hit the ocean from the boardwalk is not necessarily supposed to make very many pars? Or hit very many greens in regulation?"

Sully:

Of course, how could anyone expect that it could reasonably be otherwise?

You just mentioned something there which is a symptom and indication of this shift in thinking---you mentioned "greens in regulation"---eg GIRS.

I don't believe such a concept as GIR occured to most of those early architects. GIR for whom?

[JESII]

I did that for you Tom...

Peter Pallotta will appreciate (or not) this...



But more to my point of a couple of posts ago...architects still tried to accommodate the poor player, just differently than they do today, don't you think?

What can architects do today to regain some of that?

[TEPaul]

"I did that for you Tom..."


Sully:

Please let's not speak in riddles on here. Believe me, I don't think I mind discussing anything asked or mentioned but I'm just not sure what it is that you say you did for me.

[Norbert P]

At the risk of GCA apostasy, I tend to think of great architecture in terms of shot-making demands rather than strategy.  

a·pos·ta·sy      [uh-pos-tuh-see] –noun, plural -sies.
a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc.  (I'm not too proud - had to look it up.)

 As a 20 ish handicapper, I theorize shots often but the results are less than golden - perhaps pewterish.  

I believe the greatness of design is not so important for "the shot", but more for the VISUALIZING of "the shot".  

I think strategy is more important than shot-making because, executing the "shot" is less relevent than the idea of how the hole is designed to allow variable "shot" choices.

Now, where'd that spiked hemlock drink go?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Encourage golfers to think about hitting a high shot or running it along the ground and you have a much more interesting game.

Which is why target golf is horsebleep.  There is only one way to go about things.

I realize that this may be one of the better ways of designing a course.  But not every course has to be that way.  There are plenty of courses where run up shots are not possible.  Pine Valley being the most obvious.  Do you really want every course to play the same way?

[JESII]

"I did that for you Tom..."


Sully:

Please let's not speak in riddles on here. Believe me, I don't think I mind discussing anything asked or mentioned but I'm just not sure what it is that you say you did for me.

I included the comment about greens in regulation for you...because I know you see that as a significant difference in the way golfers today view the game as opposed to years ago...and I hoped to guide the conversation in a different direction.

I don't know that I agree with you that GIR is of much importance today with most golfers...my experience is limited however. My non-competitive golf is almost exclusively with a group at HVCC that range from my scratch to somewhere in the mid-teens and hitting greens in regulation is basically never discussed in the bar afterwards...ridiculous scrambling pars and long drives or putts are the conversation topics.

Me:
"I think the makeup of clubs themselves would change...I think some clubs would attract all the good/long players and the others would attract the rest."[/i]


You:
I, for one, certainly in theory, would have no problem with that. I think that kind of thing would serve to play into a philosophy of mine I call "The Big World" theory.[/i]


Care to expand on why you think it would be a good thing (or at least not a bad thing) to have clubs segmented by player ability? I agree that it would be good for architecture, but how does architecture relate to the success or viability of the game of golf?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Thanks for the reply. Maybe you aren't speaking in riddles. Maybe I just think you are because I'm getting older and dumber fast.

"Care to expand on why you think it would be a good thing (or at least not a bad thing) to have clubs segmented by player ability? I agree that it would be good for architecture, but how does architecture relate to the success or viability of the game of golf?"

How does architecture relate to the success or viabilty of the game of golf?

WELL, some seem to think that the degree that golfers enjoy their golf course is the degree of the success of the course and club, and obviously that cuts both ways at most clubs as the dynamic that the good golfers want to make it too hard for the less good players, and the less good players want to make it too easy for the good players seems to constantly exist in most all clubs. I don't know that I'd say that will ever be a good thing for clubs or architecture!

I don't exactly see that kind of thing ever mentioned at say, a Pine Valley.

The idea behind the "Big World" theory is to just make courses that are one thing or the other and not some endless attempt to be all things to all golfers and just see what happens with the eventual gravitational pull of members and golfers.

Furthermore, I think if that kind of thing were to happen the eventual result would be to actually help architecture in the sense I believe it would create something of a "Gresham's Law" in reverse.

If you don't know what I mean by that I'll explain later.

[JESII]

My understanding (limited) of the creation of Pine Valley is an interesting counter to my stated position on how clubs would evolve...that course was envisioned, marketed, built and remains an effort to challenge the very best players with little or no consideration for an average player...I think the "club" aspect was, and is, very important...not the exclusivity, but the camraderie of the club...



"WELL, some seem to think that the degree that golfers enjoy their golf course is the degree of the success of the course and club, and obviously that cuts both ways at most clubs as the dynamic that the good golfers want to make it too hard for the less good players, and the less good players want to make it too easy for the good players seems to constantly exist in most all clubs. I don't know that I'd say that will ever be a good thing for clubs or architecture!"[/i]

So you think those that appreciate the architecture will drive out those that do not? Am I close with the anti-Gresham's law riddle? That was for you too...

Seriously though...is that your position? That Good money (those that truly appreciate the architecture) will drive out Bad Money (those that do not)?

[Peter Nomm]

Just a note - the latest Golf World issue has two articles basically lamenting that shotmaking is declining and most of the Tour golf is just boring straight shots.

http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/columnists/2007/12/gw20071228seitz

http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/columnists/2007/12/gw20071228diaz

In the second article, Geoff Ogilvy states he wishes he could play more shotmaking, but simply aiming down the middle or at the pin works best on Tour.

However, both articles allude to firm conditions, especially at the majors, force more shotmaking.  Interesting read.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()