Please help me on this quote from The Good Doctor

[Lynn_Shackelford]

"long driving is not a crime--it is a virtue and is more frequently by skill and grace of motion than by mere force.  Long drivers should be rewarded, and as a general rule they should have greater latitude, and not less, than short drivers."

My thesaurus has leeway, freedom, room and opportunity for "latitude."

Did The Good Doctor want longer hitters rewarded with wider landing areas to go with better angle/view of hole?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Lynn,
My dictionary definition for latitude begins with breadth & width so maybe he meant that the farther out one hits the wider the landing areas should be. That stands to reason as it's only a few degrees wide way out there but it's a lot wider the closer you come back to the tee, given a parallel fairway.
Players need better angles when they are far from the green  so I would suppose that width and not necessarily better angles/views is what he had in mind for the longballer, but it's only my guess.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Might latitude also mean "choices"?

In that longer hitters should have more options available to them than the shorter players.

[Pete_Pittock]

This is in 'The Spirit of St Andrews', page 65 after commenting on the increased distance from the Haskell ball.
The two previous sentences have a bearing. First, Amrose,
Simpson and Wethered advocated that..increased ball flight...should be neutralized by penalizing anyonr who drives too far. Then. "It might be quite reasonable for the sake of variety and to force players to use their heads to do this at one or two holes, but I can hardly anything more unfair than to have too many holes of this type".

He seems to be arguing against the Simpson, et al proposals gaining too much credence to the detriment of skill players, and paranthetically also against the shorher hitters who may encounter the squeezed landing areas with their second shots.

[ed_getka]

When I think of the Mackenzie courses I have played I think the latitude refers to the angles Mackenzie incorporated into his holes. #2 or #12 at Cypress Point serve as an example. For the shorter hitter, especially before technology took over, there was really only a relatively narrow area to hit safely to. The longer hitter had more "latitude" because he could challenge the hazards more and leave himself a much easier second shot, thus be rewarded. Another example is #11 at Pasatiempo, where Bobby Jones is said to have driven across the  barranca, which is damn impressive, even if the trees weren't there when he played. Playing straight up into that bear of a green like Jones did would be a nice reward for hitting a long ball into that position.

See you Saturday at Pasa.

[Pete Lavallee]

It sounds to me that the Good Doctor was trying to warn about the dangers of controlling the long player with narrowed fairways and hazards situated in his landing zone. I think he would be vey upset about the modern trend to place hazards to the sides of the optimum landing area for the better player and then have to provide runway tees so that everyone playes their own scaled down version of the same hole. MacKenzie's holes have completely different strategy and options for each class of player, depending on their ability. Not everyone's guaranteed to have a 7 iron in, "if they play the right set of tees", nor should they be. Of course, I imagine it takes more time and talent to design holes that can work for different levels of players and still give each a chance to succeed with his own game. I think MacKenzie was really trying to convey his belief that the architect should concentrate his efforts on providing a reward for the good shot, with better angles or sight lines, and not taking the easy way out by just penalizing a long but slightly off line shot, or to control the distance top flight player would hit the ball with fairway hazards alone.

[Willie_Dow]

Does the Good Doctor ever make reference to the bottle hole?  It might answer your question.

[TEPaul]

This is an excellent question. To do the question justice in this discussion I would move that it be looked at from the perspective of what many of the architects from yesteryear and today have both said about it and done about it in their architecture.

However, I would offer the caveat when this discussion proceeds to look at the question not in the context of "formulaics" or some answer that creates a standard formula for all holes on any course in the context of this question.

I say this primarily because I don't think any of the really good architects ever were formulaic on this question. If something they said appeared to be formulaic I think we can see in practice it really never was.

I think we'll probably find when we look the the entire inventory of good architecture that any fundamental question like this generally evolves into the more interesting areas of variety, diversity, versatility.

So, I'll offer the feeling of William Flynn on this overall question--particularly since I consider Flynn to have been a designer who started early in the last century and later in his career clearly evolved in his architecture into viewing it, designing it and constructing it somewhat scientifically. That is not to say, though, that despite the scientific approach he did not value variety first!

William Flynn wrote;

"The problems which should be developed on the various holes in the order of their importance are first--accuracy; second--carry; third--length, which includes carry and roll.

The premium of accuracy should carry the greatest reward for this is the essence of any game.

