[Jud_T]

Just got the new issue of Golf World.  In a roundtable discussion about the new grooves, Brad Faxon stated the following:

"If you think back to when Pete Dye and Jack Nicklaus started doing golf courses together, golf equipment was all blades, it was balata balls, wound balls, but no cavity backs.  Soon after when Jack started building his greens up in the air and Pete Dye did a lot of the same things, it was a target game.  They were trying to copy some things that they saw in Scotland with an elevated green, but it wasn't the same because the conditions aren't the same.  All of a sudden you had to hit the ball to a point and stop it, so the equipment changed because of the architecture."

Seems like a lot of meat on that bone....thoughts?

[Garland Bayley]

Faxon needs to study a little more. The Brits have been accusing the 'mericans of target golf from the get go.

[Matt_Cohn]

So Hogan and Snead played golf on the ground? And weren't push-up greens around for a long time prior?

[Tom_Doak]

I am not sure about that.  Pete Dye taught me to build greens at ground level, and to excavate in front of them if necessary to set them up appropriately.  Nicklaus learned a lot from Pete, I doubt he told him anything different.

Plus, there are no elevated greens in St. Andrews.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I think playing equipment's probably changed more because of course maintenance (irrigation) than architecture.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Perhaps its just all down to the lost art of playing golf.

Why do some need to make things complicated, is it to enable them to use the excuse that they need GPS, Rangefinders, this or that equipment. It all adds up to a great deal of weight so next thing they need a cart to get them and their equipment around the course. That where we use the word penal today not in the course design but the ability of getting the cart, player and equipment around the course. So what it all adds up to 5 maybe 6 hour for 9 no sorry, have not got quite that slow, well not yet, however still time – think I meant 18 holes. Now strategic comes in to play when the under 6 hour round is achieved.

Back in the clubhouse we hear about the penal load the cart had to carry, but boy was our strategy right by using the cart otherwise we could not have carried the beer, clubs, balls, water, yardage books, Rangefinders, GPS systems, mobile phones, inflatable boats for island Greens  etc, etc.

Then you hear someone ask this bunch of heroes what they thought of this new Tom Doak course they had just played, the reply is more or less in unison and comes back with who the F… is this Doak and what does he do.

Aaaaaahhhhhhhh don’t you just love the way some play the modern game of golf, its become so complicated that there is not time to understand the simplicity and beauty of playing a game of Golf in its natural form.

I am happy with many of our old courses in the UK which have not yet been infected. Probably explains why we have so many visitors each year.

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

Melvyn that is BULL$HIT...I've never used and inflatable raft on holes with island greens!!!  How dare you!!!

In fact, if I hit one in the water...heck, I just take a mulligan and pretend it didn't happen!

Seriously, funny post and pretty much spot on.

FYI...Now that I am walking, I've taken some clubs out of my bag and have to go with the every other iron type of bag.  This is teaching me to hit shots.  Make the 8 go 120 or 140, type of stuff.  I think it is fun!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just got the new issue of Golf World.  In a roundtable discussion about the new grooves, Brad Faxon stated the following:

"If you think back to when Pete Dye and Jack Nicklaus started doing golf courses together, golf equipment was all blades, it was balata balls, wound balls, but no cavity backs.  Soon after when Jack started building his greens up in the air and Pete Dye did a lot of the same things, it was a target game.  They were trying to copy some things that they saw in Scotland with an elevated green, but it wasn't the same because the conditions aren't the same.  All of a sudden you had to hit the ball to a point and stop it, so the equipment changed because of the architecture."

I disagree, vehemently.

If anything, the "classic" or "Golden Age" courses were almost always built with elevated greens.

Neither Nicklaus or Dye would dare take claim to inventing that feature.   

Seems like a lot of meat on that bone....thoughts?

[Michael Dugger]

The crux of his biscuit, if you believe the theory, is turfgrass differences, IMHO.

It is the differences in grasses between U.S. and UK/links that create difficulty scooting a ball up to an elevated green.

So of course ya gotta fly it in...

[A.G._Crockett]

Faxon's "explanation" strikes me as a VERY complicated view of something very simple, if not backasswards.

Equipment has ALWAYS evolved; that didn't start to counter Dye and Nicklaus.  It goes back to the beginnings of the game, and has never stopped.  Advancement in golf technology is like any other; it occurs at an uneven rate.  There are bursts of development, such as what happened when titanium became available or when the ProV1 technology developed, and there are synergies as well.  Additionally, the influx of the baby boomers to the game brought LOTS of money to the equipment market, creating new incentives for manufacturers.  All of that is clear and simple to understand, and basically inarguable.

Where Faxon is really wrong, though, is in his timeline.  When Karsten developed perimeter weighting/cavity back clubs (putter first, then irons on the same principles) I doubt very much that he had ever played a Pete Dye course, and there weren't any Jack Nicklaus courses then.  Karsten was an engineer and inventor who figured out a better way to consistently get a golf ball moving and/or airborne.  The technologies that Karsten pioneered are equally applicable to rolling the ball as to flying the ball; just ask Scotty Cameron or Callaway or any other manufacturer of modern golf clubs.

