I've been going through old newspaper archives. There's a bit of a pattern emerging that surprised me (though maybe it won't come as a surprise to many others here). It's the kind of high numbers being shot by some of the better players of the day, i.e. the 1910s and 1920s -- and how those numbers didn't seem to reflect badly on the design, even in the players' eyes.  

Here's an example, from a 1915 article on the first day of competition at the then-new Greenbriar Links in White Sulphur Springs W. Virginia. The players included "Charles Blair Macdonald, who designed the course". (That's interesting in itself; I don't find many "designers" being credited that early on.)   Max H. Behr of Baltusrol and Louis Livingston of the National Links were the only two players to get into the 70s (they both shot 79).

The article, in what seems like a real understatement, notes that "The course is more difficult than its Par 72 would indicate". Then the scores:e.g. CB Macdonald, National, 80; Martin W Littletown, Garden City, 106; Malcolm Stevenson, Piping Rock, 96; Jay Cooke, Huntingdon Valley, 92; Edward T. Wilson, Plainfield, 97; George I. Scott, Newport, 105; Henry Whigham, National, 86. And it goes on and on like that, with the bulk of the scores in the high 80s to mid 90s range.

I assume that "par" wasn't so precious a thing back then, and that there are a lot of other factors when it comes to scoring. But what surprised me is that article (and others like it) doesn't make a very big deal of it at all. It's as if "new course opens, par 72, most shoot in the 90s, next." No one is suggesting that CB had designed too hard a course. The article simply says "Many excellent plays marked the first round, but only two [players] were able to break into the coveted seventies".

Did they really 'judge' a course so differently in those days? (if that's a conclusion I can draw).  Was the relationship between "scoring" and "quality design" that non-existent back then?  Why'd they build them so hard?

Peter
 

Peter:

Your thread's questions are excellent ones---and historically pertinent ones. I think there are many more obvious answers than may at first appear, and I want to take a stab at those answers but I have to go to bed. See you manana.

Philip
thanks. Yes, I was aware of the "bogey" score concept, and the kind of (higher) numbers that tended to be shot back then. In fact, given all that, it seems even more striking that there's the line "the course plays harder than its Par 72 would indicate" -- implying that this "par" number was still meant to be in some way indicative of the scores that could be expected. But then 90% of the field doesn't even get close to that number.  

This is all just to clarify what struck me about this, i.e. it's not the scores themselves as much as the relationship in the 1910s and 20s between design/design philosophy and those scores. This particular article was chosen because of the designer involved, Macdonald, and because he also happened to be a champion golfer.  

Peter

This isn't really related to your initial question in your post, more the topic question, but I have come to change my feelings somewhat on hard golf courses.

I used to think any idiot could build a hard golf course. I still kind of believe that, but what I've come to appreciate more is how a hard course can be interesting and fun. I came to this belief following the 03 Open Championship at Sandwich, the 03 US Am at Oakmont and the 04 US Open at Shinney. (I have a feeling I'd say the same about the 04 US Am at Merion, but I didn't get to see much of that one.)

These 3 events opened my eyes to how a course can be very hard for the top players, yet not in a boring sense, ala water everywhere or mega rough everywhere. A truly firm and fast course really does highlight the architecture, as Tom P always says, without simply resorting to penalty stroke difficulties.

Water and hay don't really substantially change the "What's my yardage?" approach (unless coupled with IMM).

Sorry about the semi-threadjack, I just thought it was an appropriate place for these thoughts.

Peter, if you took a similar group of CGA people to the opening of say, Sebonac, would their scores not be high?  From the 1915 list it looks like a social group and scores today would be very similar for an opening.  The average modern golfer hits it further, has better equipment, but still shoots in the high 80s.  
Or am I wrong and the list comprised the top players of 1915.

Peter, if you took a similar group of CGA people to the opening of say, Sebonac, would their scores not be high?  From the 1915 list it looks like a social group and scores today would be very similar for an opening.  The average modern golfer hits it further, has better equipment, but still shoots in the high 80s.  
Or am I wrong and the list comprised the top players of 1915.

Gary,

That list from 1915 is pretty strong.

Peter, let me ask you something;

If a club took a par 5 hole and did nothing at all to it other than to reduce its par to 4, do you think the hole has been made harder?

This is precisely what NGLA just did with #5, by the way.

Peter, let me ask you something;

If a club took a par 5 hole and did nothing at all to it other than to reduce its par to 4, do you think the hole has been made harder?

This is precisely what NGLA just did with #5, by the way.

I'm obvioiusly not Peter, but one heck of a lot of golfers seem to think that it does make the hole harder. They're wrong, but try to tell them that.

Payne Stewart's famous exchange with Tom Meeks is typical:


Tom Meeks, who set up U.S. Open courses for 10 years, once told of a confrontation he had with the late Payne Stewart over changing the 16th hole at Pinehurst No. 2 into a par 4. Stewart argued that the green was not designed for a long iron.