Carry, while slightly less valuable than accuracy is important in that it promotes boldness.

Length may be considered least important but this becomes quite a factor when a player is able to mold all three tests together.

In applying these problems or tests to the layout through the medium of bunkers the architect has a great opportunity to display versatility. On one hole he may have a big diagonal bunker off the tee where the player takes as much risk as he feels capable of carrying and is rewarded in his shot to the green commensurately with his first effort.

He may have a comparatively easy drive off another tee, and yet, if the ball strays slightly from the center of the fairway, his second shot to the green becomes increasingly hard.

By arranging the green bunkers in such a way as to invite play from one side or the other he can also put a premium on placing the tee shot on the proper side of the fairway. When a test of length off the tee is presented the best type is the cape or elbow where it takes a really big tee shot past a corner to permit reaching the green in par.

The problems may be diversified using one test off the tee on one hole, the same on the second shot on another hole; sometimes two of the same kind on the first and second shots of a hole; perhaps all tests--accuracy, carry and length on another but always juggling so as not to get sameness on succeeding holes."

It seems to me from all that that Flynn is not advocating anything as a standard premium--ie accuracy over length or length over accuracy although he did say accuracy in a general sense was most important of all.

He seems to advocate that the most important aspect of architecture is that any player recognize possibly extreme variety of accuracy or length on any hole or any combination of each and deal with it intelligently.

In this sense some on this thread may even feel that Flynn may not have really answered this question--ie, should a long player's length be reigned in by accuracy requirements or should it not? And conversely should a short player's lack of length be balanced by a requirement of accuracy or should it not?

Obviously Flynn was saying it could be and should be anything and everything or either/or for both the short player and the long player but always depending on the particular hole.

[Jim Sweeney]

I had a short conversation with one of the world's top players (at the time) during a shuttle ride to the US Open a Hazeltine in 1991. He was known as a long but somewhat undisciplined driver of the golf ball. He was complaining that he thought the fairways were narrowed in the landing areas of the longer drivers (they were not, of course), and that this was unfair.

My response was, "shouldn't the best players in the world be held to the highest standards in the world's most important (IMO) championship? That was the end of the conversation.

That player fell out of the top ranks rather rapidly in the early 90's. I take no credit for that.

Length should be rewarded with more options and better angles. That doesn't necessarily equate to more landing area room- there must be a penalty for wayward driving;ie, length in and of itself is not a reward, but, when accurate, should be rewarded.

IMO, that is Mackenzie's theory.

[T_MacWood]

I would agree with PeteP's take. These comments were proceeded by the views of Ambrose, Wethered and Simpson, and a few pages prior of Ambrose's alone.

Their theory was to penalize the longer driver by creating a bottleneck with rough. Being a great admirer of the Old Course, MacKenzie was an advocate of width. He said a bottleneck was OK once or twice a round (he gave #9 at CP as an example) but its large scale use would make the game less interesting (I wonder what he would have thought of Oakland Hills).

One of the problems is that conditions change--wind and firmness of ground--so there would times when everyone might be penalized. He also believed in practice the better players would adjust and play short, while the poorer short golfers would actually be penalized more often on their second. MacKenzie was not a fan of rough as a hazard, instead of pinching the longer golfer with rough he advocated the use of contours, hummocks and hollows--exemplified, he said, in the great old links courses.

I agree with Tom Paul's take that there were many ways to skin a cat--the bottleneck, the cross hazard, the water hazard, rough grasses, blind shots, trees, etc.--some were favored, some fell out of favor, what is interesting is how much debate you find among theorists and architects. Depsite what was favored and what wasn't, the best architects had one thing in common--variety, which MacKenzie mentions.

The imporatance of variety can be traced back to Horace Hutchinson, who can be credited with starting the debate/analysis, he emphasized that the most important factor for interesting golf, was not the elimination of these controversial features, but variety. When the blind shot was totally out of favor, he wrote the blind shot is not something you want a steady diet of, but what's wrong with once or twice a round, it can be fun and exciting. The same with the cross hazard, we know they were overused in the dark days, but lets not wipe them off the face of the earth they can be an interesting hazard once in a while. He always warned against becoming to formulaic.

[TEPaul]

redanman:

Elaborate in what way? On what?

Tom MacW;

It seems undeniable that on the question on this thread that most of the good architects did favor variety above all.

