[TEPaul]

I think I've just realized something of an historical oddity in both design and shot options as it applies to some of the old vs some of the new.

You know how many of us talk about the beauty of multiple options particularly as it pertains to approach shot options such as making available ground game approach options as well as aerial approach options? I believe most of us on here tend to think courses that have holes that offer both are more strategic---at the very least we think they tend to accomodate more levels of players better because they provide them more ways to accomplish the same end.

And most of us probaby think many of the great old Golden Age courses offered more ground game approach options than the newer Modern Age courses. It would make sense to think that because back then the ground functioned for bounce and roll better and most golfers probably couldn't get the ball in the air as well as they can today (certainly a function of both the types of balls and clubs back then compared to today).

Do they? It doesn't seem like it---perhaps very much the opposite---if two great old courses like Merion East and PVGC are good examples.

I was just reading the "minimalist" thread---very interesting, and I was thinking about Hidden Creek and it occured to me that it has only about 2 holes that don't have some ground game approach options while both Merion East and PVGC have about 7-8 each that don't have any ground approach option.

I think in the latter two examples what we have is a dedicated effort on the part of those architects to create in their designs what used to be called "shot testing". In other words the designed holes that required straight one-dimensional demand---eg a fairly well executed aerial shot.

This is pretty interesting and also a little historically odd as most of us appear to think the old designs were very prevalent with the "ground game" option sort. (obviously the aerial option is pretty much available anywhere! ).

In the case of Merion East and PVGC they really weren't while the likes of C&C's Hidden Creek offers it in the vast majority of holes.

It's not all that infrequent to read from some of those architects in the old days the term "shot-testing" or its virtual sister term---"to use every club in the bag". They actually wrote that stuff way back when.

I'm not sure many of us realize how often some of the old Golden Agers who most of us think provided both aerial and ground game approach options on most all holes never did that. Obviously the reason must have been some of them were a whole lot more into designing "shot testing" aerial requirments than we realize.

Certainly the likes of Geo Crump were into designs that required and demanded a bushel of carry distance shots and it seems like Hugh Wilson et al weren't shy about it either.

Just when some of thought we had most of those old guys pegged they go and pull a switcheroo like this on us. Do we have to rethink our beloved "strategic" philosophy?  

Probably just goes to prove that great adage that some of the best architects I know live by;

"To always remember with golf architecture to know what you don't know."

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't think that there was ever a desire to reward a mis-hit shot, which the ground game option accomodates.

Who amongst us feels that these architects wanted to equally reward a well executed shot and a poorly executed shot ?

[RJ_Daley]

Guys, without identifying which specific holes you are now saying only required shot testing, by looking at the total picture of greens  surrounds and all the features encompassed in them, then it is hard to discuss the merits or quality of the shot testing which you say specifically eliminates the ground game.  Also, Tom elludes to the idea that these shot testings took into account playing to specific distances aerially.  What about the ground used to get to that distance? I'm talking not just about the approach to the green that they are saying was guarded by bunkering or features that cut off the groung approach, but the fairway ground game to get to the desired approach shot?  ON many of the great shortish par 4s, isn't it the hallmark of a great design to have options off the tee, and being able to use the fairway ground to run to a desirable second shot area.  Whereas, the green still may be surrounded by features that cut off the second shot that trundles onto the putting surface, yet requires the pitch to still get to the proper part of the green for a particular pin, because the ground was used to get to that postion in the fairway.  

Which specific shot would they be testing without the design opportunity to use the ground, when one considers the wind.  Are they testing the high pitch when the wind blows you close to an approach, and a long boring through or cutting or drawing against the wind shot when it is not with you.  Surely, the short spinning back short iron, or the crisp bending long iron are two different shots being tested by the same hole depending on the wind and other maintenance meld conditions.

[RJ_Daley]

And Pat, why not reward a mishit shot.  It isn't any more quirky than rub of the green, or penalizing a perfectly well hit shot by bounding on a hard green into a pot bunker cut into the green, or some other unfortuante consequence of an otherwise cleanly hit ball.  There you again have that element of luck, don't you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

I have no problem with your premise, on occassion, but, to do so systemically would inherently diminish the shot making requirements.

There has to be a premium, or reward for well executed shots, and if there is none, where is the challenge ?

[RJ_Daley]

There has to be a premium, or reward for well executed shots, and if there is none, where is the challenge ?

I agree, if the challenge isn't there consistently, it can't rise to greatness, obviously.  Yet, if the exceptions to the rules aren't in it in isolated cases, the charm isn't there either.  To my way of thinking, it is a little of this and a lot of that...

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think RJ and Pat are off the basic subject matter a bit by talking about topped shots, etc.  As I said on another thread, someone who tops several shots won't likely win a golf match simply by getting away with that via frontal openings, etc.

While its great that there are tee shot options, there must also be variable consequences to create strategic options.  A hole where you can fade, and I can draw, but it makes no difference is really not strategic, or at least its not strategic AND a good test of golf skill.  A great, or even very good course has BOTH!

Rather than having 18 multi option holes that are relatively equal, and simply a choice to be made by the golfer based on their skill set, I believe that over the course of 18 holes, there ought to be holes where my draw is favored by hole layout to produce better approach conditions and others where the fade produces similar results.  Length vs. Accuracy, Low and High shots, straight shots, high and low spin shots, etc. can also be rewarded, either generally, or from only select spots on the fw to create further strategies.  

I do recall this topic from a while back. I remember that Ron Whitten came to my defense (he hasn't been on here in a while, so that shows how far back it goes....)

And, as TEPaul says, the golden age guys were lamenting the loss of ground game, even back then, and starting to gradually design courses for more aerial games as a result - but leaving the frontal green openings for visual comfort (distance control not as good with the equpipment in those days, I gather) and for average players to survive.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Actually, I was referencing the nefarious "blade"

[A_Clay_Man]

Was the design intent of PV and ME to test the best players of their day? If so, aerial shot testing would've been at a premium. Nowadays, testing the best player would likely include more ground shots, since the implements are'nt really designed for them.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()