Hunter on Course Swapping

« **on:** May 09, 2005, 11:14:29 AM »

Reading The Links over the weekend, I came across a curious statement.

Hunter, writing in 1925, says that most golf clubs in the US, if offered the chance of swapping their course for a PV, NGLA or Myopia, would stick with the course they have.

I think Hunter is probably right. Then and now.

I would like to hear other views before giving mine, but Hunter's comment raises lots of interesting questions.

Are the challenges of great courses something the everyday player doesn't want to deal with? Is it their view that these are fun places to visit but not in my backyard?

Or would playing a great course on a regular basis enrich their view of the game and how it ought to be played?

Which raises the ultimate question: What are great courses good for?

Bob

« **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2005, 11:24:54 AM »

Bob - well part of this is just a reformulation of the age-old question: what makes a course truly great?

We've discussed it several times before. My feeling, shared by at least a few in here, is that the greatest of all courses can BOTH challenge the best in championships AND be playable and fun as an every-day thing for the members. There are very few courses that achieve this - that's why they're the best. A good example is Shinnecock Hills - beast and brutal from the tips and/or when the rough is high and greens brought to maximum speed; very very fun from shorter tees and/or under more benign conditions.

Hunter's examples (again) aren't the best today, also - though I won't harp on that (he's obviously citing NGLA as a brutal championship test in his time, which it was... funny how today it's cited as the poster-course for a "fun" course that the big boys would kill!).

But the question is a good one. Trying to think of a brutal championship test that doesn't seem much "fun"... well... whatever course one cites, someone on here will come on and say it's fun in the right circumstances. So let's leave examples out of it. They don't help Hunter, they won't help us.

I think you also need to be careful with the wording. OBVIOUSLY one would never tire of playing a "great" course... but one might tire of playing a very stern championship test, which I believe is Hunter's point. And very stern championship test does NOT necessarily equal great, does it?

In any case if we formulate Hunter's questions not using the word "great" but substituting that with "very stern championship test" then I agree with his points...

Stern championship tests that are that and that alone would not be the most fun place to play all of one's golf. If one has a fun, playable home, one wouldn't trade places with such. Those would be reserved for the hosting of championships.

TH

« **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2005, 11:28:10 AM »

Hunter is/was smoking crack. As much as I like my home course, I would trade it for PV, NGLA or Myopia in a second.

« **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2005, 11:30:35 AM »

Dan:

Again it's a problem of Hunter's examples. I really think he assumes one's own course is pretty damn good, just not a stern championship test like those were in his time (and might still be today).

Think of it in that context and while he is smoking crack about a lot of things (I think), well... the general question is a good one.

Try this example: if you're a member at Cruden Bay, do you swap for Muirfield? For Carnoustie?

In a US context, make it Cypress v. Oakmont (and I know, PA boys, Oakmont can be fun - it's just a stern example).

TH

« **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2005, 11:38:38 AM »

Bob

My instinct tells me that you and Mr. Hunter are probably correct. I would drop my club in a heartbeat for the chance to join a club with a superior course (assuming I don't have to move and the club is not too far away), but I think I am in the minority. Once a guy is in a club a sense of loyalty is established for the members and the club. I had a chance to move this year, but declined for exactly these reasons. The course is slightly better, with better views and closer to my house. However, loyalty to my present club (and not having to fork out an extra £1400) overrode these other factors.

I am told that the average age for British golf club membership is now 58. I suspect many of these guys want a predictable, sociable game of golf that doesn't take too big a bite out of their fixed incomes. At my club, the vast majority of the older players are no longer competitive. They come down for crack and some exercise.

Many good/great courses are not necessarily too difficult for everyday play. Ideally I would seek a club such as this. A few examples may be N. Berwick, Machrihanish, Burnham & Berrow (though I would not join N. Berwick even if I lived on the course because of overcrowding) and the list goes on. Some of the championship courses would not interest me because of their difficulty, but this is a rarity.

I am not sure what the question "What are great courses good for?" is meant to elicit other than the obvious answer of playing them.

