[Tim Liddy]

In Steven Johnson’s book “Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter” discusses that IQ ‘s over the past 30 years are actually going up and the complexity of games such as a Simms, etc. has contributed to this –games need to complicated to keep young people’s interest.

The dumbing down of our society has not happened, quite the contrary, TV is better than ever –Sopranos and 24.  The most popular video games are complicated.  Everyone is blogging on the internet.

And we have flogging taking golf into the opposite direction. I know I am preaching to the choir, but don’t you think we should start emphasizing the complexity of the game- a recreational pursuit that cannot be conquered.

We all enjoy more complicated designs that require thought on every shot. I find that the golf courses I am hired to remodel are very simple and boring.  The complexity of nature has been dozed into simple runways for golf.  They cry out for more complexity and interest.

Making golf harder is better for the game, let’s not make it easier. The more technology simplifies the game, the more incumbent it is for architecture to provide the necessary cognitive exercise.  

Pardon my ramblings, but know this subject is at the heart of many of the discussions on this site and am looking for a little empathy.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

I would agree that one of the main appeals of golf is that it's so difficult to conquer -- one reason perfectionists are drawn to it in droves.

But, by the same token, that's also one reason a lot of people quit.  Golf is difficult by its very nature, and we don't necessarily have to make it harder in our work.  We need to make it hard for the good players, but not for the average guy.

I was just reading the proofs last night for a book called "Dream Golf" by Steve Goodwin which will be out this spring, about the making of Bandon and Pacific Dunes.  The quote which sticks in my mind is one from Mike Keiser:

"Most golfers are average golfers, but the new courses are being designed for the pros, or for the one percent of the golfing population that can hit a drive three hundred yards.  For the rest of us, these courses are just too hard.  There's nothing fun about being asked hole after hole to do things that you can't do."

[PThomas]

so why aren't easier courses being built?  why can't the PGA , USGA, etc., work with (code for PAY FOR!)  municipalities to build low-cost , low maintenance courses that don't have slopes of 140+??

[Michael Moore]

Tim -

I went to college with Steven and we still trade the occasional email. He is a good golfer whose dream in grade school was to become a golf course architect.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Mr. Johnson may be right about the increase in I.Q.'s, however having watched TV there is no way you can convince me what is on the tube is good for you.  Frankly, my wife loves 24 and I have suffered through a couple of episodes and find it pretty absurd, entertaining, yes at times, but still junk.  I haved coached sports and observed my own kids and I find that the kids are way too focused on the video and playstation and spend too much time there because it is an easy way to entertain the kids, and they spend virtually no time on the playgrounds and in their yards just playing games.  I remember the PennState linebacker that won all the awards saying his parents did not allow playstation in the house so he spent all his time roughing it up with his brothers in the yard.  Simple life led to big things for him.  I dobt too many grownups will ever attribute their success to all the time they spent in front of the TV.  But people have lower standards today.

I don't think making courses more difficult makes much sense.  The design must be intellectually challenging which doesn't mean putting 90 bunkers on a public golf course, it means judiously placing features, including bunkers, to challenge the intellect of the player, to make them think through a situation in accordance with their ability.  It means the architect must totally engage their own mind in the task at hand.  Even the very best technology in the hands of a simpleton will not render defenseless a well designed course.  I think quite to the contrary TV and video games have made people less receptive to intellectual pursuits and when confronted with an intellectual challenge they become impatient and boredbecause they just are not up to the challenge.  I don't think it is the architect's responsibility to give the public what they think they want rather the architect should give the public what the architect believes should be way the game should be played and it is up to the golfer to rise up to the level of the architect.  

[Tim Liddy]

All great points.  It is important to distinguish that golf courses need to be more complex, not more difficult.

I could use help in defining this distinction: more interesting, more stimulating, more decision making, but not harder to execute the required shot-or different options for the necessary result. No one wants a 300 yard forced-carry over wetlands to a 10 yard landing area.  

[Jim Sweeney]

Paul T.:

The USGA has had a number of opportunituies to be in the golf course business and has declined each time. The reasons are self evident: there is nothing in the USGA's charter which allows it to be in the business of owning courses. There are too many potential conflicts of interest. (Advertisement: "The only brand of fertalizer the USGA uses on its courses.......")

If the USGA paid for one municipal course, what project would it be able to turn down?

The USGA does, through the green section, consult with many municipal facilities. Often times the goals of these consutations is playability for the facility's regular golf patrons and cost containment practices.

