What came first, golf course rennovation or golf equipment technology improvements? In this I include the earliest forms of equipment innovation as well as golf course modification.

My perception has always been, and still is, that golf course architecture is supposed to challenge the golfer. Not always a severe test of shotmaking, but each hole should offer features that ask the player (whatever their ability) to consider them, devise a plan, and execute properly if they want to be successful on that hole. Success for some is a par or birdie, while for others it's a bogey(ie?), it makes no difference in this question IMO.

I think this idea is transferable to all caliber of players and I think the best architecture addresses a very wide range of abilities. Some architecture is more penal than others and would fittingly require different expectations from the player, while some is focused on the players enjoyment of their day and that suits a certain percentage of players best as well.

Through the course of time in which people have actually been creating golf courses (what, back to about 1850 or so? You tell me), what has been the objective of those designing and building those courses? I know of the Fownes family at Oakmont striving to make their course the most difficult in the world. One of the methods I have heard about is following along when a real good player was playing and noting where their real good drives finished (the ones that offered a distinct advantage for the hole). They would later build a bunker in just that spot so as to deter that advantage in the future. Pine Valley was built by George Crump to be a "championship" golf course, to be played by accomplished golfers and to this day fits that criteria.

At some point in time technological innovation became a driving force in the consideration of golf course design. I have heard of the massive distance increases gained from one of those old balls aroung the turn of the last century, and ball technology has been improving ever since. Steel shafts might have had some effect on how courses were prepared, fronting bunkers and forced carries to greens for example. Certainly the last 15 years of equipment innovations has had its effect on course developers and owners.

My question is two-fold:
1) Are golf course designers and equipment companies of the same opinion on how the game should be played, and what golf is really supposed to be?

I'll ask the second question after a few responses give me a feel for the sentiment of this discussion group.

I know the answer to this question might not be so clear as I see it but mabe it is, this group usually surprises me with it's intellect.

I look forward to any responses.

Great topic..but oh so many opinions and answers.
Personally in response to question number one...I do not think that architeects and manufacturers are even in the same book never mind on the same page.
Over the past 10 years or so , you cannot but feel as though the two sides have very little in common.

I think the good architect still has the love of the game at heart, and wants to develop something that is esthetic, playable and that people will be pleased to play.
The manufacturer wants to sell stuff..simple..no other objective, business is business...
This is not a slam on the manufacturers at all, that is thier objective and the architect has his/hers,but I do not see the two coming together very often.

The current architect has a problem, does he bow to the " new game" that the manufactures are producing, or does he remain loyal to his design principles...
A true dilema, how does he/she adapt his philosphies on what a golf course should be and make the course 7900 yard plus to accomodate the long hitters that the equipment has produced.

OR....does the architect even feel like he has to. After all that proportion of golfer who can realistically play the course at 7900,  is such a small percentage of the playing public that perhaps they should be ignored.

I think about the sharpest current breed of architects.... the likes of Doak,Devries and Coore/Crenshaw for example..they are all producing fine courses without shifting their design principles to the "dark side" of ridiculous length....so there is hope that design wins over technology.

KBM-

Certainly a vast majority who lack the respect or desire to actually make it a challenge would be known as who? The pro who derives a living?

While the true sportsman has the sophistication to appreciate restraint inorder to quell unchecked greed.

I don't think it would be the pro.  They must take advantage of all they can within the rules.  I saw a study one time that said the player who is always getting the very latest in technology is also the one who is most likely to cheat.  I don't think that applies to the pros, however I think it is important to note that in any other sport the pro is actually expected to cheat.  A good example is the Astro who went to tag the Cardinal in the NLCS and clearly missed him but acted like he tagged him to convince the ump to make the call in his favor, same goes with the receiver who clearly traps the ball but puts on the act that he caught it, it is really remarkable we watch this and yet no one seems bothered by what basically amounts to cheating.

I very much like your last statement I copied above.  Very well said.

KBM,

I have seen that quote on here before and I think it is incredibly poignant, that being said...who determines (or how is it determined), when an instrument overwhelms nature?



MWP,

"I think the good architect still has the love of the game at heart, and wants to develop something that is esthetic, playable and that people will be pleased to play."

I do agree with the sentence of yours that follows the one quoted to an extent, but I think this quote of yours could hold true with manufacturers substituted for architects when talking to a large percentage of the golfing population. Would you agree?

