Was disfigurement an attempt at equalization ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Many golf courses, including the classics, were disfigured over the last 50 years.

Were these disfigurations an attempt by lessor players to alter the architecture in an attempt to equalize their ability to compete with the better player ?

Irrespective of the difficulty of a golf course, handicaps are established based on one's play, and these handicaps level the competitive edge held by the better golfer, allowing the poorer golfer to compete on an equal footing, day in and day out.

Were golf courses altered or disfigured by those seeking to accelerate the process of equalization, with the better player ?

How else can systemic or universal disfiguration be explained ?

[Joe Hancock]

I don't know who can answer this, other than greens committee chairpersons who had an active role in disfigurement or architects who were in on the alleged cunning ploy.

Joe

[ForkaB]

Pat

If handicapping systems are accurate and robust, any changes to a golf course will have no effect over time on the relative ability of players to win matches which are handcapped.

I think the motivations behind any past "disfigurations" were related to ego and esthetics rather than "equalization," although I recognise that there is an overlap here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

If handicapping systems are accurate and robust, any changes to a golf course will have no effect over time on the relative ability of players to win matches which are handcapped.

This would ignore human nature, the desire for instant gratification, and the opportunity for a golfer to influence how the golf course interfaces with his particular game.

Do cheaters view their acts in the long term, as you alluded to above, or do they view the acts as an immediate opportunity to influence the outcome of the match ?

And so it is with architectural features.
If a bunker, fairway contour or putting surface adversely affects a particular golfer, don't they try to exert their influence in an attempt to alter the feature to suit their immediate needs ?   And, once one group is successful in altering the golf course for their perceived purpose, doesn't the next group try to repeat the process to suit their agenda ?

And, as this process continues, isn't the distinctive life, the design integrity, squeezed out of the golf course in the name of "fairness" by faction after faction ?[/color]

I think the motivations behind any past "disfigurations" were related to ego and esthetics rather than "equalization," although I recognise that there is an overlap here.
I think the overlap may be greater than you think.
Isn't equalization the natural and immediate by-product of ego when it comes to altering golf courses ? [/color]

[Jeff Goldman]

Pat,

Haven't we heard many, many cases of disfigurement in an attempt to make courses more difficult?  Water hazards, moving bunkering, etc. etc. all in an attempt to keep up with technology.

Isn't a second reason for these changes related to so-called beautification?  Here I'm thinking of tree programs which kill the strategy of courses by narrowing corridors.

And Isn't another reason, possibly relating to the first, the disfiguring of greens in order to have faster greenspeeds but maintain playability?

I don't think any of these relate to equalization.  As another example, there have been complaints at my course about the bunker sand - that it gives too many funky, fried egg or buried lies, doesn't play consistently, etc.  However, these come from our better players; I stink and I think these are fun shots to have to play.

To be sure, there are examples of disfigurement by greens chairmen or other folks running clubs closer to your suggestion - Joe Dey's supposed removal of bunkers from teh Creek comes to mind.  Do you know of any other "disfigurements" done in an attempt to make the course play easier for lousy players or to allow them to compete with better players?

Jeff Goldman

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, Absolutely.

I was at a course yesterday that some of you are famliar with and while the course is a neat, cool, fun little charmer, the changes made--both bad and good are the result of trying to make the course more playable, more safe, more challenging for the better player. And still, the beat keeps going on as now the changes that were made to aleviate these problem areas have become themselves antiquated. Sadly, instead of it being just this charmer of a golf course, it is having to spend valuable funds to protect itself from the new equipment. soon all of that great charming architecture will be lost.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Goldman,

You may be viewing the issue in a more recent context when technology and green speeds have reared their heads.

50 years ago technology and green speeds weren't a substantive factor.

Many of the issues you raise haven't disfigured the golf course.

I would submit that more bunkers have been removed then have been added.

Adding length in the context of elasticity is within the bounds of the architects global view, and doesn't disfigure the golf course.