The USGA does provide (at very reasonable cost) a course construction consulting service headed by JIm Moore of Texas. He can help municipalities achieve the type of course this thread is discussing, if that's what they want.

Most municipalities I have seen build courses in the past decade are just as interested in having a ranked course as is any private development. These would include, for example, the RTJ golf trail. Thank you once again, magazine ratings.

Of course, there are projects, such as Wintonbury Hills, which have achieved a nice balance of relative difficulty for various skill levels (if only people would play the appropriate tees!)

[Andy Doyle]

In Steven Johnson’s book “Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter” discusses that IQ ‘s over the past 30 years are actually going up ...

I too will take issue with this assertion.  I've been a faculty member at 2 major state universities over the past 15 years, and by my observation, our kids are definitely NOT getting smarter.  The overall level of literacy and critical thinking is appalling - e.g. the ability to read, comprehend, and construct a reasonable written response or discussion.

Just because these kids can do some things with technology - e.g. use their cell phones to IM each other in class - that their parents or grandparents find difficult or impossible to do, that doesn't mean they are smarter.

I've never been into video/computer games personally - I also grew up in the days when "parenting" consisted mostly of saying "Go outside and play."  I've gotten exposed to them recently, though, having 2 boys aged 6 and 10.  My observations of video games:

They do involve some degree of hand/eye coordination, timing, dexterity.  Yes, they can involve some level of problem-solving and I've observed an admirable degree of cooperation - kids with more experienced helping other kids through different "levels."

However, I've also seen there is little lasting consequence to these games.  When my kids get stuck at a certain level or make a major mistake, they either get one of their friends to help them through it (in some cases the friend takes the controller and does it for them, then hands it back) or they simply restart the game.  I took some degree of pride in teaching both of my boys to play chess & to encourage play bought a chess game for their computer.  My 6 year old was spending a lot of time playing - my self-satisfaction was punctured when I watched him one day & whenever the computer was winning or had him in a bad spot he would simply restart the game.  Clever?  Yes, but I don't think it was making him any smarter.

A "real" game like golf is the opposite - there are real consequences.  If you hit a ball in the water, it's gone - along with a stroke.  If you are faced with a difficult shot that you're not sure you can pull off, you can't just ask you buddy to step in and hit it for you.

Andy

[Mike Nuzzo]

My opinion is that becoming wiser is a result of learning and forming opinions about how concepts effect the individual and the collective by reading, writing, talking and debating.  TV and Videogames don't allow for as much judgement.  Judgement is helped when checked by an objective source.

My example would be the treehouse - I'd say as a whole this group is wiser about golf architecture.

Wise:
1 a : characterized by wisdom : marked by deep understanding, keen discernment, and a capacity for sound judgment b : exercising sound judgment :

P.S. - the only show I watch - 24 - its great!  And the last video game - was the Putt-Putt Tommy introduced us to... also great.

[John Kavanaugh]

so why aren't easier courses being built?  why can't the PGA , USGA, etc., work with (code for PAY FOR!)  municipalities to build low-cost , low maintenance courses that don't have slopes of 140+??

I think Bandon has set a great precedent by building easy courses.  I can't tell you how pleasent it was to play the tips and only be out 6700 yds..

[wsmorrison]

"I think Bandon has set a great precedent by building easy courses.  I can't tell you how pleasent it was to play the tips and only be out 6700 yds.."

Presuming the golf courses are not designed with the back tees in mind, what's the difference if the tips are 6700 yards or you are playing 6700 yards and there's another set of tees behind you at 7200 yards?  Why is it more pleasant?  Ego?

[John Kavanaugh]

It is more pleasent because the hazards and fairway widths are built exactly for the tees I am playing...and...often when playing a new course somebody wants to play the tips (I was playing with some scratch and plus hdcp golfers)..I have also been on vacation with older less skilled golfers and had to play way up where I am stuck hitting 5 iron off the tee all day which isn't pleasent either.  note:  I always play off the tees which my partners choose simply because I don't like the flow of different tees withing the same group.

[redanman]

"24" and the "Sopranos" have lost their lustre season by season. Obfuscation has become a substitute for creativity in plots and writing.  Both shows are crap, now. Same for Alias which was once interesting in a DaVinci Code sort of way became jsut another T & A medium.

Dumbed-down golf will seems to be accepted similarly.