"The current architect has a problem, does he bow to the " new game" that the manufactures are producing, or does he remain loyal to his design principles...
A true dilema, how does he/she adapt his philosphies on what a golf course should be and make the course 7900 yard plus to accomodate the long hitters that the equipment has produced."

As a general rule, what are an architects goals when thinking conceptually about their design strategy? Is it to "accomodate" the specific abilities of the golfers of the day? Or is it to present challenges that those golfers might have to work to overcome? Do they "bow to the game"?


Adam,

paraphrased...The pro who actually makes a living playing golf has not the respect or desire for golf to be a challenge.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in your post so please bear with me if make bad assumptions because I do want to dig a bit to see if I can get my hands around it.

Generally speaking, the best at each particular sport or pastime eventually derive their living from that skill. Are you saying these people are not true sprotsman? Is it only when they are "in uniform" that they are not true sportsmen?

What makes you say "most human be'ins want everything handed to them"? In golf, I would agree that expectations have changed with regards to results and how difficult the game really was and perhaps still should be. But does the fact that a beginner thinks he should be able to break 100, or make pars a couple times a round, mean he wants his skill in the game to be given to him?

JES,

I don't think it is "who" makes that determination.  In this case if change such as a rollback happens you could not identify who made it happen because big change probably happens over a prolonged period with many episodes, big and small, that contribute to an overwhelming cause for change that can no longer be ignored and eventually no longer can be stopped.  

Kelly,

I'm trying to dig out alternative means of putting different (re: shorter) equipment in players hands voluntarily. I would like to avoid the roll-back discussions for a number of reasons.

Would you say that today's golf "instruments" are overwhelming to nature?

If so, what characteristics of these instruments can be exploited as a means of leveling the balance?



Adam,

I think what you refer to is similar to what I see as different expectations of what the challenge of the game should be. People now thik that because they play golf a dozen times a year and never practice they should play well. Fine. About your fishing comparison, do any of the guys on the professional fishing tour fish with equipment specifically measured to minimize their advantage so as to test themselves against nature?

I think your view of a "true sportsman" leaves out anyone that actually competes at whatever activity referrenced. That may be fine, I have no real issue with that if it's the case, just relaying how your view strikes me.

JES
Yes I think that the manufacturers want something that looks good, but I am not convinvced that they have the best interest of the game in mind..in fact I dont even know what that means anymore..
The manufacturers are damned if they do and damned if they dont..the new tech aids the everyday golfer but makes it too easy for the tour player..or so many on this site believe.

However, we do not really see any huge decrease, in the average tour stroke average, so I for one am not convinced the problem is as huge as many think.

Yes the ball goes too far in the hands of the long hitters, and is making some courses obsolete to that type of player...but they are a minority and I hope that as mentioned earlier, those architects we admire so much continue to provide us with sensible lenghted courses that still make us tingle..ie..Sand Hills..Banbougle..Pacific Dunes...etc without feeling the need for 7900 yards

Tom,

Thank you for your input here, I thought, and hoped, you would jump in.

The idea of a “delicate adjustment of instruments to that fine point that just sustains a golfer’s “skill””, is interesting to me. You have told of a week in your past in Ireland or Scotland playing a course alone at first light every day. You talk of the course being the fastest (you probably have a better adjective) you've ever played, and mention the things you learned that week and because of that week learned in the future in regards to golf course architecture, or more precisely GOLF. Can you imagine if that were the setting for the vast majority of your golf ever purchasing a 460cc driver? Does anyone think they would seek the type of equipment being marketed and sold today if they played all of their golf on a course which demanded ball control so much more than it rewards length.

This is my point about playing Hidden Creek. I think (admittedly, after only one playing) that Hidden Creek is one of the best designs I've ever played. It forces the player to control his ball if he wants to score well, it very very rarely rewards distance over accuracy and control.

After about a year paying attention to this website I have seen too many complaints about the Tour pros hitting the ball "too far" from people who do not hit the ball "too far". For some reason, the fact that Tiger can carry the ball 310 or 320 yards is ruining the game for people that carry the ball 200 yards. I understand one aspect of this complaint, the effect these distance are having on golf course architecture. The tightening of fairways, the lengthening of holes/courses for the back tees, etc. With all of those complaints come the obvious USGA bashers, which is fine. I have no problem with peoples opinions, in fact I would agree for the most part with complaints about the "overpreparation" of US Open venues. That practice is certainly copied by many clubs throughout the world, and without the resources available those projects at individual clubs rarely improve a course.

