As Ogilvy was standing over that pitch shot on 18, the commentators described it as nearly impossible to get close, act of bravery, etc. etc.  For some reason, when I heard that, my mind immediately went to the great old courses of Melbourne.  I thought, “He’s certainly hit *that* shot many times before…”

Pitch shots off firm lies to wildly undulating, superfast greens -- is there any place besides Melbourne where this skill is demanded with more regularity?

Second thought:
Someone made a comment that the Aussies were all great bunker players.

Just as Appleby said of Augusta National greens on one of his first visits (something like: “I didn’t find the green speeds unmanageable”), surely the skill required to play from those deep Melburnian greenside bunkers, to fast greens, makes WFW…certainly not easy…but at least familiar.

Bernard Darwin once wrote about the unique skill sets developed by golfers who played just one course.

It’s nice to think that, in this age of globalization, maybe the way the game is played at the highest level has not been completely “McDonaldized,” at least by the measure of the uniqueness of skills developed in certain parts of the world due to the confluence of terrain, climate, and architectural styles.

(Well, at least by the measure of one shot by Ogilvy!  )

Or has it?

Mark

The shot Geoff had on the last hole looked like one you play around Royal Melbourne and Victoria (across the street and his home club) all day.
Likewise that bunker shot at 13 that hit the flag.

What does "McDonaldized" mean to you?

McDonaldized, to me, means the effect of globalization to wash out diversity and force things to a common standard, in the process killing off things distinctive to a particular area.

The idea is you could walk into a McDonalds, anywhere in the world, order a Big Mac, and not be able to taste any difference from a Big Mac anywhere else in the world.

Applied to the play of golf, the idea is that the "American" style of play is spreading globally, which in turn homogenizes play to a single standard, the "American" standard.  It washes out the diversity of play that found niches in the particulars (architecture, climate, terrain) of local courses.

We've certainly seen this in regard to the conception that there are such things as "model" swings; thus, the continued fascination with the success of Jim Furyk, Jim Thorpe, etc. etc.  Do we look on their swings any differently than we do the Florida Panther (not the hockey team!), namely as a dying species the likes of which are not long for this world, as oddities belonging in the antiquities section of natural museums?

In the case of Ogilvy's pitch, that seemed like the kind of shot you'd need to play far more often on Melbourne Sandbelt courses, and not that often on U.S. courses -- well, maybe you'd have the shot, but the conditions on the typical U.S. course (lush lie, receptive greens, etc.) are so different from Melbourne that you might as well be talking about two different shots.

I guess the "big picture" is that golfers of talent come to play the PGA Tour, which tends to require a specific type of game, so they learn to play that game.  Any skills they might have developed through play on a specific course, or specific style of courses, atrophy as a result of their disuse and explicit lack of reward.

Furthermore, developing golfers can watch PGA Tour events on television, so they see what shots are required and instead of developing a game suited to their home course or environs, they develop an American-style of play.  Lastly, because crap rolls downhill, all the rest of us end up playing that game because that's the only one that's taught, and because golfers often learn by mimicking the swings of professional golfers.

I think this problem goes beyond the architecture. I suppose links courses come closest to rewarding diversity of play, and maybe some of the newer "minimalist"-type designs that allow for the ground game.

But just because that style is accounted for doesn't mean it will survive (or has survived, in some places) the invasive American style.  I mean, Jeez, Monty's a Scot and he hits the ball that way?!  Hard to think someone from the West Coast of Scotland 100 years ago would even recognize Monty's game as "Scottish," IMHO. Surely he can play both types of game, but then what does *that* say?

So all I'm saying is that Ogilvy's shot reminded me of what probably will be lost, probably has been lost, thanks to "globalization."  That's progress, I guess.  Steel replaces hickories and with that one swing wanes while another one waxes.

Mark

No, Mike, I just meant -- mostly -- the PGA Tour.  Ogilvy's shot just reminded me of what today's pro game is missing.

That said, I was also speaking to the conditions of Ogilvy's shot versus the conditions a rank amateur would face.  They're both 25 yard pitch shots, but very likely, outside Melbourne, it's unlikely you would get the same lie, the same undulations, and the same green speeds. In other words, the pitch shot I typically play is nowhere near as difficult as that one, and therefore might as well be an entirely different shot!  On the other hand the conditions on the Melbourne courses are likely to be similar...

Secondly, while the *choice* may be available to amateur golfers to play a certain shot, does their home course demand it -- that specific shot -- so often the skill must be acquired to a high degree?  I think that's the case for that pitch, in the Melbourne Sandbelt.  I, too, play many pitches in a round (unfortunately), but the (lush) conditions and margin for error are so much different.  I wonder if Dave Pelz studied Sandbelt golfers he would conclude that the 30-yard pitch is statistically the worst shot in golf, as it is for American golfers.  (I would guess the answer is no.)

Lastly, while I was thinking mostly in terms of the PGA Tour, it is possible that you may have to play a shot that is fairly unique to your home course, but that if you were a traveling golfer would be useless.

In my case, I was thinking of the "superflop" bunker shot I needed regularly at the Yale course, but have almost never played since.  That's a "selection bias" of Yale.

Mark

If my count is right, the Aussies placed an equal number of golfers in the top 20 as did the Americans (five).  Given the relative populations of these nations, I find their continued success this year astounding.

And while Greg Norman and the climate deserve a huge amount of credit for the overall participation levels, surely at the tournament golf level, the architecture can claim a role.

This, from Saturday's "The Age" newspaper:

West Australian Rumford also started in the breeze but, like most of the Australians, found himself at home as the wind dried out the course.

"It's no surprise because the conditions are so firm," he said of the good Australian showing. "It's very much like a Royal Melbourne or a Huntingdale or all the courses we play back home."

Read Ogilvy's comment below from the Golf Digest interview and decided to dredge this old thread back up with a question:

What shots out there are so unique, or very nearly so, to a region or course, that a golfer who played that region or course might develop a skill not often demanded elsewhere?

For elucidation, looking for something much more unique than generic comments like, "need a knockdown shot to play a links, or links course X."  Also DQed: "need a high draw to play ANGC," because that shot may be in demand on that course, but it's not really unique to that course.

We Americans might call them "Green Monster" Shots in honor of the unique skill required of Boston Red Sox left fielders.

For example: Ogilvy's pitch (Melbourne Sandbelt; maybe Pinehurst #2 as well?)
For example: 70-yard putts on TOC / mallet putter skill
For example: flop wedge bunker shots at Yale

The funkier the better. For example: how to play a carom off an ancient wall next to a green.

Ogilvy:
"Two things helped me there.

"One, growing up in the Sandbelt, all you have there is tight-lie chips up hills when you miss a green. And that was a very Sandbelt-type shot off a tight lie. So I’m sure there was a level of comfort somewhere at the back of my head, knowing I had done that a thousand times at home. "

Mark,
I'm having a hard time thinking of any - except for the obvious, the pitch off pavement at the Road Hole. I'm sure there are other examples but I wonder if there are that many, especially on modern-era courses. GC McDonaldization sounds like the same thing Stephen J. Gould saw in baseball - the decline of variation. "Creativity" or "imagination" ought to be more than deciding how hard to swing a lob wedge through thick rough.

James, example #3 is a good one, other two don't seem all that unique...

Homer's standard (you're trying to give the queen a run for most given names?) of a "course X shot" is a good one...what others are out there?

Craig, that's interesting. You mean his essay on why the .400 hitter disappeared?

Thinking on that one...