Ciao

Sean

« **Reply #5 on:** May 09, 2005, 11:43:40 AM »

Sean:

I don't think Hunter is asking this in a social context at all. I really think he is asking do you drop your local club for a stern championship test.

So do you drop any of the ones you mention for Muirfield or Carnoustie? That's the question... I think....

TH

« **Reply #6 on:** May 09, 2005, 11:45:32 AM »

Thanks to Pat I am reading "The Links" too ! Probably paid too much for the 1998 reprint, but the forward by Bill Coore explains this rather complicated author - glad to have that!

I say complicated because of his other writings as a world known socialist discussing "Poverty" (1904), "Labor in Politics" (1915), or "Why We Fail as Christians" (1919). This taken from "The Architects of Golf" - Profiles.

So far, however, he's right on to my way of thinking regarding golf architecture.

« **Reply #7 on:** May 09, 2005, 12:06:58 PM »

Tom

How does one separate the mates from the club itself?

I will try to answer anyway. No, I would not drop my local club for any current championship club, especially in Scotland. It is too bloody far away! I would be more than tempted to be a country member (while retaining my local membership) if given the opportunity. However, this would mean dropping Pennard as my country club! The course would have to be extremely good to do this.

Though Tom, you do have me. I would indeed drop Pennard for Sandwich, Birkdale, Burnham & Berrow and probably Hoylake. I can think of no others that could tempt me away unless I moved house!

How about yourself? Would you be willing to move house for a golf club?

Ciao

Sean

« **Reply #8 on:** May 09, 2005, 12:22:35 PM »

Sean:

Well I am not the best example... I am surely not what Hunter meant. I'm not really a member anywhere, although I do belong to a club that calls a local public course its home. Make the finances work and I'd drop that for damn near ANY private club, in a heartbeat. I mean I do like these guys, but I believe I'd make new friends quickly and I'd venture to say every single member of our club would come to the same decision. Fighting for tee-times at a public course is not fun here in the public-course-starved SF Bay Area.

In any case I do believe he's just talking about golf courses and not people. But bring the people into the equation and it is a much better question!

Because then the temptations become easier to resist. That is, if I have a great group of mates at Pennard, it's not gonna be that easy of a decision to drop it all, even for Birkdale or Sandwich or the others. People would matter a LOT. Of course in the end the golf course is what it's most about, but this would complicate the decision-making.

TH

« **Reply #9 on:** May 09, 2005, 12:53:08 PM »

Quote from: Dan_Callahan on May 09, 2005, 11:28:10 AM

Hunter is/was smoking crack. As much as I like my home course, I would trade it for PV, NGLA or Myopia in a second.

Dan:
Don't know your home course but if you swapped it for Myopia you'd probably be playing by yourself.

Yet maybe that's a beautiful thing

Best
Dave

« **Reply #10 on:** May 09, 2005, 12:58:47 PM »

I love my home course, but swapping for PV or Merion would be a no brainer...although the weather up there would not be as good...I would never pass up the chance to play those two courses...and to be a member..what an honour.

« **Reply #11 on:** May 09, 2005, 01:03:45 PM »

I think that Hunter and Bob are right. Most clubs (and the vast majority of their members) would prefer plain vanilla to the tutti frutti of Myopia etc. My own club spends precious funds mowing a hillside in front of our 11th tee so that some of the old dears don't have to hit out of the rough when they foozle their drives. When I was on the Commitee, I offered the alternative of building a shorter tee, the reply was "No! All the ladies want to play from their 'tips'".......

« **Reply #12 on:** May 09, 2005, 01:07:09 PM »

Rich - do you really think that's the question
Hunter was asking?

Remember he asked this in 1925 or whatever...

Myopia was a US Open course then, not the tutti-fruti
it might be considered today....

Which of course supports my contention that the examples in THE LINKS are so antiquated as to take away from the worth of the book....

But rephrase the question as I did in reply one... then whaddya think?

I'm thinking you're of the ilk who WOULD trade a fun, doable course for a championship test... but you often surprise me... so I remain interested in your take, as always.

