[wsmorrison]

That is a good point about the influence of carts on golf architecture and in conjunction with dozers.  Yet something besides dozers and carts led to the transition to the overuse of aerial demands dictated by modern designs.  Wilson, Crump, Flynn and others were transitioning American golf into one that had ground and aerial options on some holes and aerial demands on others.  Conditioning and design transitioned from this to an almost complete reliance on the aerial game dictates.  This was truly a dark age.  I'm glad there is variety and a balance of testing coming back big time into golf architecture.  I like aerial demands as part of the testing process, but like many innovations, it was taken way too far.

[Forrest Richardson]

Jim K. — I am not sure the comparison of post-beam construction to golf courses is equitable. Golf courses are organic. They change all the time and involve living structures.

The Old Course, as an example, looks much the same on the surface — crinkled and rough...but below the surface is a network of Toro Irrigation infrastructure, electric control wire and even drains. The equipment used to "restore" the bunkers is not what it was in 1800...nor are the turf varieties, etc. It is all quite different. And much of the difference is in an effort to speed up the process and combat Mother Nature.

[Jeff_Brauer]

RE: Ross -

With the new technology he and others basically had two choices - continue to build the same type of greens much, much faster, build greens on tougher sites (perhaps taking them further up a hill than he might have, but cutting it in for vision, or build new designs using the technolgy available to them.

I read his comments at the top of the thread to definitely consider the first two of three options, but have no reason to believe he wouldn't experiment in limited doses with new designs as well.

That is a good point about the influence of carts on golf architecture and in conjunction with dozers.  Yet something besides dozers and carts led to the transition to the overuse of aerial demands dictated by modern designs.  Wilson, Crump, Flynn and others were transitioning American golf into one that had ground and aerial options on some holes and aerial demands on others.  Conditioning and design transitioned from this to an almost complete reliance on the aerial game dictates.  This was truly a dark age.  I'm glad there is variety and a balance of testing coming back big time into golf architecture.  I like aerial demands as part of the testing process, but like many innovations, it was taken way too far.

Wayne,

That is one of those statements that is accepted as fact on this board, that never goes challenged.  But is it true?

In modern design, I still see most green with open fronts that would allow run up access to the green.  Just a guess, but I doubt more than 10% of modern greens from all gca's force an aerial carry by design.  For both you and me, I think that qualifies as the aerial game being a partial test, but not the only test of a golfers game.

For that matter, when I read the Golden Age stuff by gca, they talk about hitting the green on the fly and reduced demands in the same type of language we use!  I also surmise that those who did long for the old days of playing the Scottish way were, as now, in the minority.

Greens were irrigated in some areas by the 1920's even if fairways weren't.  They may have been irrigated by one center sod cup, or perhaps 3-4 quick coupler outlets around the green.  The trend to watering greens to help golfers hold shots was in place by the Golden Age.  The limited technology of greens only watering may have made the  typical country club greens much softer than today, because they had to overwater certain areas to get the driest areas suitably covered.

If anything, today's systems even coverage and better mowing and maintenance practices in the approach areas probably leave a BETTER option for the run in game than our forebearers may have experienced.  However, it still makes little sense to play the run in game.  Why?  Just like flying is safer than Amtrak because the potential to hit something in mid air is nil compared to potentially hitting a truck at every crossing, the aerial game offers only one chance for the ground to deflect the ball off its intended course, rather than many.

Even then, all new ball and club technology was aimed at getting the ball up in the air and further than it previously went!  I believe that many here overly romanticize how golf was played back then.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

You may be right about your theory of 10% of modern holes being aerial attack only.  It doesn't matter if the course is over-watered.  From my perspective, the use of watering (trying to present a course the same way every day rather than allowing nature to rule the roost) is the biggest change in golf courses.  I still see a huge difference between UK and USA courses today.  Granted, I think much of the reason for less watering in the UK is mainly a monetary decision.  

Ciao

Sean

[paul cowley]

.....I would go along with Jeff, but would like to emphasize that the faster and firmer conditions in the earlier times, not necessarily the design of the greens, demanded a less aerial approach, ....but with the expanded use of irrigation and a softer playing surface, the aerial approach became  increasingly a better option....and the club makers responded in kind [as is their wont].  

