The Time Between Shot And Result Is The Key

[Matt MacIver]

It is about the only nontrickler that I think would approach 10 seconds.

Try Rocca's bullet through the Valley of Sin!  More supporting evidence than firm+fast=fun.  

[peter_p]

  Congratulations are in order to John with the inclusion of his essay "A Theory of Time" in the latest issue (Jan/Feb) of Links magazine. It starts on Page 107.
 Tom Doak says the "...thesis about what makes a golf course fun is one of the most interesting thoughts I've heard on the subject in recent years."

Also in Links -
Will Sean Arble be conflicted with Doak's article on Pennard? The Confidential Guide is updated for Australia.
 

[Garland Bayley]

I am wondering if John read The Spirit of St. Andrews, and if so, how much did that influence him?

[Larry_Keltto]

I'm very pleased The Kirk Theory is receiving the recognition it deserves.

[John Kirk]

I am wondering if John read The Spirit of St. Andrews, and if so, how much did that influence him?

I have not read The Spirit of St. Andrews, but I guess I should to round out my education.

Thanks to all (including Jerry Kluger from another thread) for your recognition and support.

[ward peyronnin]

I have sometimes described Scotland links course as the home of the 15 second golf shot.

Not putts but when I watched a solidly struck three iron tee shotplayed about 15 ft off the ground to stay under the wind at number one or two at cruden bay roll out over humps and into troughs and from the left side of the fairway to the right i swear it was 15 seconds of anticipation and every bit as good or better than a rope hit at the flag.

I have since played these shots to greens as well ( Glascow Gales this year number 12 or 13 ) and the satisfaction of seeing one of these laid nearly dead to the hole is unrepeatable elsewhere. great call Capt Kirk

[Bill_McBride]

Is Links Magazine worth subscribing to?

I just started a subscription so can't tell you yet, but I think George Peper has a monthly column -- I really enjoyed his recent book about moving to St Andrews -- and the most recent issue has an article by GCAer John Kirk, so I will read it to see writing on golf architecture, some from the "user's" perspective.

I wasn't impressed when it seemed to be mostly designed to flog high end residential golf.  Look forward to seeing what it's like these days.

[Matthew Hunt]

John one of the best posts on GCA.com that I have read yet.

[Aaron Katz]

Great post, John.  I'd never thought about it in quite this way, but I think that you are right.  I've had one hole-in-one: The ball disappeared some ten seconds after landing on the putting surface (the green was rock hard and the shot was downwind; I had to use an extreme slope on the front left of the green to funnel the ball to the middle right hole location).  The result was thrilling to be sure, but the real pleasure was watching that ball travel.

Interestingly enough, John's theory might conflict with an idea proposed in the wonderful book "Why Golf?"  In that book, the author suggests that one reason that golf is addicting is that humans naturally enjoy controlling inanimate objects, and that golf lets human exercise this instinct allowing them to propel a tiny ball with a stick in a very precise manner.  But, once a ball hits the ground and runs, the golfer is very much at the discretion of the rub of the green.

Why then do we love seeing the ball run out?  Is "Why Golf?" only partly right?  Do golfers, in addition to enjoying controlling the ball, also love being at the mercy of the elements and luck?  

Or, is it that the golfer convinces himself that, when the ball bounces and rolls just right, it is as a result of the perfect shot, and not of luck?  Such a golfer will clearly get more thrill from a shot that takes a long time to come to rest after hitting the ground, because a positive result is so much more difficult to achieve in the "firm and fast" conditions.

[Garland Bayley]

I am wondering if John read The Spirit of St. Andrews, and if so, how much did that influence him?

I have not read The Spirit of St. Andrews, but I guess I should to round out my education.

Thanks to all (including Jerry Kluger from another thread) for your recognition and support.

I am currently reading The Spirit of St. Andrews, and before seeing this tread come back up I am thinking this guy (the author) sounds like John Kirk when he talks about width of the playing corridor, and about watching the ball roll out.

[Tom_Doak]

Today I was thinking about the TPC at Sawgrass and being there for the first couple of tournaments played on it.  One thing I was struck by was how there was so much crowd reaction because the ball moved on the greens a lot after the approach had landed ... the plateaus for the hole locations were relatively small, and frequently players would try to play to them by hedging to the side where a slope in the green would feed the ball down to another position.  Anyway, there was a lot more gallery noise because of all the slopes in the greens and because the crowd, being unfamiliar with it all, was excited to see where the ball would wind up.

All of which fits John's theory rather well, in terms of how much a gallery will enjoy tournament golf.  Off the top of my head, the two courses on the US Tour which are the most exciting for galleries are the TPC and Augusta National.

P.S.  I'm glad I could help extend John's theory outside of this small circle of enthusiasts.

[Matthew Hunt]

Toms right.

Also a big reason the PGA tour isn't as exiting as tthe European tour is the ball runs in Europe but in the US "Resort courses" it just sticks.

