Designer/Architect or Architect/Designer.
Who was first, who was the best – why do we keep doing this to the great names of golf? Each in their own right deserves respect. Yes some did shine out brighter than others, but does that diminish the work undertaken by those lesser know course designers. No, IMHO it does not.
We briefly mentioned James Braid in an earlier post, but I believe we must give him the credit for what he actually did for Golf and golf course design. His attitude seems to reflect the old adage "If it's not broke, don't fix it" by studying the course he realised that certain holes and fairways still offered the fun and challenge required, so left well alone. Perhaps he may have moved the Tees back a few yards to accommodate the new ball. Other Designers decided to place their mark on the course, some succeeded but some failed. In failing, they destroyed the quality of the original course and its history.
The ability to strip the soil back to bedrock and relay a Luna or a Chocolate Box landscape does not necessary guarantee a good course. Throwing vast sums of money at a site is acceptable (but thanks to the credit crunch, it may become a thing of the past). I feel that we have forgotten the nature of designing golf courses. It is not all about construction, drainage and remodelling, it is first and foremost about the course and the land it sit on and is surrounded by. Without that balance what chance has the designer got to weave his magic.
Perhaps I differ from most modern golfers in that I do not believe that golf is about distance. It was and should be about the challenge of manoeuvring your ball around the hazards and terrain of the course. The development of basic skills needed to combat the designer’s traps. Why have we Par 3’s if its all about the long air shot, why have blind spots, why deep bunkers if not to test the golfer. I have no problem hitting a side or rear shot to escape a deep bunker but from what I read on here, it appears to be a NO, NO or frowned upon in the States – maybe seen as retreat. However, it’s not a retreat it’s circumnavigating the course, because you fell into one of its traps. The mental game that seemed once so much part of the game but which now appears to have more or less evaporated away in favour of the HE-MAN, the Long hitter or perhaps more appropriate The Hulk.
Wow, you can hit a long ball, big deal, but how’s your basic skills, can you see the traps, the hazards waiting for you on the course or have they also been watered down to give the modern golfer a better score. I hear many saying that certain courses are just too hard, would that be because the others are just too easy and we have become accustomed to the easy life.
I am afraid I do not have the answer, but as I have said before the answer is in the hands of the Designers. After all, it’s your name that is associated with the course. Have we forgotten the fun and challenge that we are meant to face when playing golf or have we as just accepted that golf like life should be made easier?
Some on here have said it’s more important to play 18 holes quickly before they loose the light (after work) than to enjoy a good 9 holes at their own pace. For me that’s like saying the working day stops after the mad hectic round of golf – just does not make sense to me. Just find it hard at times to believe that others don’t feel the same way about the game. Is it really progress?
Melvyn