Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

« **on:** October 15, 2004, 09:03:25 PM »

Does the architecture and design of CBM holes require the golfer to have a minimum, qualifying level of play ?

Do his prototype, replica holes, such as the redan, short, bottle, leven, alps, biarritz, eden, cape, narrows, road, double plateau, long, sahara and channel holes require a certain, minimum level of play in order to successfully navigate them ?

Did Crump, Raynor, Banks and Travis design with a minimum playing standard in mind ?

Do today's architects have to design for a broader spectrum of golfers ?

« **Reply #1 on:** October 16, 2004, 06:37:53 AM »

Patrick,

Looking at your question from the eyes of my 9 year old son, I do think that a courses terrain probably makes the biggest impact on playability. Dylan has a nice swing, but he simply can't get the ball uphill on holes such as 3, 7, 10, 12 and 18 at Yale. On the other side of the Raynor equation, I expect that he will be able to navigate Mountain Lake over New Year's due to the flatter terrain.

By the way, this has always been the argument for softening Yale, that it is too difficult for the average freshman who comes to New Haven and wants to try golf.

Taking the strength issue out of the equation, MacRaynor do seem to maximize the terrain that they are handed, especially in the case of National which does not look hilly, but they do seem to take advantage of every piece of terrain.

Since the Old Guys were mainly designing for "Club Golfers" they were not handcapped for making holes and shots player friendly. The modern architect generally has to factor in 5 sets of tees and bailouts for the casual resort type of golfer. Thus, drama in the form or blind shots and carries over deep bunkers are probably avoided in many instances.

« **Reply #2 on:** October 16, 2004, 10:05:25 AM »

Mike,

Yale's an excellent example of the "minimum standard" of play.

# 9 could be the poster hole.

# 10, 17 and 18 also.

It seems to me that they designed golf courses for a specific clientele, the accomplished golfer, and I believe that is one of the reasons that their courses have withstood the test of time.

The same could be said of Crump and Pine Valley.

Think how obsolete those courses would be today, if they were designed for the beginer or average player of their time.

« **Reply #3 on:** October 16, 2004, 12:13:18 PM »

Pat,
Numbers 1 & 3 would also qualify.
I agree with Mike's statement that the architects you mentioned, along with others, were less constrained by the market they built for.
I also agree with you that their courses were designed for more accomplished golfers but I think players of caliber were the "average" back then, unlike today.

redanman,
I think the evolution works like this: As the number of better players increases the penal nature of most hazards decreases. What does it matter if a bunker is 10' deep or 4' deep to the better player? I suggest little, but the extra 6' means a lot to the average player. What penalty does a cross hazard hold for someone who is never, or rarely, going to be in it? In most cases I'd once again answer very little.

« **Reply #4 on:** October 16, 2004, 05:29:42 PM »

Redanman,

Quote from: redanman on October 16, 2004, 10:59:17 AM

I think that there is a bit of evolution at work here. Many if not most all RBMac courses allow multiple routes and ground approaches,

There are no viable ground approaches on # 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 16, 17 at NGLA.

The alternate routes still require good carries off the tee and an ability to hit superior aerial approaches.

Just look at holes # 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, and to a lessor degree, the other holes.

The aerial game appears to be the game CBM dictated through his architecture.[/color]

so:

What effect has evolution of design and maintenance on these courses affected their difficulty?

What effect has the increased modern green speeds on these courses created this aura of perceived "unplayability"?

I believe that CBM created seperate games, one was the game from tee to green, and in that area, the aerial game was paramount.[/color]

Notably
Yale #9 is a bad and less typical example because of the WATER WATER WATER in play.

He merely substituted sand for water on many other holes, forcing the golfer to use the aerial game.

I don't know of many redans, capes, shorts, alps or biarritz's where one can reliably play a game along the ground.[/color]

« **Reply #5 on:** October 16, 2004, 05:43:52 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on October 15, 2004, 09:03:25 PM

Does the architecture and design of CBM holes require the golfer to have a minimum, qualifying level of play ?

I think the beginner golfer would have a very hard time enjoying a round at many CBM/Raynor/Banks courses. The problem starts first at the tee. Many CBM/Raynor holes require a forced carry of aprox 190 yds off the tee. The beginner is going experience problem toping balls off the tee's into these waste lands. Once in the fairways the beginners problems get worse as they approach the greens. The beginner is going to spray their irons more and are likely to end up in many of the deep bunkers surrounding the greens.

"Do today's architects have to design for a broader spectrum of golfers ?"

It really depends on who the architect is designing the course for. You take a new private course such as Friars Head with a limited membership. My guess would be that the majority of their members are single digit handicaps. Compare that to a new daily fee course that is designed for the general public. I think the type of club has a lot of influence as to what architect can do with the property

« **Reply #6 on:** October 16, 2004, 06:44:34 PM »

Donnie Beck,

I'd agree, I think most olde architects designed for one element, the private club.

