Is there a correlation between Golf Rage and GCA

[Melvyn Morrow]

The initial reaction may well be a decisive ‘NO’, but should we automatically jump to that conclusion? Has the Designer achieved one of his goals by an alternative route, yes perhaps not intended but apparently achieved.

The photos are just to assist in recognising potential dangers.
First  Showing the early stages of trying to control the rage by removing cloths

 
The Second photo shows a severe case of all rage turned into power madness, beware this man could be dangerous and start wars on the pretext of WMD (Walking is Mandatory to Driving)
 

If you have the misfortune to have to play against the latter individual then you are recommended to hire the following cart. The armed guard is optional



Again I feel perhaps we should examine the topic a little before jumping to conclusions. First of all what is the meaning of Golf Rage, my definition is poor reaction to a shot. This can be portrayed by just a simple calm reaction through to various degrees of outrage starting from poor language topping out to rather aggressive behaviour (with the potential of injury upon the person or persons unknown).

The trigger for the rage seems to again vary but predominantly the result of a golfer making a poor shot, the frustration is subject to the type of game being played and the trajectory and final resting place of the ball. On average I would say that the responsibility of the shot is the golfers alone. Or can I? Should we not actually give some credit to the designer for forcing that shot, then the undulations or hazards placed to challenge the golfer. Is it really all down to the golfer with no input from the course on defining the final resting place of the bal?.

I am in no way laying blame at the foot or pen of the design for Golf Rage. That rage comes from within the individual, yet which can varies from person to person in intensity. Also let’s not forget that many are able to let the frustration of a poor shot wash off them without any reaction.

The more I look at the problem the more I believe that there is defiantly a correlation between rage for a poor shot (from a competent player) and GCA. There are quite a few examples but I feel what finally confirms it for me are the Greens that have half plus water surround them. That is clearly a design feature or hazard, there to not just test the golfer but to catch him out. There is no alternative if the ball drops into the water, unlike other hazards which allow one to fight on that same day. If a pond/lake is consecutively targeted twice by the golfer it kills that round and the game, not what I believe to be the idea behind hazards, but then that’s just MHO.



So my conclusion is that there is certainly a connection between Golf Rage and GCA. I put it out to general debate among the Member of the Discussion Group, whats your opinion?.

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

On a subject like this one seems to be I would only offer up one of Max Behr's interesting contentions, actually a rather carefully crafted "premise" used in a larger "a priori" reasoning method that ultimately resulted in what Behr referred to as "Permanent Architecture."

That particular "premise" of Behr's was that the golfer (and Behr appeared to really generalize here to include most all golfers) would rather naturally object to that  which tripped him up that he perceived to be artificial looking and man-made (essentially man-made architectural obstacles and hazards) and would consequently wish to change it, resulting in something much less than permanent and enduring architecture.

The flipside of Behr's promotion of what he called Permanent Architecture was that the architect if he manufactured something should do it in a natural enough way where the forces of Nature (basically wind and water) would not easily destroy it.

[Bill_McBride]

I think island greens are probably designed with aggravation firmly in mind.  Hit the green or reload, not my personal idea of a fun day.

One of the most irritating things I have ever seen in golf is the alternate 13th green at La Cumbre Country Club in Santa Barbara, where I played college golf years before this monstrosity was built.

The oriignal, and still most frequently played, 13th hole at La Cumbre is a 230 yard par 3 with a natural redan-esque right to left slope that can be used to avoid the lake on the direct line to the green.

Some time in the 70s or 80s the club built an alternate, island, 13th green that's out in the lake, at 90 degrees from the line to the original green.  Just thinking of this brings a feeling of rage bubbling up in me.      I'm going to lay down for a while......

[Aidan Bradley]

Bill,

Instead of "rage", why not consider it a "challenge". It certainly gets you attention if you would like to finish the round with the same ball!!!

Aidan.

[Gary Slatter]

Melvyn, I like your three island green examples.  
I personally dislike island greens because the vast majority of the golfing public can't play to them.  
Not sure if they insite Golf Rage because this same majority love to laugh and reload and tell all how tough the course was.  Very seldom do I hear people say the course was too easy.  

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

Instead of "rage", why not consider it a "challenge". It certainly gets you attention if you would like to finish the round with the same ball!!!

Aidan.

Sorry Aidan, it's too offensive to me to thing of anything but anger.  "Rage" is too strong but not much.

Hope we get together in August!

[John Moore II]

Melvyn, I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this. Personally, the design of a course does not cause me to get angry. Hitting a generally poor shot does. On an island green, the only way to miss the green is to hit a pretty poor shot left or right, or to get the yardage wrong. If I hit a shot flush and it lands long or short, I don't get too agrivated because I hit a good shot and it just wasn't correct. If I hit a poor shot and it goes in the drink, I will get more irritated, but not because the ball is in the water; because I hit a generally poor shot and that irritates me to start with. Same with other hazards. If I try to pull off a shot over a bunker that might be beyond my range and my ball falls short and in the bunker, oh well, I hit a proper shot. same with fairway bounces and such. If I hit a good shot, thats all I can do. If it rolls into the weeds or whatever, oh well, I did all that is within my ability.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Melvyn,

How do you "feel" about the 15th at Galen Hall, known as the "Moat Hole?" Anything like it in your neck of the woods? Any old castles with moats that are now golf courses?


http://www.galenhallgc.com/about.html

[Aidan Bradley]

Bill,

Assuming I am in town and you have gone to "rage management class" the first Diet Pepsi is on me...