Tree plantings outside of the playing corridors don't affect play that much.   Indescriminate plantings where trees matured beyond their 4 foot drip radius have had a terrible impact, but, for the most part, they didn't disturb or alter the architectural features of the golf course.

I think irrigation systems and costs impacted fairway widths more than beautification programs.  And, fairway widths can be recaptured, no inherent features have been lost.

I can name quite a few courses where the golf course was made easier.   Just look at the old aerial of Hollywood and let me know what you think.

I should have rephrased the thread, such that it was a question directed solely to those who have served on green committees or Boards, for without that experience, it's difficult to comprehend the nature of the question.

[Jeff Goldman]

Pat,

It may be that more bunkers have been removed than added over the years (as per my post on Joe Dey at The Creek), but to conclude that it was done to make the course play easier so that poorer players could compete with better players requires evidence - recollections of those involved, detailed board minutes or some such.  

Again, it may be that a course is changed to make it easier for poorer players, but your question cannot be answered without knowing why this was done.  At a course I am very familiar with, in the early 1960s greenside bunkers, which had generally been placed a bit away from greens (10-20 yards), were brought much closer to them.  The person who did this stated that this would make the course play more difficult for the better player who tried to get the ball close to the hole and had to flirt with them, but play easier for the higher handicappers because they didn't hit many greens, and would not get in as much trouble if they were well short of greens.  However, this was done at the behest of better players who wanted the challenge rather than by poorer players who wanted to win more money in weekend scotch games.

We have also seen "wild" greens and other features from classic courses posted here; do we know, for instance, that the 2 or 20 hole at Forsgate was taken out of play, or other features destroyed at the behest of weaker players because they were too difficult; or were some removed because better players thought they were unfair?  I suspect some of both, but I won't buy the idea that the latter never happened.

Also, you seem to indicate in your reply to Rich Goodale's post that golfers will always attempt to have the features that influence their game for the worse taken out.  I don't know that that was true 50 years ago, as you suppose in the amendment to your question, but these days it seems that the emphasis is to provide more challenge to better players, something that is antithetical to your claim (better players would want the stuff that troubles them wiped out too).  Butler National isn't being torn up because it was too hard.

At another course contemplating renovations that I am familiar with, the idea is again to make the bunkers more difficult, add tees that in fact would destroy the strategy of the holes, and do other things to make the course harder.  Maybe it's just a product of the midwest.

You are correct that I am less familiar with changes made decades ago.  I would be interested in a few examples of courses made easier specifically because  weaker players wanted to be able to better compete with better players.  Thanks!

Jeff Goldman

[Geoffrey Childs]

Pat

My town purchased an old Dev Emmet course (formerly Vernon Hills) about 20 years ago.  They renamed it Lake Isle.  It was a sporty, quirky course (about 6300 yards) that was a lot of fun to play and had enough real trouble in the form of bunkers (some requiring carries) and a wild 18th green that the challenge was there but scoring was also very possible.

They started by converting a nice par 5 into a 230 yard par 3 to build 5 pools and tennis courts for the town and the great opening hole of 450 yards with an uphill drive to the crest of a hill was converted into a 300 yard wimper of a par 4 for a parking lot and the 185 yard par 3 3rd was shortened for parking and to give land to the adjacent shopping center.

Well, even with this 6000 yard course there was enough quirk and difficulty to make it a fun place to play.

However, the seniors could not play in less then 5 hours and they could not get out of several bunkers especially the huge deep crossbunker in front of the cute 295 yard 18th hole.

So, to ease the great difficulty to play the course  Stephen Kay was brought in to redo all the bunkers taking out every difficult well placed bunker including the one on 18 (along with removing the stream running along the right of the fairway and taking contour out of the green.  Leaving the front of the green open to a runup shot (he did this to the island green 13th that was surrounded by sand too).  I've never seen a cute fun to play course gutted of every interesting architectural feature as this was.  