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

I was going to say what Sean just did but he beat me to it.

You're right that many modern courses provide as many open fronts (for potential ground game run-in shots) as some of the best of the old Golden Age courses did. If one goes through Merion East or PVGC, for instance, it's obvious to see that both those courses have up to seven holes that do not offer a ground game approach option before the green.

But as Sean said, too few courses in the modern era even if they had open fronts architecturally had functional ground game run-in options with the onset of almost total fairway irrigation systems in America following WW2.

And frankly the key to encouraging more ground game approach options for all players in America is to work hard to increase the functionality of the bounce in or run-in shot by drying out approaches so the ball will bounce and run through them while at the same time reducing the reliability of the aerial shot by simply firming up green surfaces much more than has been done in America.

Even if approaches function perfectly for run-in shots you're not likely to get good players, in particular, to use that option if the greens are soft and receptive. When greens are like that good players will use the aerial option all day long. Why wouldn't they?

But if the aerial option becomes less reliable for them (by firming up green surfaces) then and only then will good players start looking around for some compromise option like some kind of bounce or run-in.

And frankly, from a mainteance perspective firming up green surfaces goes hand in hand with firming up approaches too since a lot of irrigation water probably filters off the fronts of greens right into their approaches.

Our super, like a lot of others recently, has taking to maintaining approaches a lot like they maintain greens---particularly in their aeriation process.

But again, the ONLY way to get good players, particularly, to even consider using some kind of bounce in or run in option is to firm up the green surfaces enough to dial down aerial option reliablilty to a particular extent (very light dent). That alone is an absolute MUST if one wants to get the ground game approach option even remotely functioning again!

I also found out an amazing fact the other day from my super. Last year he used only 5 million gallons on the entire golf course. He must think he's competing with HVGC's Scott Anderson or something.  

[wsmorrison]

While I did say that conditioning and architecture led to the overwhelming movement towards an aerial game, I guess the conditioning outweighed the architecture by a substantial amount.    Certainly the firmness of approaches and greens in the earlier days allowed more use of the ground game.  Softer approaches and greens from overwatering clearly dictated that an aerial approach would be the more reliable.  More lofted clubs and square grooves have aided this approach.  I am very glad to see that maintenance practices are returning the ground game options on courses that were designed with it in mind.  

I think architecturally it stands to reason that if most everyone transitioned to golf as an aerial game, conciously or subconciously the architecture likely followed to some extent.  You're right though, Jeff.  I have not conducted a rigorous test of this theory.  Has anyone?

[paul cowley]

Jeff.....I was going to say what Sean just said, but TomP and Wayne beat me to it.......

[Patrick_Mucci]

Last time I heard, Patrick, picking a great site for a great golf course was definitely part of the process of building a great golf course.

The factors, which you overlook are the acquisition cost and the environmental and permiting restrictions.

"It's hard to imagine the "MASKING" of nature's hand on either of those sites."

Maybe it is to you but not to me. I'm pretty sure there're numerous architects who couldn't have or wouldn't have been as minimal on that site as Coore and Crenshaw were."

That's not the issue.

The issue is horse and man versus modern day machinery, and the influence on the ultimate design of the golf course.

Had C&C done NGLA I'm sure they would have moved less dirt then CBM, but, so what.  The ultimate product speaks for itself, not the methodology for creating it.

I'm sure that many architects could produce exceptional golf courses in the Sand Hills irrespective of the mode of construction.

"Who couldn't have created a good golf course at Cypress?"

Perhaps one of your dumbest statements to date.

No, it isn't.
The site is so spectacular that it would be hard to imagine a bad golf course occupying that site.

Who in your mind would be incapable of designing a good golf course on that site. ?


"Now examine the likes of Shadow Creek, hardly an ideal site for golf, yet, without the hand of man it's doubtful that a quality golf course could have been designed and constructed on that site."

That is no doubt true. It would be really hard to near impossible for any golf architect to hide their hand on that site and also make a good golf course. I've never seen Shadow Creek but to my way of thinking trying to be "site natural" is pretty important in golf architecture. The unreal juxtaposition of creating a golf course that looks like Oregon or North Carolina in the middle of a Nevada desert isn't my idea of a good combination in golf course architecture. Is Shadow Creek's style called the "Mirage" style?  