"Tell you what, Payne," Meeks told him. "We'll move the tee back and make it 530 yards if you promise you and everyone else won't go for the green in two."

FWIW, that's from this recent AP Story: http://www.mytelus.com/sports/article.do?pageID=golf/home&articleID=2577810&

Tom Meeks, who set up U.S. Open courses for 10 years, once told of a confrontation he had with the late Payne Stewart over changing the 16th hole at Pinehurst No. 2 into a par 4. Stewart argued that the green was not designed for a long iron.

"Tell you what, Payne," Meeks told him. "We'll move the tee back and make it 530 yards if you promise you and everyone else won't go for the green in two."

Tom Meeks' response is as silly as Stewart's question.

I think Peter is getting at a different issue here.

Transposed to modern times, the question is how would we react to a new course on which a former US Amateur champ (MacD) and a former NCAA champ (Behr) both shot 79's?

My guess is that there would be a lot of beefing about the course being too hard, no fun, over the top, a grind, a monster and other bad things.

But the players in 1915 loved the course. So why the different perceptions of difficulty?

Good question.

Bob

Peter,

Maybe to answer a small part of the question...when I said "built in excuse" is taken away by todays maintenance practices, I mean to imply that in those days a certain number of strokes would be lost to maintenance issues that have been eliminated today, for a variety of reasons. Better grooming devices for the areas we groom, as well as those we do not (ie; bunkers, rough etc...).

JES - but wouldn't CB Macdonald of all people have known all about the nature/quality of the then-current maintenance practices (and equipment etc), and their affects on scoring? If so -- and I think the answer is yes -- he does not seem to have made any allowances for it in his design, at least not then. Did that change later on?

Peter

edit:

RJ - thanks. That aspect of it is something that escaped me.

Bob C - thanks. I wish I had your way with words.

Quote from: KMoum on March 23, 2007, 02:17:34 PM

Tom Meeks, who set up U.S. Open courses for 10 years, once told of a confrontation he had with the late Payne Stewart over changing the 16th hole at Pinehurst No. 2 into a par 4. Stewart argued that the green was not designed for a long iron.

"Tell you what, Payne," Meeks told him. "We'll move the tee back and make it 530 yards if you promise you and everyone else won't go for the green in two."

Tom Meeks' response is as silly as Stewart's question.

I think Peter is getting at a different issue here.

Transposed to modern times, the question is how would we react to a new course on which a former US Amateur champ (MacD) and a former NCAA champ (Behr) both shot 79's?

My guess is that there would be a lot of beefing about the course being too hard, no fun, over the top, a grind, a monster and other bad things.

But the players in 1915 loved the course. So why the different perceptions of difficulty?

Good question.

Bob

I know my note wasn't responsive to Peter's original question, but the interesting thing about Meek's comment was that it apparently caused Payne S. to totally change his mind about such issues.

Re. Peter's question, I have held a theory for some time that golfers used to think the game was supposed to be hard, and that difficulty attracted them to it.

I came to it by trying to figure out why modern implements-- folks say is making the game easier and more accessible--haven't resulted in beginners sticking around in significantly greater numbers.

When I learned to play, EVERYONE from pros to the worst hackers on my home course used wooden woods and tiny forged blades with balata balls and they seemed to enjoy themselves.

I believe that today's equipment has created a mindset for all levels of golfers that it's supposed to be easier. This has resulted in a sea change in golfer expectations, which is manifested in frustration and unhappiness.

FWIW, some of the happiest rounds of my golfing year have been played with either 1950s - 60s classics or with my hickory set. The scores I shoot with the classic stuff are virtually the same as my modern equipment, and the hickories are only a handful of shots worse.

No!

For the same reasons they didn't factor in future green speeds.

Those bad lies you discuss are part of the "expectation" of the game. I would bet CBM would crings at the consistency of surface preparation today.

If a great player played really well they might shoot par.

How difficult would a course have to be today for Ryan Moore to go out and play really well to shoot par?

But JES, that's part of my point; I've already agreed that "changing expectations" are part of it, and I'm not asking/expecting Macdonald to have factored-in future green speeds or better maintenance practices, or even to like or understand the standards that we have today.  

But at Greenbriar, Macdonald (and others, at other places) could have, for example, designed wider playing corriders throughout, or have every green with big openings that allowed for run-up shots all the time etc...ways that still demanded shot making but that allowed, a little, for the conditions he would've expected to find.

Later on, didn't others do something like that? Jones and Mackenzie at Augusta, for example, or the early version of Pebble Beach? (though I don't know enough to speculate on why they did, if they did). Did Macdonald start doing something like that a little later on too?

All I'm saying is that SOMETHING seems to have changed from the courses/philosophies of the 1910s and 1920s to those a designed and played on while later -- and it struck me that one of the ways this change was "reflected" was in scores; that's why the 1915 example was used.  And, any confusion about all that is my fault.

Peter