[TEPaul]

For some time some of us have suspected that the Rules of Golf over the years (from the beginning of Golf Rules actually) have affected golf architecture, its types and styles and looks and playabilities (shot values?) perhaps far more than most of us realize or have ever considered.

I don't have much at this point to put on this thread by way of examples, although I have just come across an apparent Rules concern from Hugh Wilson that may've affected his ideas on how to design and build bunkering, particularly fairway bunkering and apparently on heavier soils which so many American courses would be built on.

What other examples can you think of? How and how much have the Rules of Golf affected golf course architecture itself?

[TEPaul]

The apparent Rules of Golf concern Hugh Wilson articulated with bunkering (arguably mostly fairway bunkering):



“BUNKERS.    The question of bunkers is a big one and the very best school for study we have found is along the seacoast among the dunes. Here one may study the different formations and obtain many ideas for bunkers. We have tried to make them natural and fit them into the landscape. The criticism had been made that we have made them too easy, that the banks are too sloping and that a man may often play a mid-iron shot out of the bunker where he should be forced to use a niblick. This opens a pretty big subject and we know that the tendency is to make bunkers more difficult. In the bunkers abroad on the seaside courses, the majority of them were formed by nature and the slopes are easy; the only exception being where on account of the shifting sand, they have been forced to put in railroad ties or some similar substance to keep the same from blowing. This had made a perfectly straight wall but was not done with the intention of making it difficult to get out but merely to retain the bunker as it exists. If we make the banks of every bunker so steep that the very best player is forced to use a niblick to get out and the only hope he has when he gets in is to be able to get his ball on the fairway again, why should we not make a rule as we have at present with water hazards, when a man may, if he so desires, drop back with the loss of a stroke. I thoroughly believe that for the good of Golf, that we should not make our bunkers so difficult, that there is no choice left in playing out of them and that the best and the worst must use a niblick.” 
 Hugh Wilson, 1916
 

[Mike Cirba]

I'll start with something simple enough.

I think by defining bunkers as "hazards", this has led to a formalization of the boundaries of a bunker that may or may not provide the most interesting and variable functionality or visually-pleasing aesthetics of said feature.

[Phil Benedict]

Just a thought but if balls lost in water hazards were treated like any other lost ball (stroke and distance) would there be fewer water hazards?

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEP,
Tees. As they got pushed farther and farther away, leading to their being seen as "Teeing Grounds", the holes changed along with them. Now you really started to need someone who knew how to lay out a golf course as it was no longer a matter of taking a few steps from the cup to begin the next hole.   

[Will MacEwen]

Just a thought but if balls lost in water hazards were treated like any other lost ball (stroke and distance) would there be fewer water hazards?

Phil,

I was thining about water.  I think one reason why water has become more and more prevalent is that many players don't score by the rules, so they will dunk two into a pond and just say "put me down for a six".  The casual golfer doesn't apprecialte just how penal water is to scoring, so we see more and more courses with "water in play on 16 holes".

[Melvyn Morrow]

I wonder why player don’t score by the rules, but then what is new.

Perhaps had we retained the early ball that floated on water then that hazard may have disappeared by now, but they allowed it to sink in later models.

Love to have seen Tiger up to his knees in a pond trying to extract his floating ball. Expect it would be like getting out of a bunker – as long as there was no wind.  Wonder what the rules would have said about that and would he wait until the ball floated closer to the Green or would he have to take a drop back into the water. Yes I think water hazards would have been greatly minimised if we still had the floating (water not air) ball.  Also would the club have slots instead of groves for the water?   

Just a thought – would have made good TV, just like watching the guys going their mating dance with the electronic distance aids when they reach their ball. Perhaps one day Garland and Anthony will made a YouTube film on the Dance of the Rangefinder.

Melvyn

[Pete_Pittock]

I believe for the most part rules follow architecture, not vice versa. One of the few occurences where this doesn't occur is an architect routing the holes so that OB is predominantly one-sided, and this fits the architect's game.