Wynn/Fazio created a very good golf course from nothing, from a flood plain bed.  Whether you think you're in Vermont, Colorado, North Carolina or Nevada makes no difference.
It's the architectural and playability merits of the golf course that count, not your imagination.

"Behr never contemplated the environmental and permiting restrictions that exist today, nor do I believe he ever fathomed the cost of land today."

I'm pretty sure you have no real idea what Max Behr fathomed.

On the environmental and permitting issues, I"m certain that he never fathomed their influence.

"One can't ignore the relationship between great sites and cost."

Is there a point relevent to this thread hidden in there somewhere?  

YES, the one you missed.
Inferior sites can't be left to the natural terrain.
The hand of man must be involved.

Is it easier to design a golf course at Sebonack or at Innescrone ?

How would you compare those sites ?

How would you compare their costs ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Forrest,
Pat wrote: "They would have changed their methodology, not their ideology".  That pretty much sums up what I was trying to get at by comparing post and beam construction with golf course construction.
My simplistic outlook says that a golf ball moves left, right, or straight on a low, medium or high trajectory and it can either be carried or bounced to it's target. I am always in awe of the craftsmen who devise interesting playing fields given the above limitations.  

[TEPaul]

"Who couldn't have created a good golf course at Cypress?"

Perhaps one of your dumbest statements to date.

"No, it isn't.
The site is so spectacular that it would be hard to imagine a bad golf course occupying that site.
Who in your mind would be incapable of designing a good golf course on that site.?"

Patrick:

So, in your mind all that's needed by any architect to make a great golf course is a spectacular site??

Hmmmm, and just a day or two after you made your dumbest statement to date.  


""They would have changed their methodology, not their ideology"."

You're beginning to sound like the Jesse Jackson or the Johnny Cochran of golf architecture analysts.  

[Forrest Richardson]

Jesse Jackson or the Johnny Cochran...now those are great names for holes. "The Jesse Jackson Hole"...a dog-leg left, no right, no left...heck, doesn't matter...it goes whichever way it needs to. On some days it's closed. No comment.

Yes, Jim, I agree.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

If your course uses only 5MGY, then how does it play with the ground game?  You have been a member at your club a long time.  I bet you have seen it dry in summer and seen it wet in spring where the ground game didn't function either.  However, from memory can you recall good players actually using it other than recovery from under trees, around the green, et al on a regular basis?  I have never heard anyone at a real (not cyberspace club like this one) lament the loss of the ground game, including some old timers, who are mostly moaning about not being able to "get it up" in more ways than one!

I can't imagine using any less water in your climate than that, and I know that there is a 17 Million gallon limit.  It sounds like your super waters just enough to keep the plant alive, which is what most do, if they have the tools. I  agree some supers could water less, if they had modern systems with better control.  Some overwater to "save their jobs" (or cover their hineys by making sure they don't lose grass) and others because the members like it soft and green.  But I have the water charts for our Quarry course in MN, in even a cooler climate and while they use more than that, we can trace that they simply replace what is lost to evapotranspiration.  At Colbert Hills, they water only once every fourth day.  

In both cases, I don't see a lot of ground game.  I don't know if its the sand based greens that are still soft to the approach, or what. At CH, its the zoysia, but the Quarry is designed for some kick ins, etc.  It just isn't designed to bump one along the ground for 100 yards, although on most holes you could.

So, my experience is that the modern super keeps it pretty dry and it still doesn't help encourage the ground game.  And while it doesn't matter what I think, it seems that most don't want to keep courses that close to the edge all the time for the small % of golfers who want it that way.

So, is it, and was it the courses or just the culture of how we wanted to play the game?

[Jason Topp]

One data point in this discussion.  I recently read an article from the 20's or 30's that attributed the lack of ground game in the US to the fairways being extremely hard and fast and the greens being very soft and spongy.  The reason everyone played through the air in the US, according to the author, was because the aerial shot was easier to control.

This would suggest that fairway firmness alone will not cause people to adopt the ground game.  You need to have very firm greens as well.

I'll see if I can track down the source but it was either an article on the USGA's site (whch I have not figured out how to copy) or Chris Clouser's book on Maxwell.