The NYTimes Sunday had an article on Golf and the Jack Abrahamoff connection. I'm surprized that no thread has been generated.  There was some written  about the cronie-ism and deal-doing (which is one reason golf blossomed in the east coast metro areas) which was barely touched. (The article also had several factual errors about golf - e.g. calling the Old Course the Royal and Ancient Club.).

Perhaps some of the negative connotation for golf as the writer implies will mitigate some of the negative forces in gca as well as golf in gereral in the last 10 years over the coming few years and weed out the playing public. If there's no one throwing piles of money, some of the bad stuff might just go away.

Then again -

Nah.

Or will it just be an indescriminate proportionality going away?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

I would offer the 5th at Newport as an example of complex design that tests the golfer's mind and ability to execute.
It penalizes bad choices, subtlely at first and then overtly.
However, many remain unaware of the complex nature of the design, even after scoring bogie and worse.

The quest for fairness has been a terrible influence on the game of golf.

In many cases it manifests itself when new regimes come to power in a club.  The out of favor, "pet" feature is often softened or eliminated by those who find it difficult to deal with.  This cycle continues when succeeding regimes come into power.   Eventually, the golf course bears the scars and has its unique design and challenging features removed or reconfigured.

Some feel that this is a direct outgrowth of the popularity of golf amongst women, others feel that it's a trend to make the game easier for the players who lack the most skill or experience.  Still others feel it's their right of entitlement to change the playing field to suit their abilities and thus, to remove the features that don't integrate well with their game.
Lastly, democracy rather than autocracy has been the culprit as well.

Irrespective of its cause, courses have been made easier, more member friendly over the years, rather than more challenging.

Certain clubs have been able to resist the trend, and as such, remain as great golf courses, courses that test the mind and the body, while presenting an enjoyable challenge.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I think golf courses are becoming more complex.....why in the old days, you putted out and could find the next tee quite easily.  With newer courses, you have to drive all over the country side to find the next tee.  I have it on good authority that is why GPS was invented.........

This topic is one of my own favorite mental gymnastic excersises - to determine if the next generation is dumber or smarter.  I suspect that we all can point to evidence of the former, but I also see lots of evidence to the latter.  And I remind myself that our generation was thought to be totally worthless as well.  At least some of us made it out of youth okay, and can even write well enough to contribute to golf club atlas......

As to video games, I understand they are credited with our ever increasing accuracy in firing guns while in battle.  I never caught the bug, except one time when building a course in Wisconsin and frequenting a bar with my college age workers (I was 25) I played space invaders until I got my name on the screen, whereupon one of the kids ripped out the plug to wipe it out.  BTW, when I was stuck, I got help from an expert, who told me that since it was a computer game, there was a discernible pattern - the high value targets came out every 23rd shot.  So, I don't think the example of our youth going to hell in a handbasket applies any more than it did.

Never played again, except a few rounds of golf on Tiger Woods with my son.

As to writing skills, I think it is difficult to compare.  Yes, I think our kids aren't very polished, but I would have to pull out some of my college writing to compare.  (I have a history of gca paper on hand somewhere)  

Some tech stuff, like  calculators and spell check, reduce the need for those skills in some ways, and makes it too easy.  You still need to think about what you write.  

Example 1 -  I had a secretary once who allowed a mistake in our specs to pass regularly because it passed the spell check.  It was supposed to tell the contractors to build "free from defects."  Instead, it told them to "build free form defects" which occaisionally had some amusing results.  (Of course, with some contractors, free form defects were a way of life!)

Example 2 - The other day while on golf club atlas, I meant to write "Ross was the greatest architect ever" but I accidentally wrote "Ross didn't visit most of his courses, and his plans don't even hint at any of the subtley that many here attribute to his work.  For the most part, he was a frugal Scot just trying to build golf courses as practically as possible."  And spell check didn't even bother to correct me!

Yes, somehow, I think the kids will be just fine!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

Let me add that the removal of substantive internal contouring in putting surfaces has been another factor which has contributed to the reduction or elimination of complexity and challenge.

It affects the drive, the approach, the recovery and putting.

The reduction or elimination of substantive internal contouring has eliminated the need to think.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat, is that really true, or does it just change the way we need to think?  In other words, a downhill putt on 1.5% greens now might be tougher than a downhill putt on 5% greens in the "days of yore" whatever the heck the "days of yore" are, or were.

Game getting simpler, or us old guys simply pining for the good old days that we remember for a lot of reasons, including longer drives, better golf games, etc?  Statistically, the game is getting no simpler.