[BCrosby]

Perhaps the biggest way rules have affected gca is the ball. Starting with the Haskell circa 1901 and continuing today.

Huge impact on gca from the earliest times.

Bob

[JohnV]

Perhaps the biggest way rules have affected gca is the ball. Starting with the Haskell circa 1901 and continuing today.

Huge impact on gca from the earliest times.

Bob

The first rules on the ball were in 1921 when the mimimum size and maximum weight were set by the R&A.  There were calls for standardization before that, especially when the Haskell first came out.  It should also be noted that all rules on the golf ball were to limit its performance in one way or another.  So, the Rules, while not strict enough for many, have served to limit the golf ball and therefore limit the size of golf courses.  Without the rules on golf balls, courses would have to be much larger.

[TEPaul]

"TEP,
Tees. As they got pushed farther and farther away, leading to their being seen as "Teeing Grounds", the holes changed along with them. Now you really started to need someone who knew how to lay out a golf course as it was no longer a matter of taking a few steps from the cup to begin the next hole."


Jim:

That is a very good example of how the Rules of Golf affected architecture. I've known of that particular evolution for years but just wasn't thinking about that particular one when I made this thread.

But why did The Rules of Golf allow for the gradual moving away from the original Rule on teeing off which began about a club-length or two from the cup on the preceeding green? I think the documentation from St Andrews explains it pretty well----eg it was pretty much for maintenance reasons (I'm sure we can all imagine what it must have looked like on the preceeding green to keep teeing off that close to the preceeding cup no matter how rough some of those greens must have been back then).

By the way, with the gradual evolution of this particular Rule on teeing off it looks like separate teeing areas (off preceeding greens) began to come about after around 1875 after the Rule on teeing off kept getting farther and farther (in club-lengths) away from the preceeding cup.  

[TEPaul]

By the way, seeing what Bob Crosby and JVB were talking about with the golf ball, although it may be obvious to some it might not have occured to some when the subject of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf are discussed but technically there are 3-4 categories of R&A/USGA Rules.

1. The actual playing Rules of Golf (and some appendices that impact them such as Local Rules, Conditions of Comp wording etc.
2. I&B Rules of Golf
3. Amateur Status Rules of Golf
4. To some extent handicap Rules of the USGA. I don't believe the R&A has or has ever had any of their own Rules on handicapping because that is an area they have never really gotten into.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEP,
As likely as it is that it was done for maintenance, it seems just as feasible that someone said that 'the next hole' would be better if it started 'over there'.

That's the year (1875) when the first distinction was mentioned in the rules,or so says the historical rules of golf.  

[TEPaul]

"Just a thought but if balls lost in water hazards were treated like any other lost ball (stroke and distance) would there be fewer water hazards?"


PhilB:

That example and question might be one of the best examples there is of the converse----eg architecture driving and affecting changes in the Rules of Golf. There is a pretty interesting section in Richard Tufts "Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" (1960) that deals with the rapidly increasing popularity of water hazards on golf courses in relatively modern times and how they essentially forced the Rules to change somewhat to deal with them. If one thinks about it water hazards have become somewhat of an integral part of courses and architecture for fairly practical reasons, the greatest apparently being irrigation and drainage considerations.

[Dale Jackson]

An observation I would make is that the rules, at their core, have followed architecture.  The original 13 rules outlined in 1744 were in direct response to the conditions and features found on the Old Musselburgh Links, the then home of what became the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers.  Other clubs adopted and adapted those rules for the conditions found on their courses.  And those rules continue to echo in the Rules of Golf today.

To be sure, some of the later developments in technology were driven by the rules governing equipment, as some point out, the changes in the ball especially.  But the opposite is also true, equipment drove changes in rules.  I think the latter is a trend that will grow, the ruling bodies will introduce and modify rules in response to technology.  The change in groove specifications being the first recent example, but indications we will see more changes in the coming years.