Aidan.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

Assuming I am in town and you have gone to "rage management class" the first Diet Pepsi is on me...

Aidan.

Cold beer thank you.  Will be there August 11-14, I'll check in ahead of time.

[Tim Nugent]

Melvyn - for one to exhibit rage at an inattament object is not the action of a rational man.  But then again, I never assumed all golfers to be retional.  I 2nd John Moore's take on it.  And what in God's name does Dubya have to do with anything?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Rational Man - what on this site, you may be able to count perhaps 5 maybe 10 - the rest are far from Rational

As for "And what in God's name does Dubya have to do with anything?" as I said he is a new supporter of WMD (Walking is Mandatory to Driving).

Is a bad shot made worse or helped by the GCA, I must say I have seen both in my time so I see a correlation, anger/rage the result of a poor shot but also if the landing is made worse by the course design then it takes the share of the rage - but one has to be rational when considering the shot. I have witnessed terrible shots being saved by the incline of a bunker or bank redirecting the ball onto the Green although it tends never to work for me.

Melvyn

[Matthew Petersen]

To be honest, I have seen more golfers react in anger to a bad result that is the result of, say, a severely sloping green, or an unfortunate kick than when they get wet on an island green hole. Most golfers understand the simple do-or-die logic of an island green (and many players seek out courses just for that thrill!).

[David_Tepper]

Island greens (or should I say forced carries over water) are hardly a recent or "modern" GCA-design feature. There was an island green at Baltusrol before 1920. I believe A. W. Tillinghast designed island greens on several of his courses. I know he built one at Old Orchard in New Jersey.

Here is a good article on the subject by Bill Pennington in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/sports/golf/05pennington.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22where%20fear%20laps%20at%20your%20ankles%22&st=cse  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Gary

As for Island Greens they play for a minority of golfers and shout elitism to me. ‘Look I made the Green Guys’ I swear I hear via ESP. If we are in a friendly I feel it unfair for the lesser skilled player and for the group it can become frustrating. It’s a test of skill fine but why do you have to rub the face of a lesser skilled player in the mud (well on this occasion in the water).

I feel it is a cop out on the design front as well, for me its as if the designers has said I’ve run out of ideas so water will do the job, now how much land have I left and can I convert it to a lake, go that’s my work done. Yes I know that not the intention but that what these holes shout at me. I suppose I feel that the game, the course design must have a way out or forward for the player, even if it means retreat prior to going forward again. However the Island Greens do not just kill the hole but can do so for the round and day’s experience at that golf course.

Given an option I would sent in a Gunboat and sink these island greens and have them declared a War Grave for Balls (all types including human). Frustration can be abundant on a golf course yet eliminated by a single sweet shot. Island Greens however can be The Destroyers of a Mans Golfing World – well on that day his skill fails him or someone farts as he takes his shot. Yes these phantom raspberry blowers of Old London Town (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WqRGLICOLU&feature=related) are to be found everywhere.

Melvyn

[Kalen Braley]

I suppose they cause the same amount of "rage" one would encounter getting stuck in these two guys.  At the end of the day they would likely cost me more strokes than a short par 3 island hole.  After all Melyvn, many "torturous" holes are in the eye of the beholder. 

Hell Bunker:



Road Hole Bunker:

[Gary Slatter]

I suppose they cause the same amount of "rage" one would encounter getting stuck in these two guys.  At the end of the day they would likely cost me more strokes than a short par 3 island hole.  After all Melyvn, many "torturous" holes are in the eye of the beholder. 

Hell Bunker:



Road Hole Bunker:

Kalen, the two examples you show can easily be avoided by even the newest of golfers.  Island greens usually cannot. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kalen

The second photo of The Road Bunker shows a guy waiting, Wow that’s a big sand wedge he has, yet I fear he will never get the ball out using it but then at least he will leave it raked after his attempted shot. He must be from your side of the pond, perhaps with some Scottish blood as not keen on spending money on good reliable equipment. Would you say it looks pre Hickory, not him is club?

Melvyn

PS Kalen, I know you are still young but try and keep out of the bunkers, they are not sand pits for kids but real hazards here in Scotland

PPS Gary Island Greens are where Kalen goes for a swim and to replenish his stock of golf balls – its that Scottish blood again

[Tim Nugent]

Sure - island greens can be avoided, simply follow this fomula:  PLAY SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!

You alruistic guys want us to dumb down design so it's FAIR to everyone.  Sounds like a comand and control economy of design.  Last I looked, we were in the free market of design.  If you don't like it or can't play it, you are free to go elsewhere.  But DO NOT take my fun away just because YOU don't like it.  No one is putting a gun to your head and making you play it.