[John_Cullum]

I have never even heard of 24.

But from my observation there are plenty of easy courses being built, but they aren't discussed much, and there are plenty of hard courses being built, and they get alot of press. They become the destination courses.

We just need to see more good courses. It is probably hard for this group to accept that a very difficult course is good, but we accept the good easier courses.

[Kirk Gill]

I don't think it is the architect's responsibility to give the public what they think they want rather the architect should give the public what the architect believes should be way the game should be played and it is up to the golfer to rise up to the level of the architect.  

Just like any art form, there are artists who feel compelled to pursue their own vision, regardless of public opinion, and those whose purpose is to satisfy the wishes of either the public at large or those of a particular patron. What's great is how much lasting art has been produced by artists in both camps.

Of course, those artists who satisfy the public or their patrons tend not to be the ones who die in obscurity, with their art appreciated only after their ignominious deaths.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I think flat greens diminish the value of prefered angles of attack, on the approach and the recovery.

Not that other factors can't be brought to bear, but, substantively contoured putting surfaces affect every shot, from drive to putt.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Again, I not necessarily so.  On the typical tree lined course, I think good players say hit the fw is job one on the tee shot.  Then and only then do they consider green contour.

And what is a preferred angle of attack these days?  One with a frontal opening?  There are no run in shots now.  With a frontal opening, they will club down if between clubs for an uphill putt.  

For that matter, some players like to come in from the bunker side, figuring they ain't gonna hit a grounder, and using the same strategy as teeing it up near the OB and playing away.
If they have to come over a bunker, they can use more spin and extra club.  

A flatter green nominally makes that shot harder, no?  A steeper green would help that shot (to a point) but over a certain point it could also cause you to hit a low spin shot and let the contour do the work.

So, varying the base contour of the greens somewhat does require thinking.  If they are all the same, then you hit all the same type of shots.

I do agree that green contours affect shots more than surrounding hazards for good players.  If there is a spike in nar the edge, it can shoot a ball forward or back unpredictably.  Its just that we have to limit those spikes to the last ten feet of the green for practicality.

[Bob_Huntley]

In Steven Johnson’s book “Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter” discusses that IQ ‘s over the past 30 years are actually going up and the complexity of games such as a Simms, etc. has contributed to this –games need to complicated to keep young people’s interest.

The dumbing down of our society has not happened, quite the contrary, TV is better than ever –Sopranos and 24.  The most popular video games are complicated.  Everyone is blogging on the internet.

Pardon my ramblings, but know this subject is at the heart of many of the discussions on this site and am looking for a little empathy.

Tim,

You will get no empathy from me.

This from Fred:

There’s this thing called the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, which just came out and said that Americans not only can’t read but are vigorously getting worse. Here it is, from the Washington ever-loving Post, December 25 in the Year of Our Decline 2005:

“Only 41 percent of graduate students tested in 2003 could be classified as ‘proficient’ in prose—reading and understanding information in short texts—down 10 percentage points since 1992. Of college graduates, only 31 percent were classified as proficient—compared with 40 percent in 1992.”

That’s college graduates, brethren and sistern! They can’t read simple stuff. “See Spot run. Run, Spot….” What you think them other scoundrels can’t do that ain’t graduates? Halleluja, dearly beloved, idiots are us. Am us, I mean.

Now, sure, you can make excuses, and say, well, this dismal revelation counts all the Permanently Disadvantaged Minorities and affirmative-action nonstudents and all the other people who shouldn’t be anyway in what ought to be colleges but mostly aren’t. But you’re supposed to be able to read when you get out of freaking high school, aren’t you? If they can’t read, how did they into college, much less out the other end?

He goes on:

It’s over, I tell you. The United Steak has turned into a mess of pale-faced bushmen mumbling in pidgin English, the young anyway, with Orientals as missionaries trying to civilize us. Yes, friends and neighbors! Ain’t it exciting? All the professors in America of anything practical are already Chinese or Indian. Or getting that way fast.