Let's remove public courses from the discussion.

Private clubs today, including Friar's Head, can't afford to cater to a single element, the single digit handicap, there's not enough of them to fill the required membership of 300 or so golfers. And, more spouses, kids and seniors are playing at these private courses, thus providing greater diversity when it comes to playing skills.

« **Reply #7 on:** October 20, 2004, 05:07:11 PM »

Quote from: DaveSchmidt on October 20, 2004, 02:28:26 PM

4 and 10? A low slinger that lands well short and hooks in works just fine on either, and you don't have to hit it it very high.

You probably didn't notice it, but there's a huge fronting bunker on # 4 at NGLA. A golfer must hit from an elevated tee, over a ravine with serious knee deep rough, up over that bunker in order to hit just short of the green. That's an aerial shot.

A low slung hook is a highly risky shot, and, who is capable of hitting it with any degree of consistency ?

Hit it straight and you're in deep trouble, over cook it and you're in deep trouble. Even if you hit it well, a low slung hook will probably run off the green.

# 4 is definitely not a hole to be played along the ground.

With respect to # 10,

If your drive is left of center, that's almost an impossible shot.
Right of center presents a better opportunity, but, from what distance, and, if you're with the wind, who doesn't want to land the ball on the green rather then take their chances with topography that may kick the ball into the right side bunkers. A low slung hook would have to be aimed at those bunkers, and if the shot doesn't hook, you're in trouble. If you overcook it, you're in trouble.

A shot along the ground isn't a viable alternative.

P.S. Don't equate hitting an aerial shot 10 yards short of a green, no wind or downwind, with playing along the ground.[/color]

Wouldn't you agree that they're only partially protected against the ground game approach?

No, but, I'd say that they're mostly protected, but not exclusively, against the ground game.[/color]

« **Reply #8 on:** October 20, 2004, 06:46:25 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on October 15, 2004, 09:03:25 PM

Does the architecture and design of CBM holes require the golfer to have a minimum, qualifying level of play ?

Comment: This sounds like you want a "permit program" to keep people off of CBM courses.. or that CBM was unique amongst all GCA's.. tell me this ain't so..

Do his prototype, replica holes, such as the redan, short, bottle, leven, alps, biarritz, eden, cape, narrows, road, double plateau, long, sahara and channel holes require a certain, minimum level of play in order to successfully navigate them ?

Comment: Doesn't this pertain to all GCA's and would you define success as birdie, par or bogey?

Did Crump, Raynor, Banks and Travis design with a minimum playing standard in mind ?

Comment: Weren't most of their courses for "private" use, and thus by default require a minimum "net worth" more than skill level?

Do today's architects have to design for a broader spectrum of golfers ?

Comment: Will the sun come up tomorrow in the east?

« **Reply #9 on:** October 20, 2004, 09:00:47 PM »

Quote from: Steve Lang on October 20, 2004, 06:46:25 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on October 15, 2004, 09:03:25 PM
Does the architecture and design of CBM holes require the golfer to have a minimum, qualifying level of play ?

Comment: This sounds like you want a "permit program" to keep people off of CBM courses.. or that CBM was unique amongst all GCA's.. tell me this ain't so..

It ain't so.
It seems like you don't understand the question[/color]

Do his prototype, replica holes, such as the redan, short, bottle, leven, alps, biarritz, eden, cape, narrows, road, double plateau, long, sahara and channel holes require a certain, minimum level of play in order to successfully navigate them ?

Comment: Doesn't this pertain to all GCA's and would you define success as birdie, par or bogey?

No.
Again, I don't think you understand the question.
As an example, at Hidden Creek, other then the par 3's you can play the ball on the ground a good deal of the time.[/color]

Did Crump, Raynor, Banks and Travis design with a minimum playing standard in mind ?

Comment: Weren't most of their courses for "private" use, and thus by default require a minimum "net worth" more than skill level?

No, Money doesn't buy a game.[/color]

Do today's architects have to design for a broader spectrum of golfers ?

Comment: Will the sun come up tomorrow in the east?
Certification of the sun's rising depends on whether it's cloudy or not and whether the observer arises at the crack of noon, or later.[/color]

Shivas,

Aha, but can you hit that shot when you need to ?

« **Reply #10 on:** October 20, 2004, 10:00:15 PM »

The Country of Charleston (Raynor) is very playable for the average player, but also does a great job of challenging the better player. While the greens have some movement, they do more to make it difficult for the better player to get in birdie range, being soft enough to allow the average player to play. Only the 10th, the 16th and 17th don't really allow for a shot to be run in. A great example of variety and option!