I am trying to develop a method of golf course design and preparation that would encourage the use of more control oriented equipment from players that do in fact hit the ball "too far", and I think Michael Wharton Palmer is right in his comment about a group of modern architects that do value accuracy, control and options in their design over length. That is why I have mentioned a few times on here recently that I place as much blame on course developers (owners, memberships, ect...) as I do on the USGA for any issue involving excessive distance golf balls are now hit.

Golf is of a challenge that the golfer will always be looking for a magic potion rather than improving his own skills, so it is a convoluted moibus strip of relationships, not even jsut a chicken and egg.

I disagree.

Do you remember the story Tom tells of being on that little course by himself every day for a week and experimenting all sorts of different ways to play the course? I think competition with others is what creates ones search for this "magic potion" you describe. I certainly am not going into a tournament with persimmons and balatas on a 7200 yard course with narrow fairways and soft green but I might downshift if I never played tournament golf and the course I played most often showed a real benefit to having more ball control (especially around the greens) instead of length.

Sully:

I've always liked the point you've made many times on here that although you don't hold it against some of these people who only bash the USGA for distance increases and all the problems it seems to create you also recognize that others should share the responsibilities for those problems---eg developers, clients, clubs etc.

The sad fact is that so many on here and elsewhere are basically just looking for someone to BLAME, and with their lack of over-all understanding about all the reasons for this over-all problem they simply find the USGA a very convenient target to blame. I say forget about the blame and just try to get to the root of the reasons these things happen.

Should the USGA, for instance, take sole responsibility for the fact that US Open set-ups are aped by so many courses that will never have anything remotely like a US Open? And that trying to mimic the USGA's Open courses that way becomes costly and corrupting of architecture in various ways?

I think, as I think you do, that the USGA should probably at least recognize this problem far more than they seem to be and having done that attempt to get to the bottom of it and make very public ALL the reasons these things happen and continue to happen.

The USGA and the Tech Center (Dick Rugge) in response to these questions and accusations against the USGA like this basically says; "Do what we say not what we do."

And in a real way they have a very good point there! They set up courses for no more than thirteen touraments, certainly most noticeably including the US OPEN for the best players in the world and the other of their championships for the best players in certain categories.

They should do a better and more vocal job of saying to the rest of golfing America; "Why do you insist on mimicing these things we do only for National Championships at your own courses day and day out? Are you holding National Championships day in and day out? Do you think your courses should be prepared as if they are when clearly they are not?"

If the USGA could get this message across far more comprehensively then perhaps there would be far less people like a David Moriarty who blamethe USGA for all this as if the sky is falling when only a small group of players hit the ball that far as people like him continue to hit it only about 200 yards, as you say!

But obviously, it's just not that simple for us to say. Why do clubs take this so seriously and change their courses as they do when those types of championships will never come there?

That's a tricky question but one you and I can see the answers to every day in lockerrooms and barrooms within golf clubs all over America. Basically it's all about pride, even if it really isn't happening at most clubs. And it happens in the oddest and most trivial ways but unfortunately it can result in change and unnecessary change to golf courses.

It goes like this, and it can be this ridiculous (this is a real life example):

On our 7th hole that was reworked to up effective options (even with some added tee length) a most significant member mentioned in horror that one of the best players in this area still hit an 6-iron approach at this par 5 green and that we therefore had to do something to this hole (he mentioned adding a good deal more length). So I asked him if he knew what that player made on the hole and he said he didn't. So I asked the player and he said he made a bogie six!!  

See what I mean Sully? While it's easy to just lay the blame for all this at the doorstep of the USGA it surely is a far more complex problem than just one they may've created. The reasons why these deleterious things happen to too many golf courses are certainly not just the fault of the USGA although, in my opininon, they both could and should do a much better job of explaining that to golfing America. Unfortunately when they try to do that some people they say that to just accuse them of shifting the blame and failing to take responsibility for the entire problem. In my opinion, this is not intelligent and it won't really solve the problem because it isn't recognizing all the reasons behind the problem.

And then you have others like this redanman@ aka BillV who discuss this problem in totally unintelligible riddles aka jibberish@.