You think I exaggerate? Ha. Checking the staff of the University of Central Florida’s school of Mechanical, Materials, and Aerospace Engineering, I discover that most of Mumbai has already moved to America. Shanghai too. There follows an unedited list:

Ranganathan Kumar, Linan An, Quanfang Chen, Ruey-Hung Chen, Larry Chew, Hyoung Jin "Joe" Cho, Louis C. Chow, Kevin R. Coffey, Ted Conway, Vimal Desai, Jiyu Fang, A. Henry Hagedoorn, Olusegun Illegbusi, Roger Johnson, Samar Jyoti Kalita, Jayanta Kapat, Aravinda Kar, Alain Kassab, Christine Klemenz, Alexander Leonessa, Kuo-Chi "Kurt" Lin, Antonio Minardi, Faissal Moslehy, Jamal F. Nayfeh, David Nicholson, Eric L. Petersen, Sudipta Seal, Yongho Sohn, C. "Sury" Suryanarayana, Raj Vaidyanathan, Quan Wang, Fang Xu, Richard Zarda.

If that ain’t a hotbed of Anglo-Saxon achievement, I can’t imagine what might be. It’s probably just what ol’ Tom Jefferson had in mind. Who can doubt it?

No Tim, you cannot convince me that video games, rap music and the like is a harbinger of higher IQ's.

Bob

[George Pazin]

They musta made the IQ test easier, ala the SATs.

 

I like the notion that complexity in golf is better, but not necessarily harder. I prefer courses that ask questions of the golfer that might require an essay answer, rather than a multiple choice.

I also agree with Bob Huntley completely. None of those things cited are evidence of anything positive (other than in the bank accounts of the respective companies and stockholders).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Again, I not necessarily so.  On the typical tree lined course, I think good players say hit the fw is job one on the tee shot.  Then and only then do they consider green contour.

Now you've added an additional factor, a qualifier to weight your argument.

If the fairway is 55 yards wide, irrespective of whether it's lined with trees, the good golfer will attempt to position their drive to optimize the angle of attack, the need for which is accentuated by substantively contoured greens.

If the fairway is 18 yards wide, then maintainance practices have predetermined the angle of attack, and by default, it's almost always anywhere in the fairway.[/color]  

And what is a preferred angle of attack these days?  One with a frontal opening?  There are no run in shots now.  With a frontal opening, they will club down if between clubs for an uphill putt.  

I don't know who you're referencing when you say "they".

But, take for example the "Road Hole" green and ask youself, are there prefered angles of attack into that green ?
[/color]

For that matter, some players like to come in from the bunker side, figuring they ain't gonna hit a grounder, and using the same strategy as teeing it up near the OB and playing away.
If they have to come over a bunker, they can use more spin and extra club.

I'm not sure that holds true for angled greens such as the "Road Hole" green.  In addition, firm and fast conditions will frustrate that strategy.[/color]  

A flatter green nominally makes that shot harder, no?  A steeper green would help that shot (to a point) but over a certain point it could also cause you to hit a low spin shot and let the contour do the work.

Again, I  think you're creating a "qualifier" in order to justify your point.

Greens with substantive contour can be flat in the cupping area.

# 1, # 3 and # 6 at NGLA would be good examples where ample flat areas exist amongst the contours.[/color]

So, varying the base contour of the greens somewhat does require thinking.  If they are all the same, then you hit all the same type of shots.

That's where presentation and variety come in.
Look at the 1st, 3rd and 6th greens at NGLA.
There is nothing similar about them.
And, they'd be great greens to approach from 360 degrees, understanding the relationship between the length of the approach and the configuration of the green.[/color]

I do agree that green contours affect shots more than surrounding hazards for good players.  If there is a spike in near the edge, it can shoot a ball forward or back unpredictably.  Its just that we have to limit those spikes to the last ten feet of the green for practicality.

I'll have to devote additional time thinking about that.[/color]

[Doug Siebert]

Jeff,

I used to question Patrick and TEPaul when they made the same claim about lack of contouring not making up for faster speeds in terms of approach angles, chipping and putting.

But I started to think about it when I was playing, especially when I was in Ireland 18 months ago, and while I still maintain and would thus agree with you it makes no real difference when the ball is rolling, it makes a heck of a lot of difference when bouncing.  A 1% slope won't knock a ball that bounces two or three times much off its preferred line, but a 5% slope can have it turned 90* before it even starts to roll!  Skilled players can take advantage of the contours, those who don't pay enough attention are constantly griping about "bad bounces".

Where it comes into play with angles of attack are that with certain landforms on the green you might find it easier to approach from one side to minimize its potential offline bounce, etc.  If those landforms are subtle, it really isn't worth the bother and contributes to that primal urge to just FLOG it off the tee.

I find the more I think about this stuff on courses with wild greens and near-greens, the more imaginative I am with some of the short game shots I try.  And its a helluva lot more fun!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()