Why?  To satisfy seniors in the town and to make money pushing them through using manditory carts at certain times and manditory handcarts all the other times.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It may be that more bunkers have been removed than added over the years (as per my post on Joe Dey at The Creek), but to conclude that it was done to make the course play easier so that poorer players could compete with better players requires evidence - recollections of those involved, detailed board minutes or some such.  

What other explanation could you offer ?

Better players are better bunker players.
Better players are better at avoiding bunkers.
Why would better players want bunkers removed ?
It would diminish their advantage.[/color]

Again, it may be that a course is changed to make it easier for poorer players, but your question cannot be answered without knowing why this was done.  At a course I am very familiar with, in the early 1960s greenside bunkers, which had generally been placed a bit away from greens (10-20 yards), were brought much closer to them.  The person who did this stated that this would make the course play more difficult for the better player who tried to get the ball close to the hole and had to flirt with them, but play easier for the higher handicappers because they didn't hit many greens, and would not get in as much trouble if they were well short of greens.  However, this was done at the behest of better players who wanted the challenge rather than by poorer players who wanted to win more money in weekend scotch games.
It's just the opposite.  That change made it harder for the inferior player, it reduced their margins of error on the approach and the recovery.[/color]

We have also seen "wild" greens and other features from classic courses posted here; do we know, for instance, that the 2 or 20 hole at Forsgate was taken out of play, or other features destroyed at the behest of weaker players because they were too difficult; or were some removed because better players thought they were unfair?  I suspect some of both, but I won't buy the idea that the latter never happened.
I haven't seen any indication in forty years on green committees and boards that the better players are the ones asking for the removal of a feature in the name of fairness.
Could you cite some that you've come into contact with ?[/color]

Also, you seem to indicate in your reply to Rich Goodale's post that golfers will always attempt to have the features that influence their game for the worse taken out.  I don't know that that was true 50 years ago, as you suppose in the amendment to your question,

How else do you explain the removal of top shot bunkers and other features that had a disproportionate influence on the higher handicaps game ?[/color]

but these days it seems that the emphasis is to provide more challenge to better players, something that is antithetical to your claim (better players would want the stuff that troubles them wiped out too).  

I don't see that at all at the local club level.
I see an interest in adding length, but not in removing architectural features that might negatively impact the low handicap player.[/color]

Butler National isn't being torn up because it was too hard.

Butler National was built for ONE purpose.  
To be a hard golf course.
The intent remains.[/color]

At another course contemplating renovations that I am familiar with, the idea is again to make the bunkers more difficult, add tees that in fact would destroy the strategy of the holes, and do other things to make the course harder.  Maybe it's just a product of the midwest.

You're again referencing current events, the knee jerk response to hi tech.
Lengthening is systemic, and in the context of elasticity, I have no problem with it.

Are the member's tees, the lady's tees, the junior's tees, and the senior's tees being lengthened as well, or just the championship tees ?   I haven't seen many, if any, golf courses lengthen those other sets of tees.[/color]

You are correct that I am less familiar with changes made decades ago.  I would be interested in a few examples of courses made easier specifically because  weaker players wanted to be able to better compete with better players.  Thanks!

Jeff, they litter the landscape in this part of the country.

And, I'll go a step further.
With a number of restorations, true restorations weren't embarked upon because a true restoration would have adversely afffected the play of the higher handicapper, and thus the concept was rejected.[/color]

[ForkaB]

Pat

Thanks for your reply.  I'll stand by what I said.

Rich

[ForkaB]

Pat

Just for some clarification of my post above.

--you do not understand what I mean vis a vis a "robust and accurate" handicapping system.  This is not your fault.  Your experience in and knowledge of these matters is limited.
--you are either disingenuous or ignorant regarding "cheaters."   I, for one, only play with cheaters once.  If you choose to play with them more than once it is like the definition of a second marriage--"the triumph of hope over experience."
--you are far too paranoid.  I have yet to observe a golf club that has removed any significant architectural feature because the hackers/cheaters in the club have lobbied for it.  All the clubs I am familar with are run by golfers.  It is sad that the clubs you are familiar with seem to be run by the hackers and the cheaters.