Another related question would be how has technology affected architecture.  That is an obvious question that is discussed directly and indirectly on this site all the time but I think it fair to say that architecture has been much more impacted by technology than the rules.

By the way, seeing what Bob Crosby and JVB were talking about with the golf ball, although it may be obvious to some it might not have occured to some when the subject of the R&A/USGA Rules of Golf are discussed but technically there are 3-4 categories of R&A/USGA Rules.

1. The actual playing Rules of Golf (and some appendices that impact them such as Local Rules, Conditions of Comp wording etc.
2. I&B Rules of Golf
3. Amateur Status Rules of Golf
4. To some extent handicap Rules of the USGA. I don't believe the R&A has or has ever had any of their own Rules on handicapping because that is an area they have never really gotten into.

Tom, I understand what you are saying here but I would not put Amateur Status and Handicapping into the same category.  They do not dictate how we play the game but rather how we categorize players, and I see no connection to Amateur Status and Handicapping.

And, at the risk of embarrassing myself, what is "I&B Rules of Golf?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

I'm not sure whether you would call it architecture or maintenance, but I think the letter of the Rules had a profound effect on how water hazards have been presented to golfers.  That very clean edge look for which American courses are famous was considered necessary, because if there was long grass down to the water's edge, you couldn't say for certain if your ball was lost in the water or in the long grass, in which case you couldn't use the Rules for water hazards.

Now that long grass near the water's edge has been mandated in many places for environmental reasons, they've learned to mark the edge of the hazard where the long grass starts, so that you're "in the hazard" whether your ball is in the water OR the long grass.

[TEPaul]

"......what is "I&B Rules of Golf?



It's the Rules dealing with equipment---ie Implements and Balls

[Melvyn Morrow]

The extract below has been taken from Home of Golf TV when Andy interviewed Barry Rhodes on the Rules of the Game

Barry Rhodes (http://www.barryrhodes.com/ ) explains how in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries there were many different rules, as each Club developed had their own versions. This obviously led to difficulties and in 1897, by common agreement of the existing clubs, most of who were in Britain, the Royal & Ancient Golf Club (R&A) were asked to take control of the Rules. The first international set of Rules was then published in 1899.

As Barry states in the video (http://www.homeofgolf.tv/2009/06/16/barry-rhodes-on-the-rules-of-golf-interview-episode-8/), it is important to stress that there aren’t two sets of Rules.

In 1952 the R&A and USGA agreed to co-operate to produce a unified set of Rules for worldwide use and this is the situation today. The two bodies meet regularly and agree on any changes to the Rules, which occur every four years, and any new or changed Decisions on the Rules, which are published every two years.
There’s just one difference between the two and to the majority of us it’s of little relevance. There is no limit to the value of prize that an amateur player may receive for a hole-in-one in the USA or Mexico, which are governed by the USGA, but for the rest of the world the R&A limits the value of prize that a player may receive for a hole-in-one to just £500

Melvyn

[Philippe Binette]

Actually, the biggest change a misperception of the rules : fairway

most courses, it's obvious the architect went: ok, the fairway is going to be here, then we'll put bunkers here to the left and there on the right.

they are not designing an area through the green, they limit themselves first with a 35 yards wide fairway. fairway should be a result, not a predetermined element.

[TEPaul]

I'm bringing this thread back up so some I have been speaking with recently can see and consider Hugh Wilson's paragraph on bunkers contained in REPLY #1.

[Jim Sweeney]

The advent of environmental concerns and the rules regarding playing (or not playing) from them may have helped make course development possible in areas where those concerns exist.

The advent of box grooves in irons, and the decision to approve them, allowed players to spin the ball more, which encouraged course set up people to put holes closer to the edges of greens. It seem logical that subsequent designs had to take this into consideration and create more suitable hole locations within 10-15 feet of gren edges- though I have no proof of that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()