TH

« **Reply #13 on:** May 09, 2005, 01:13:36 PM »

Tom

By "tutti frutti" I meant something out of the ordinary, what most on this site would call "golden age" architecture. I think that then, and now, simplicity would appeal to most memberships.

« **Reply #14 on:** May 09, 2005, 01:18:00 PM »

Rich:

Gotcha on that.

Again I don't think that's what Hunter was asking. Of course I could be wrong, I am all the time.

But hmmmm... it is a good question... simplicity v. tutti-frutti....

And yep, I'd concur with Bob, and Hunter, and now you. Most would prefer a plain vanilla simple place to hang out with friends and smash the ball around to a tutti-frutti tricked up test. Of course I just described what a great course is, more or less, at least in the minds of this majority of golfers.

So Bob does ask a great question - what are the great courses good for?

To which I'd answer: they are wonderful places to play for those into more than just smashing the ball around. But this was, and is, a minority.

TH

« **Reply #15 on:** May 09, 2005, 02:55:37 PM »

At first I thought the Hunter hypothetical was wacky. But on reflection, I'm not so sure it is.

Rich hits on it indirectly. There are many older courses that have - in effect - the Hunter swap option. Wonderful Ross, Flynn, Strong and Alison courses built in the 20's, were once full of quirk and interest. In the decades since, clubs removed bunkers, softened greens, muted the quirk, the whole bit.

These courses know what they had, they know the diluted course they have now, and they know that many of the original features can be restored. Armed with such knowledge, they elect to stick with the course they have.

I find that baffling. But it is a sociological fact and Hunter hits the nail on the head.

Which leads to Hunter's main point which is, I think, that great courses cutivate in people a deeper, richer, healthier view of the game. Though I'm not sure what that means.

Bob

« **Reply #16 on:** May 09, 2005, 03:11:33 PM »

Bob

I am sorry, but you said it now explain it. How does playing a great course develop a healthier view of the game? Especially when one considers the cost (financially) of great golf? Does this mean that people who belong to great clubs (and are at least fairly wealthy) have a healthier view of the game thn others?

Ciao

Sean

« **Reply #17 on:** May 10, 2005, 10:04:06 AM »

Sean -

Hunter's basic argument in The Links is that mundane inland courses ought to emulate the great links courses. That would be a good thing, Hunter believes, because the golf played on links courses is more interesting and requires a higher level of play. That, in turn, will result in more people playing better golf and, finally, that is the way you grow the game.

The lynchpin of Hunter's argument is a three step (causal?) chain that begins with (i) great links courses, which leads to (ii) golf played at the highest levels, resulting in (iii) the growth of the popularity of the game.

What I think Hunter means by "golf played at the highest levels" (btw, my phrase not his) is that great links courses require the player to make more choices and execute a wider range of shots than other, less great courses. Or something like that.

(Hunter (and I) have doubts about the vast unwashed having an appetite for thinking more and playing more varied shots. Most would prefer to stick with the ho-hum tracks they play everyday. But one of Hunter's reasons for writing The Links is to help educate people about what they are missing at the local Flat & Dull Country Club.)

But I'll go with the foregoing as what makes for greatness in a golf course. I think that is a pretty good working definition.

Fire away.

Bob

« **Reply #18 on:** May 10, 2005, 10:33:31 AM »

To oversimplify the point, which would most casual amateur golfers prefer:

1) A course that looks easy but plays surprisingly hard
2) A course that look hard but plays surprisingly easy

I'd guess that 9 out of 10 club golfers would like course #2 better. The typical country-club course is pretty set up and maintained to make this happen. Lots of pretty bunkers but with perfectly groomed sand and flat bottoms so if you go in one it's easy to get out. Fast putting greens but perfectly true and flattened out so they aren't "unfair". Plenty of visual cues as to where to hit the ball. Generally four "Par 5's" because a 470-yard hole where 4 is a birdie is much more fun than a 450-yard hole where 4 is a par. Everything kept nice and soft and wet so the ball won't bounce into trouble. Trees to isolate fairways from each other and also to temper the wind.