My advice to you....Join a new golf club!

[BCrosby]

Most of the "disfigurements" I am familiar with were urged on their clubs by the better golfers there.

It almost always involves features they think are "unfair." Which usually boils down to a quirky feature that cost them a good round.

At least in my experience, hackers have little clout about such things.

Bob  

[Geoffrey Childs]

Bob

Hackers have little clout unless they have lots of free time to go to town board meetings monthly and make pests of themselves. They were able to get funding to completely disfigure a cute Dev Emmet course so that they would not have to get sand in their golf shoes.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
How much disfigurement was done to "ease" maintenance costs?
I know two courses (one well known, the other not so well known, same architect) in Ct. where this is true.


 

 

[John_Cullum]

I would venture "equalization" is about the last reason a course was disfigured. Most often disfigurment is the work of egomaniacs.

[Dan Kelly]

I, for one, only play with cheaters once.  If you choose to play with them more than once it is like the definition of a second marriage--"the triumph of hope over experience."

Rich --

Well, sure, if you marry the same woman again!

Dan

[Jeff Goldman]

It may be that more bunkers have been removed than added over the years (as per my post on Joe Dey at The Creek), but to conclude that it was done to make the course play easier so that poorer players could compete with better players requires evidence - recollections of those involved, detailed board minutes or some such.  

What other explanation could you offer ?

MAINTENANCE.  I SEEM TO RECALL A THREAD ON TILLINGHAST TOURING THE COUNTRY RECOMMENDING THE REMOVAL OF BUNKERS - WAS THAT DONE SOLELY TO MAKE THE COURSE PLAY EASIER OR TO BE CHEAPER TO MAINTAIN?

Better players are better bunker players.
Better players are better at avoiding bunkers.
Why would better players want bunkers removed ?
It would diminish their advantage.[/color]

I HAVE MANY TIMES HEARD PEOPLE HERE TALK ABOUT HOW BETTER PLAYERS WANT FAIRNESS - NO BAD LIES IN BUNKERS, AND EVEN NO BUNKERS WHERE THEY THINK A GOOD SHOT SHOULD LAND.  WE HAVE COMPLAINTS AT MY PLACE ABOUT THE WAY SOME BUNKERS PLAY UNFAIRLY, AND THESE HAVE COME FROM BETTER PLAYERS.

Again, it may be that a course is changed to make it easier for poorer players, but your question cannot be answered without knowing why this was done.  At a course I am very familiar with, in the early 1960s greenside bunkers, which had generally been placed a bit away from greens (10-20 yards), were brought much closer to them.  The person who did this stated that this would make the course play more difficult for the better player who tried to get the ball close to the hole and had to flirt with them, but play easier for the higher handicappers because they didn't hit many greens, and would not get in as much trouble if they were well short of greens.  However, this was done at the behest of better players who wanted the challenge rather than by poorer players who wanted to win more money in weekend scotch games.
It's just the opposite.  That change made it harder for the inferior player, it reduced their margins of error on the approach and the recovery.[/color]

EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT, PROVES MY POINT.  THESE WEREN'T DONE AT THE BEHEST OF WEAKER PLAYERS.

