News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Early equipment and blind shots
« on: July 19, 2008, 02:59:32 AM »
I found this quote from Tom Doak in George Pazin's UK weather thread fascinating:

The greens didn't have to be open in front just because of downwind conditions.  You just couldn't spin a featherie or a gutty ball that much -- in fact for most players just getting them airborne consistently was a challenge, I think.  That's why most courses featured just one or two blind shots over a big dune -- because it was damned hard to hit a ball over the Maiden at Sandwich, not because they couldn't see the green.

I had never thought of it this way before - I always thought of blind shots being considered less than ideal entirely due to visual aspects.

My question is: if the early equipment enabled golfers to get to ball airborne as easily as today (or even half as easily as today!), would the routing of golf courses have evolved differently?  Would there be less of a "stigma" associated with blind shots?

Paul_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early equipment and blind shots
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2008, 04:49:27 AM »

Chris: You raise an interesting aspect. Another aspect, perhaps related, is the fact that in times prior to mass-production, the cost of a golf ball was prohibitive --- often more than an artisan’s weekly wage. “Blind” holes led to an increased chance of a lost ball and, in effect, the loss of your weekly wage. In other vein, the introduction of fore-caddies was golden. A caddie’s tip could be directly related to one’s ability not to lose a “precious” ball. When a feathery found a ditch, dyke or burn, for instance, it almost always become quickly waterlogged and semi-useless. Stationing fore-caddies on the crest of a hill become an important institution. Sorry for
meandering off your post, but somewhere in the middle of all this is an extension of your point. I'm sure the elements you raise were inter-related.

Andrew Summerell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Early equipment and blind shots
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2008, 05:19:25 AM »
I wonder if there would have been less desire to find suitable green & tee sites first & more emphasis placed of the distance of holes, thereby changing the routing style. On the card, a course like Elie looks like it would be boring, but in reality it is far from boring. I know I have made this statement on here before, but a course like Elie couldn’t be built today because the public would have difficulty accepting it.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Early equipment and blind shots
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2008, 07:28:49 AM »
Chris
Now this is an interesting statement and perhaps may define why in my opinion golf is going down the wrong path “but a course like Elie couldn’t be built today because the public would have difficulty accepting it”.

The question is why?

Let’s quickly look at the game and in particular how competitions have developed over the last 150 years which may go some way to explain my question..

In fact, if we look back to even earlier times say to the 18th century, competitions were played on the normal courses of the day. This continued up well into the 20th Century when someone decided that Championship Courses were need for our Majors and The Tours. This was IMHO when the game started to show its cracks and segregate the Pros from the average Guy in the Street (sorry course). A mistake in my opinion and resulting in the so called term Championship Course.

The professional game, on the whole moved away from courses us poor mortals played and clubs started pampering to the Professionals and their advisers designing courses for the top few hundred in the world. I would have liked to see the day to day courses which are totally open and available to the public in general used, forcing the Professional to show his skill and ability in being able to conform to the requirement and state of the course and what us poor guy have to accept when we play a round.

I understand that some believe that great skill is required to drive a long ball, but I do not agree. For me the skill and architectural design (with its hazards) kicks in from around 200 yards from the flag. I digress for a second and ask who designs hazards or features (unless for decoration/conformity) within 150-200 yards of the Tee on holes that are 300 yards plus in length?
Back to the point; The long game and the need for longer courses are just a by product of our Professional game which reflects outwards to all these keen golfers who feel or want to match, perhaps even yearn to copy their heroes. But does it reflect fairly on the average golfer who is the pay master for all that goes on in Golf today?

The problem, I believe is that the average guy in the street no longer looks to his own game but tried to imitate the Top & Tour players, which in truth the majority have not a chance in Hell of doing so. Therefore I question the sense in keep producing or tweaking courses for the Pros; I feel they should compete on our courses, the ones available to the ordinary golfer and without all this pampering.

Surely, that is the test of the real Professionals and would IMHO contribute more to our game, improve entertainment and assist in new ideas (not on length but the longevity of the course to remain playable without major maintenance) when designing new courses.  Just a thought!   

As for blind spots - I love them as I play golf for enjoyment, a challenge, test of my poor skills and just for the fun I have remembering it all in the 19th afterwards.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back