Contrast that to links courses. The bunkering is penal and occasionally even not obvious to see from the tee. Greens that may not be so fast but not maintained to perfect trueness and perhaps with some quirky contours. An open terrain which is visually a "target-poor environment" and where visualization and imagination are required to choose the shot that end up in a good place. In many cases on one or two "Par 5's" and maybe even more than four "Par 3's", including the occasional one-shotter that isn't reachable in strong wind. Firm enough turf so that bounce and run are factors in just about every shot, combined with wind that makes bouncing the ball perhaps easier than flying it high. Trouble off the fairways that may be nasty bushes rather than just longer grass or trees with openings between and no underbrush.

So the modern experience suggests that country-club style of hazards that you can see but that may not be penal is more desirable by the masses of golfers than links-style courses. Perhaps Robert Hunter was not envisioning "growing the game" in the sense of attracting every Tom, Dick and Harry off the street and onto a public golf course. Maybe he meant to "grow the game" in the sense of producing more accomplished golfers who appreciate the traditional challenges rather than wanting to see the smallest possible number on their scorecard every week.

« **Reply #19 on:** May 10, 2005, 10:54:16 AM »

Bob

I agree with:

The three step "argument" of the book
Great courses usually require a greater variet of shots
The vast majority of players not wanting to think too much

But how do these points give one a healthier view of the game? What is a healthy view of the game?

Brent

Your conclusion seems reasonable. I have never seen the value (unless one is in the business) of trying expand the game. Why do we need more golfers? It seems this idea is a given. I am not convinced growth it is beneficial for "the game". Perhaps Mr Hunter did mean "growth" in the manner you suggest. What makes you think this is the case?

Ciao

Sean

« **Reply #20 on:** May 10, 2005, 10:57:31 AM »

Perhaps it was a misapprehension on my part but it sounded an awful lot like he was arguing that making the game more challenging would lead to growth of the game. Now obviously I wasn't around golfers in the early 20th century but that argument just doesn't jibe with my perception of what attracts people to the game nowadays. The only thing that more challenging courses would cause to "grow" would have to be the number of skilled golfers, not the number of newbies.

« **Reply #21 on:** May 10, 2005, 11:31:47 AM »

Quote from: BCrosby on May 10, 2005, 10:04:06 AM

(Hunter (and I) have doubts about the vast unwashed having an appetite for thinking more and playing more varied shots. Most would prefer to stick with the ho-hum tracks they play everyday. But one of Hunter's reasons for writing The Links is to help educate people about what they are missing at the local Flat & Dull Country Club.)

Bob

Wouldn't that last sentence explain it all?

I have always had the idealistic thought that a golf course could/should be built so that every caliber of player can reasonably play the course and be challenged. The scratch player will have a set of challenges (probably at the green end) that make it difficult to break par, and the bogey player will have a different set of challenges (because their game is so vastly different from the scratch) that make it difficult for them to break 90.

How many courses have the capacity for both, while also playing well for the older woman who simply enjoys walking a few holes late in the day?

Hunter is simply setting a higher bar for golfers and their management of expectations (and gratification) as well as course designers.

That is my opinion.

« **Reply #22 on:** May 10, 2005, 01:52:57 PM »

Isn't Hunter's view similar to MacKenzie's? I'm not sure MacKenzie ever designed a golf course in that super tough catagory.

« **Reply #23 on:** May 10, 2005, 04:54:37 PM »

Pasatiempo.

« **Reply #24 on:** May 10, 2005, 05:06:14 PM »

Tom Huckaby,

Neither the answer nor the question are in the context of an individual choice.

They're in the context of a membership's choice.

Most like to visit testing or championship courses but few would like to play them as a daily diet, hence, as Rich Goodale stated, Hunter was correct in 1926 and his premise remains valid today.

News:

BCrosby

THuckaby2

Dan_Callahan

THuckaby2

Sean_A

THuckaby2

Willie_Dow

Sean_A

THuckaby2

Dave_Miller

Michael Wharton-Palmer

ForkaB

THuckaby2

ForkaB

THuckaby2

BCrosby

Sean_A

BCrosby

Brent Hutto

Sean_A

Brent Hutto

JESII

T_MacWood

johnk

Patrick_Mucci