But it's important to note, I think, that there are two ways to look at variety in architecture in the context of this subject.

One application of variety would be to use a constantly changing arrangement of architectural features to accomplish basically the same strategic thing regarding length and accuracy. That I think, although some mentioned it in that way was not overriding.

What was overriding was to offer variety in the context of never being formulaic at all with the basic question of this thread. In other words on some holes accuracy very well may be a requirement for reward with real length and on other holes not at all. If it were otherwise I think they believed golf and its architecture would've become far too "formulaic".

[Jim_Kennedy]

From a TEPaul post,

....to look at the question not in the context of "formulaics" or some answer that creates a standard formula for all holes on any course in the context of this question.

The idea expressed above could be labeled as one of the "10 commandments" that should be followed in order to gain a better understanding of architecture. Thanks for the reminder Tom.

[TEPaul]

JimK:

Thanks for saying that but when reading that comment alone like that---would you mind telling me what it means? I think I already forgot. Sometimes I get long on synaptic inspiration and sort of short on the rest of it!

[Jim_Kennedy]

TE, I'll use a couple of your own writings to elaborate.
TEPaul wrote:

....I don't think any of the really good architects ever were formulaic.

...and also wrote:

....any fundamental question like this generally evolves into the more interesting areas of variety, diversity, versatility.

When judging the merits of an individual hole or a routing or the overall course shouldn't we first look at the way in which the architect uses the elements of variety, diversity and versatility  I think it's more important to recognize these various qualities and their overall use than it is to judge a treacherous driving hole as better than one that has less challenge off the tee. They are different, that's all, and recognizing this should become a guideline, or commandment, when we judge architecture.

[Pete_Pittock]

Latitude may also be the option to participate. In this case you give the stonger player the latitude to hit the driver

[Michael Dugger]

I take this quote from Dr. Mackenzie in the context of strategic design.  

"Long drivers should be rewarded, and as a general rule they should have greater latitude, and not less, than short drivers."

I think he is saying all thing being equal, since we are already asking the longer player to hit it further, clear impressive obstacles, etc., we should not punish them with a narrower landing area.

That's all

I find it difficult to separate what he is saying about long driving from the attributes of strategic golf.

The strategy of the golf couse is the soul of the game.  The spirit of golf is to dare a hazard, and by negotiating it reap a reward, while he who fears or declines the issue of carry, has a longer or harder shot for his second, or his second or third on long holes; yet the player who avoids the unwise effort gains advantage over one who tries for more than in him lies, or fails under the test                              GEORGE C. THOMAS



Furthermore, citing the quote again....."long driving is not a crime--it is a virtue and is more frequently by skill and grace of motion than by mere force.

Thus, it is my feeling that what Dr. Mackenzie is saying is that long driving is a skill to be rewarded.  If we squeeze the landing areas for the long drivers, we are diminishing the value in hitting the ball far.  I.E. you'd be better off laying-up.

As an afterthought, a lot of what Mac is talking about here seems slightly redundant to me.  I do not think he really intends to propogate the notion of huge wide landing areas for the longer players.  It just seems counteractive to the notion of "thinking your way around the course"  

In the case of the 300 yard par four, for example, while a long drive may seem like the most direct path to birdie because it will result in a shorter 2nd, playing two 150 yards shots may very well be the wiser choice.  How many 300 yard par fours have a more ample landing area for the long hitter compared to the shorter one?  

Golf is a game of balance.  The man who knows the value of each of his clubs, and who can work out when it is proper to play one and when to play another, succeeds at the game.  the ability of a golfer to know his power and accuracy, and to play for what he can accomplish, is a thing which makes his game as perfect as can be; while a thinker who gauges the true value of his shots, and is able to play the shot well, nearly always defeats an opponent who neglects to consider and properly discount his shortcomings.....The strategy of golf is the thing which gives the short accurate player a chance with a longer hitter who cannot control his direction or distance.
                                              GEORGE C. THOMAS


So, if I haven't completely lost you yet, in all my ramblings....I 100% agree with Lynn's assessment of the quote.  Dr. Mackenzie IS INDEED saying that the long hitters should have ample landing areas.  But, I don't think he is saying they should be bigger than that of the shorter hitters, either, necessarily.....as a general rule, "they should have greater latitude".  Emphasis on the word, "general"  
  

[Forrest Richardson]

Lynn- ...and as a general rule they should have greater latitude..."