[TEPaul]

"This would suggest that fairway firmness alone will not cause people to adopt the ground game.  You need to have very firm greens as well."

Jason:

See my post #30.


"TEPaul,
If your course uses only 5MGY, then how does it play with the ground game?  You have been a member at your club a long time.  I bet you have seen it dry in summer and seen it wet in spring where the ground game didn't function either.  However, from memory can you recall good players actually using it other than recovery from under trees, around the green, et al on a regular basis?"

Jeff:

My club has been dedicatedly trying to firm the golf course up for the last 2-3 years by dialing down irrigation. Before that God knows how many MGY we did but it was many times more than I just reported. So, no, almost noone ever tried the ground game approach in the past because even in dry weather the approaches (most everything "through the green") was too soft for a ground game option to work. Our greens were also a lot softer and more receptive in dry weather than they are now.  

"So, is it, and was it the courses or just the culture of how we wanted to play the game?"

I think the culture is changing on many more courses than five or ten years ago. More people have seen what a really functional ground game is and they like it as an option.

However, as we've said a number of times if a course wants to basically force even very good players, even tour pros, to consider the ground game approach option at all they have to firm up the green surfaces enough to make good players consider the other option. If they don't do that then good players will rely on the aerial approach right to green surfaces all day long.

If the courses you mentioned don't put down much irrigation water and the ground game doesn't even function when it's dry I'd suggest you check the thatch build-up on those courses. Excessive thatch is as big a killer of bounce and rollout as wet fairways and approached are.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

What TEPaul fails to comprehend is the following.

Any golfer who watches TV or reads about golf is aware of the new buzz words, "Launch Angle" and what they mean.
They mean, the game is in the air off the tee, not on the ground.

Anyone who read the statistics on the extinction of the 2 and 3 iron from PGA Tour Pro's bags in favor of hybrid clubs realizes that the game is becoming more aerial each day.

The trend has been and continues to be aerial.
Just ask George Crump and CB MacDonald.

However, firm and fast conditions do offer a defense for the golf course that is invaluable.

So, like a stopped clock, TEPaul is right twice a day.

[Forrest Richardson]

Pat — I called Crump, but he is in India until June 5th or 6th.

[TEPaul]

Is it even conceivable that anyone could be as dense as Patrick Mucci?    

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

What TEPaul fails to comprehend is the following.

Any golfer who watches TV or reads about golf is aware of the new buzz words, "Launch Angle" and what they mean.
They mean, the game is in the air off the tee, not on the ground.

Anyone who read the statistics on the extinction of the 2 and 3 iron from PGA Tour Pro's bags in favor of hybrid clubs realizes that the game is becoming more aerial each day.

The trend has been and continues to be aerial.
Just ask George Crump and CB MacDonald.

However, firm and fast conditions do offer a defense for the golf course that is invaluable.

So, like a stopped clock, TEPaul is right twice a day.

Pat, Cheekiness aside, your quote, "The trend has been and continues to be aerial.  Just ask George Crump and CB MacDonald" sums up my basic point.  While I don't deny that it is ever more aerial, I think some people here seem to think there was some magic cut off date when the ground game went out of being, but before that was prevalant..

However, it was a long slow trend, started perhaps, as your CBMac quote alludes, the minute it got to America, and even possibly the minute golf left the seacoast for inland site.  People were trying to play the aerial game back then.  Look at some quotes from then old timers like Travis or Emmet talking about how the "New Generation" can't play all the old shots.  Doesn't sound too much different from today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is it even conceivable that anyone could be as dense as Patrick Mucci?    

YES,

John Heywood.

It was John Heywood who said:
"Two heads are better then one."

Everyone knows that if you put two heads into one, they're going to be more dense then just one head.

Do you have any other questions that need answering ?[/color]

Jeff Brauer,

It's clear in the design of NGLA and PV that the aerial game was a critical element in golf in the early part of the 20th Century.

So many holes at those two golf courses DEMAND aerial approaches.

And so many holes at those two golf courses PREVENT the ground game.

The romantic notion of returning to a game which CBM, GC and others rejected nearly 100 years ago is not realistic.

But, I do feel that firm and fast conditions provide a defensive element, and an element that offers alternatives should the situation and conditions permit.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()