Sadly all the best players are deflecting to the PGA TOUR as they have the big $$$.

[Charlie Goerges]

Bumpioca for Ben.

Here's one that I enjoyed.

[Roger Wolfe]

Augustine Golf Club in Stafford, VA (top 100 PYCP back in late 90's) had a hole where you would experience this.  #2 was a monster par four with a lake along the entire left side and a high fescue hillside / forest on the right.  If you hit the fairway, the next shot was a long iron or hybrid to the green.  Everyone avoided the lake on the left so most would launch it to the front right side of the green at the toe of a slope.  You would hit the ball and it would vanish over the mounding in front of the green.  Sometimes, after a considerable wait, the ball would suddenly reappear and roll across the green toward the pin.  It was great.  Very good thread!!

[Carl Nichols]

Roger:
Very true -- unfortunately, I often experienced that with my third shot (having had to take a drop b/c of the water), which took some fun out of it.   

Cool thread and theory.

[Garland Bayley]

It just occurred to me how this applies to ponds vs. streams.

I have for a long time said that I much prefer streams to ponds on golf courses, because I can accidentally miss a stream. I.e., I hit at a stream by accident and it manages not to go in the stream.

John's theory explains this better. Often times if you hit a ball at a pond, you know almost instantly your ball is going to a watery grave. However, if you hit your ball at a stream you wait until the ball lands outside the stream, then you wait some more while the ball runs out to see if it takes the slope into the stream, and finally when it comes to rest safely, you feel a sense of elation!

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

John I also love the post. It is the 2nd half of that feeling for me. The first half is imagining the shot and setting it up in my head. Then to watch it unfold is pure joy.

[Sean Leary]

John I also love the post. It is the 2nd half of that feeling for me. The first half is imagining the shot and setting it up in my head. Then to watch it unfold is pure joy.

Especially with the ground balls I have seen you hit...Its on the ground for a long time

 

Hope you are well, Tiger.

[Tom_Doak]

It just occurred to me how this applies to ponds vs. streams.

I have for a long time said that I much prefer streams to ponds on golf courses, because I can accidentally miss a stream. I.e., I hit at a stream by accident and it manages not to go in the stream.

John's theory explains this better. Often times if you hit a ball at a pond, you know almost instantly your ball is going to a watery grave. However, if you hit your ball at a stream you wait until the ball lands outside the stream, then you wait some more while the ball runs out to see if it takes the slope into the stream, and finally when it comes to rest safely, you feel a sense of elation!

Garland:

One of the funniest things I've seen on a golf course was my former intern James Duncan [who now works for Bill Coore] trying to drive across the creek on the sixth at Stonewall.  The water there is actually about two feet wide, but it twists and turns, and James' drive was toward the line of the creek and managed to splash right in the middle of that two-foot-wide water course.    It reminded me of Rocky the Flying Squirrel high diving into a barrel of water.

[Tim Bert]

Kudos to John!  You know you have put forth a thoughtful post when it is re-visited in 5 separate years - we have posts from '05 '06 '07 '09 and now '10. What happened in 2008???

I enjoy re-reading this one every time it pops up.

[Garland Bayley]

It just occurred to me how this applies to ponds vs. streams.

I have for a long time said that I much prefer streams to ponds on golf courses, because I can accidentally miss a stream. I.e., I hit at a stream by accident and it manages not to go in the stream.

John's theory explains this better. Often times if you hit a ball at a pond, you know almost instantly your ball is going to a watery grave. However, if you hit your ball at a stream you wait until the ball lands outside the stream, then you wait some more while the ball runs out to see if it takes the slope into the stream, and finally when it comes to rest safely, you feel a sense of elation!

Garland:

One of the funniest things I've seen on a golf course was my former intern James Duncan [who now works for Bill Coore] trying to drive across the creek on the sixth at Stonewall.  The water there is actually about two feet wide, but it twists and turns, and James' drive was toward the line of the creek and managed to splash right in the middle of that two-foot-wide water course.    It reminded me of Rocky the Flying Squirrel high diving into a barrel of water.

With that accuracy for dunking it, he ought to collect a few holes-in-one in his lifetime.

[Pete_Pittock]

With the 16th at Sagebrush in mind this thread needs to reemerge. Also was thinging of this at the par 3 15th at Royal Colwood when I pulled one left over the green and mused if it reappearing in the OB parking lot changed anything. A well placed bunker stopped it.

[Pete_Pittock]

This thread may have been wrapped through Ran's mind when he penned this Golf Magazine article:

https://golf.com/travel/why-release-golf-ball-ground-beautiful-thing/

[Ira Fishman]

Thanks for reviving a really interesting thread. The premise of the OP brought to mind the joys of the old game of Mousetrap. The posts about blind shots reminded me of Battleship. The ones about courses like CP spoke Stratego.


There is a place for all of them in the pantheon of great venues.


Ira