Although we may never know for certain, it is my belief that MacKenzie meant a great deal by the inclusion of "general" in this statement. On a regulation course there are generally 14 opportunities to hit the driver, perhaps less if a few lay-up holes are included, or if the course has a fifth par-3. Let's say there are 12 opportunities, OK?

Of these 12 holes, taking the term "general", we might be left with 9 or 10 holes, OK? That's 75 to 80%, which I feel is "general" in about everyone's standards. This leaves 2 or 3 holes where his statement might be taken to mean that these holes are exceptions — that latitude is NOT perhaps afforded here — by design. Whether bottle holes, guided holes or just plain penal to the longer shot, these holes add variety and are a departure from the "general".

I will always continue to quote from Flynn: "Accuracy, carry and then length..."

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.  I agree that Mackenzie and others of his time felt variety was essential.  But based on this quote, Mackenzie may have felt variety could be obtained without having to narrow a hole for the long hitter.  He doesn't qualify his statement by saying anything about having some holes which limit the opportunity to use your driver or the need to have to drive it straight.  However we will never really know what he meant by putting in the phrase "and as a general rule."  It would be interesting to know if he felt that two and three shot holes should always have wide landing areas for the long hitters, or on rare occasions input some variety.  Certainly the 9th at Cypress doesn't give the long hitter much latitude.

[Neil Regan]

Lynn,
  Regarding the use of the word "latitude" by MacKenzie:
A few pages earlier (p.59 in my edition) Mackenzie says:

"The fairways should gradually widen out where the long drive goes. In this way a long driver is given a little more latitude for pulling or slicing."

Latitude means width. It's other meanings obtain metaphorically. There seems to be no metaphor in this case.

[Tom_Doak]

Lynn,

I missed this thread while I was overseas, but I firmly agree with the consensus above.

I don't believe that MacKenzie would have approved of "pinching" landing areas for good players more than 1-2 times a round.  If you think through his courses, I think it would be rare to find many examples of holes where fairway bunkers are across from one another.  (As it would be on mine.)

MacKenzie did not think of golf in terms of favoring one player over another -- he didn't give the "scratch" player more thought than the five handicap, or the five more thought than the ten.  So by that token he did not believe in designing holes for (or AGAINST) players who hit the ball any certain distance.

If the fairway is thirty yards wide throughout, the longer you hit the ball, the more accurate (in terms of angle) you must be to stay in the fairway.  If anything, I think MacKenzie believed the long hitter should have a little wider landing area in the interest of fairness.  This would also increase his latitude for getting a better (or worse) angle to the green by being closer to it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lynn Shackelford,

"long driving is not a crime--it is a virtue and is more frequently by skill and grace of motion than by mere force.  Long drivers should be rewarded, and as a general rule they should have greater latitude, and not less, than short drivers."....

Did the good Doctor, UNIVERSALLY practice what he preached?

If he felt this way it should be evident in all of the products he produced.  What does that body of evidence reflect ?

TEPaul,

You can't accept a general design principle and then deny that its existence, its basis, is formulaic.  

Well, maybe you can, but the rest of the world can't.  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul
You can't accept a general design principle and then deny that its existence, its basis, is formulaic."  

Patrick:

I see those words and I can read them--but would you do me a favor and tell me what they're referring to? Try to be a little specific, would you please? It's hard enough to understand where you're coming from most of the time anyway. You're getting more like redanman every day--he posts things on here but I don't believe anyone has the slightest idea what he's talking about.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

....I would offer the caveat when this discussion proceeds to look at the question not in the context of "formulaics" or some answer that creates a standard formula for all holes on any course in the context of this question. ...

You can't accept a general principle, and then deny that its formulaic in nature.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

What 'general principle' do you think I'm accepting? If you're referring to the remark in the first post of MacKenzie's mention of 'as a general rule' I don't view that as a general principle and if that happens to be what he meant about length always being rewarded (by latitude or width?) I wouldn't agree with that. If that's what he meant to say or propose why do some of his holes not do that? What I meant to convey in my first post on this thread is in my opinion every good architect including Alister Mackenzie favored variety and diversity over most all else and variety and diversity are mostly antithetical to "formulaics" in architecture. If you're angling to get support for "formulaics" in architecture from me, don't bother--I'm not going to agree with that.