In fact, I think Faxon has it reversed, if anything.  GCA has reacted to the technology, not the other way around.

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, Good catch on the maintenance aspect v. the architecture.

The other thing that Fax falls on is... How many pros play cavity backs?

[Ron Farris]

Tom D. is right about Pete Dye building greens at ground level, basically.  This was one of the first and basic elements of the Dye method for building green complexes that was instilled upon new shapers.  We even tried to put together a construction mannual to give newbies a guideline to work from when we were in Japan, working with Perry Dye.  Of course we moved so much dirt that it was hard to know where original ground level was.

[jeffwarne]

Faxon's "explanation" strikes me as a VERY complicated view of something very simple, if not backasswards.

Equipment has ALWAYS evolved; that didn't start to counter Dye and Nicklaus.  It goes back to the beginnings of the game, and has never stopped.  Advancement in golf technology is like any other; it occurs at an uneven rate.  There are bursts of development, such as what happened when titanium became available or when the ProV1 technology developed, and there are synergies as well.  Additionally, the influx of the baby boomers to the game brought LOTS of money to the equipment market, creating new incentives for manufacturers.  All of that is clear and simple to understand, and basically inarguable.

Where Faxon is really wrong, though, is in his timeline.  When Karsten developed perimeter weighting/cavity back clubs (putter first, then irons on the same principles) I doubt very much that he had ever played a Pete Dye course, and there weren't any Jack Nicklaus courses then.  Karsten was an engineer and inventor who figured out a better way to consistently get a golf ball moving and/or airborne.  The technologies that Karsten pioneered are equally applicable to rolling the ball as to flying the ball; just ask Scotty Cameron or Callaway or any other manufacturer of modern golf clubs.

In fact, I think Faxon has it reversed, if anything.  GCA has reacted to the technology, not the other way around.

AG,
Exactly-GCA has responded to the technology throughout history.
What equipment was Weiskoph, Nicklaus and Watson using in the 70's to hit it high and stop it at Augusta and elsewhere?
All of a sudden greens were elevated? by Dye and Nicklaus?
If anything, Jack elevated greens because he felt it was a trait that separated better stronger players-if the equipment suddenly allowed everyone to hit it long and high, I'd say Jack would then elevate less greens-which he has.

[John Blain]

I thought Faxon made another great point in that GW story. He said when he first came out on tour the best players were are fairly small physically: Curtis Strange, Tom Kite, Wayne Levi, Hubert Green, Bill Rogers. Now the top players look like they could play in the NFL. Combine that aspect with the new equipment and you have a whole new game.

[Jim_Kennedy]

You think Brad had 90 year old holes like this in mind?





or maybe these beauties:

[John Blain]

Kelly,

I really didn't mean that they could "literally" play in the NFL but the point that Faxon was making (and I agree) is that the best players in the world today are much BIGGER and STRONGER than the best players of the past generation.

Woods, Els, Singh, Stricker, Mickelson, etc. are considerably bigger and stronger than Strange, Kite, Green, Levi and Rogers.

It's not even close.

[Dan Boerger]

Related questions ... if the green is pushed up or if the area in front is dug out, would it not have pretty much the same impact on a 150 yard and in approach? Also, don't just about all professionals want to limit the time their ball spends on the ground other than the putting surface (and hasn't this always been the case for those trying to make a living winning tournaments)?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
Here's an instance where it wouldn't have the same impact. The green is 'raised' but the choice of approach shot is not limited.

[JESII]

Jim,

I haven't played the hole, but how is the choice of shots limited there?


EDIT:  Sorry - missed the key word in your sentence..."NOT"!

[George Pazin]

Brad's generally a pretty thoughtful player, but I think he's a little screwy with his logic in this case.

[Anthony Butler]

There was a video on Shackleford's site where Faxon made the comment. It was refuted by one of the guests, can't remember who.

JPBlain, I can not think of one golfer that looks like he could play in the Arena Football League. If you look at Tiger's Vanity Fair picture even he looks woefully undersized to play in any football league other than maybe high school. The players at the Walker Cup were average size, some small frames, but they still hit the ball far.

Have you shaken Ernie Els Hand? Maybe not an Arena ball type, but he would be a handful charging at you in a Springboks jersey.

[Dan Boerger]

Thanks Jim -- pretty famous hole!

I think a raised green or an excavated one with a closely mown run-up adds a lot of options for most golfers. But the professional, I assume, would always want to attack this by air if he's 75+ yards out. Their ability to hit a burning wedge is one of the reasons they can chase the small white ball for a living.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
Not if it's very firm, or downwind, and especially not on day 3 or 4.     

[Colin Sheehan]

I agree that Brad is off about the specifics of his example, but I think he's alluding to the era when the ball "sat down" more in the fairway, on both links courses and courses with non-irrigated fairways. In the 1960s, when 99.9% of golfers played with forged blade irons, and the ball sat-down on dry, less manicured fairways, it was more difficult to get the ball up. Trajectory was just lower on average, and the courses were usually firmer. So architecture did reflect how the game was played.

I suppose as courses became softer, the ball sat up more, and cavity irons made the aerial game easier...golf design followed suit, in an incremental way.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()