Next, you'll be wanting to bulldoze the Himmalaya's at Prestwick cause you can't get it up (enough to get over) and you lose your balls in the high grass.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tim

The last thing I want designers to do is to slow down or stop thinking – that’s certainly the last thing I would want. I feel that is what has been happening over the last decade with just a hand full of good course being born (no ref to courses states side). I have said on here in the past that I want to see you guys lead, to get free of the developers and build course for the Clubs, i.e. for the golfers.

I want to see free thinking released and not constrained by building programmes or commercial developments but would love to see projects looking like North Berwick or Askernish. Alas that’s just dreaming, but once the property developer is hopefully replaced some day by clubs wanting courses – (I know the old arguments but I still  feel its the only reason to build a course IMHO – not forgetting I’m in the UK) thus getting things back onto the right settings again IMHO.

I am a supporter of designers, yes I might not like or agree with some but then I have been associated with design in other industries so I understand briefs and the restrictions they can impose even on the greatest of (course) designers

As for Island Greens, they in their very nature sort out the golfers, while not allowing any real escape from repeated early baths for the ball. I do not believe that there is one designer who wants to ruin a golfers day. That’s not what you are there for, I believe it is to generate a challenge with options based upon skill, the island green only rewards the skilled (and perhaps the lucky). 

As for your last point I would suggest that is what the modern golfer is asking for, not me. I want challenges, options, times to play safe, times to push my skill (if any left), times to realise I have to seek another route to keep my game going. I don’t want easy, I want challenge with options not brick walls or bloody lakes that may kill my game.

I want more thought on selection of land, the environment of the area and minimum disruption to the land so its stays in touch with the surrounding area, after all a golf course is also meant to relax you whist bring you closer to Nature. And of course we are told that good land is in short supply, but IMHO it should not mean we build courses like the Castle Course St Andrews.

Courses portray all that is good or bad about the modern game, so I want good fun courses that challenge and entertain. I am more than content in this land to have courses like Askernish, North Berwick TOC, TNC, Cruden Bay etc, etc., in fact I am spoilt for choice, a happy man just need to be able to play them again.

Melvyn

[David_Tepper]

"Hazards make golf dramatic; and the thrills that come to one who ventures wisely and succeeds are truly delectable. Without hazards golf would be but a dull sport, with the life and soul gone out of it. No longer would it attract the lusty and the adventurous, but would be left to those who favor some form of insipid perambulation, suited to the effeminate and senile."  ROBERT HUNTER

It appears some among us are less than "lusty and adventurous." 

[Simon Holt]

Not sure if I quite get the drift of this thread but this may appeal to you Melvyn- especially as an OTM course.

I think this highlights design the way it should be IMHO.  Nothing false, everything about the golfer and options for how many holes you want to play.  FUN.  And...a wee cracker of a golf course!

http://www.luffnessgolf.com/page.aspx?id=3

[Melvyn Morrow]

Simon

Thanks for reminding me of Luffness. IMO it is a great golfer club caring for the game. Yes I fully agree with the link although I have never noticed the island green comment.

I believe that a player is responsible for his shot but the final outcome is governed by the contours of the course outside the control of the golfer (certainly after a poor or miss hit shot). The rage is not the poor shot but due to the final lie – so having lost control of the ball the course upon first contact onwards governs the direction of the ball – bad to poor lie potential rage – fair to good lie no rage and much thanking of the Gods.

My point is that the design is working, be it randomly, either to screw up the shot or not. Whatever the golfer had lost control of the ball leaving it to the course to eventually lay down a verdict which is what generates the poor response from the golfer.  It’s a win, win scenario for the course and designer by forcing the golfer to comply to its whims.

So the next time we see the golfer go off in a tantrum, perhaps we should either congratulate the designer or accuse him of complicity in bring down our hero, Whatever but I feel there is a correlation between Rage and Design. Or perhaps the Course has a Spirit of its own

Melvyn       

[TEPaul]

 "– so having lost control of the ball the course upon first contact onwards governs the direction of the ball – bad to poor lie potential rage – fair to good lie no rage and much thanking of the Gods.

My point is that the design is working, be it randomly, either to screw up the shot or not. Whatever the golfer had lost control of the ball leaving it to the course to eventually lay down a verdict......."




I suppose those remarks meaning something but for the life of me I figure out cannot is it what.    

[Adam Clayman]

Identifying character is the most important part of golf and is what design and maintenance provides. So, heck yes there's a correlation.

 Is anyone going to hire a person who blows up at the slightest provocation? Salts their food before they taste it? Cries about their reality rather than dealing with it?

The loss of a sportsman's ethic, through challenge, is evident every time the shriek of "unfair' is cried. From level tees to finding a divot on a perfect drive.  Isn't that why Mackenzie was so disappointed in the accolades given to CPC upon opening? Or, why CBM, loved the controversial feature?

TePaul, As someone who decipher's Behr, I'm surprised you didn't recognize some of his ethos in the statement you highlighted.