« **Reply #11 on:** October 20, 2004, 11:24:01 PM »

Pat, how helpful would it be if one could go to the NY Times microfilm library and look up some am or pro tournament scores from the earliest years tracable to some of the courses like, NGLA or Yale, etc. Then, look at the original routing or design drawings of the archies. I recently saw a couple of originals from the 20s. They all show two sets of tees at most, and are generally shorter. Even courses that still have two sets of tees, are two sets that were lengthened to a modern game and equipment over the last 75+ years.

So, if your research shows tournaments where the participants hardly ever broke par, and average scores were in high 70s to low 80s, wouldn't you think that the courses were not designed for the best players, because hardly any of them were all that good with the equipment they had compared to our modern expectations.

I think they designed the courses for new people to be challenged, but to learn the game. I think they had the prime motive of creating a course where a game could be honed and they knew the new golfers of the era would have a lengthy and enjoyable period to learn and improve.

How many people even played golf in 1915-20? How many could break 100? I'll bet about 10%... Thus, hardly any were qualified. They were almost all beginners.

« **Reply #12 on:** October 21, 2004, 10:16:40 AM »

RJ Daley,

There seems to be a contradiction in your post.

How can you say that the BEST players, weren't that good ?

I believe that CBM hosted the Walker Cup at NGLA in 1922, and a 72 hole, Professional tournament in October of 1928 to test his creation.

The field included:

Tommy Armour (1927 US Open Winner)
Joe Kirkwood
Bobby Cruickshank
Johhny Farrell (1928 US Open Winner)
Bill Melhorn
Gene Sarazen (1922 US Open Winner)
Walter Hagen (1928 British Open Winner)
Craig Wood
Joe Turnesa
Harry Cooper
Jock Hutchinson
Alick Gerard

Would you consider those fellows ..... not that good ?

Tommy Armour won the tournament with a 10 over par score of 302. Only one sub-par round was shot, a one under par by "Wild" Bill Melhorn.

So, if the likes of these fellows had difficulty getting around the golf course, how would the average or poor golfer fare ?

This would tend to support my theory that CBM and others, such as Crump, designed their golf courses for a certain level of golfer, the superior golfer, and therein lay the challenge for the rest of the golfing world, to aspire to play better in order to cope with and challenge the golf courses designed by
"The Evangelist of Golf".

« **Reply #13 on:** October 21, 2004, 10:31:42 AM »

Actually Pat, I think we are saying the same thing, except I am saying that comparatively, those illustrious and legendary players didn't have the equipment nor the talent of modern players and their scores reflect it. In those early days of the sport, they were the top .05 or < of the playing public at any rate during those times. I don't think that the Evangelist of Golf designed just for them. Being an Evangelist, he wanted "conversions" to the sport. He built courses that the regular guy would come to understand with practice and recognition of various demands for creative shots and strategies. They built courses for a public whose awareness to the sport was growing, and where they could grow into a game of a lifetime. I doubt that any of them wanted to discourage the newly converted hack off of the game and would never tell someone they were not qualified to learn, even on their best designed efforts. JUst my opinion, I could be wrong...

« **Reply #14 on:** October 21, 2004, 10:56:08 AM »

RJ Daley,

I don't think that they cared about the newly converted hack.

I don't think they felt a social responsibility to promote the game to those who had never been exposed to it previously.

While NGLA has alternate, less demanding routes of play, there comes a time, almost at each hole, when a superior shot, a shot only executed by an accomplished golfer can answer the architectural test.

The approach to # 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 immediately come to mind.

« **Reply #15 on:** October 21, 2004, 11:05:47 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on October 21, 2004, 10:56:08 AM

RJ Daley,

I don't think that they cared about the newly converted hack.

I don't think they felt a social responsibility to promote the game to those who had never been exposed to it previously.

Pat, What affect did being publicly ridiculed, in the early ninties, have on CB in the context of the above sentiment?

« **Reply #16 on:** October 21, 2004, 11:20:06 AM »

I wish those holes came to my mind, but I never laid eyes on the place. I'll have to rely on photos and hole diagrams in George's book, "The Evangelist of Golf".

Quote

there comes a time, almost at each hole, when a superior shot, a shot only executed by an accomplished golfer can answer the architectural test.

I imagine even Ted Robinson believes that...

Scotland's gift? What gift? Given by whom to whom? What vehicle did the gift get transfered upon?

« **Reply #17 on:** October 21, 2004, 11:23:03 AM »

Adam Clayman,

I wouldn't know, but, the next time I communicate with him, I'll ask.

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

Jim_Kennedy

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

Donnie Beck

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

Steve Lang

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

Tripp_Davis

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

RJ_Daley

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

RJ_Daley

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

A_Clay_Man

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

RJ_Daley

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Warning, only qualified golfers can play this course.