We have also seen "wild" greens and other features from classic courses posted here; do we know, for instance, that the 2 or 20 hole at Forsgate was taken out of play, or other features destroyed at the behest of weaker players because they were too difficult; or were some removed because better players thought they were unfair?  I suspect some of both, but I won't buy the idea that the latter never happened.
I haven't seen any indication in forty years on green committees and boards that the better players are the ones asking for the removal of a feature in the name of fairness.
Could you cite some that you've come into contact with ?[/color]

SURE, OUR SOUTH COURSE HAS A COUPLE OF UNIQUE GREENS - ONE HAS A FALSE FRONT MAKING UP ABOUT 35% OF THE GREEN.  BETTER PLAYERS HAVE A TENDENCY TO SPIN THE BALL OFF IT, WHILE FOLKS LIKE ME CAN RUN UP 5 IRONS FROM 130 YARDS.  THE ONLY PEOPLE PUSHING TO BUILD UP THE FRONT ARE BETTER PLAYERS BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S BS

Also, you seem to indicate in your reply to Rich Goodale's post that golfers will always attempt to have the features that influence their game for the worse taken out.  I don't know that that was true 50 years ago, as you suppose in the amendment to your question,

How else do you explain the removal of top shot bunkers and other features that had a disproportionate influence on the higher handicaps game ?[/color]

TO LOWER MAINTENANCE COST, AS WELL AS HELPING HIGHER HANDICAPPERS.  

but these days it seems that the emphasis is to provide more challenge to better players, something that is antithetical to your claim (better players would want the stuff that troubles them wiped out too).  

I don't see that at all at the local club level.
I see an interest in adding length, but not in removing architectural features that might negatively impact the low handicap player.[/color]

OBVIOUSLY, I HAVE FAR, FAR LESS EXPERIENCE THAN YOU, BUT I HAVE SEEN IT AND READ ABOUT IT.  I HAVE ALSO READ IN OLD BOARD MINUTES AND CLUB MAGAZINES DATING AS FAR BACK AS THE 1920s ABOUT ADDING DIFFICULTY BY ADDING BUNKERS, MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY FLAT GREENS, AND MOVING FAIRWAYS CLOSER TO HAZARDS.  I HAVE ALSO SEEN SOME ABOUT MAKING THE COURSE EASIER SO THAT SCHLEPPERS CAN GET AROUND BETTER, BUT THAT IS MOSTLY ABOUT TEES.  

Butler National isn't being torn up because it was too hard.

Butler National was built for ONE purpose.  
To be a hard golf course.
The intent remains.[/color]

At another course contemplating renovations that I am familiar with, the idea is again to make the bunkers more difficult, add tees that in fact would destroy the strategy of the holes, and do other things to make the course harder.  Maybe it's just a product of the midwest.

You're again referencing current events, the knee jerk response to hi tech.
Lengthening is systemic, and in the context of elasticity, I have no problem with it.

I DO, IF IT CHANGES THE PLAY OF THE HOLE, AS IN A SHORT PAR-4 THAT BETTER PLAYERS WANT LENGTHENED BECAUSE IT PLAYS "TOO EASY".

Are the member's tees, the lady's tees, the junior's tees, and the senior's tees being lengthened as well, or just the championship tees ?   I haven't seen many, if any, golf courses lengthen those other sets of tees.[/color]

I AGREE ON THIS ONE, EXCEPT AGAIN ABOUT LENGTHENING SHORT PAR-4s BECAUSE THEY PLAY "TOO EASY".

You are correct that I am less familiar with changes made decades ago.  I would be interested in a few examples of courses made easier specifically because  weaker players wanted to be able to better compete with better players.  Thanks!

Jeff, they litter the landscape in this part of the country.

And, I'll go a step further.
With a number of restorations, true restorations weren't embarked upon because a true restoration would have adversely afffected the play of the higher handicapper, and thus the concept was rejected.[/color]

HOW DID THE COURSES GET TO WHERE THEY NEEDED RESTORATION?  

Pat, we really don't disagree that much, except it seems to me that you shouldn't generalize about something as broad as disfiguring golf courses.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

--you do not understand what I mean vis a vis a "robust and accurate" handicapping system.  This is not your fault.  Your experience in and knowledge of these matters is limited.
And you don't understand that those intent upon it, will always frustrate and get around the system.[/color]

you are either disingenuous or ignorant regarding "cheaters."  

No, I think you're the one who's naive on this issue.[/color]
I, for one, only play with cheaters once.  If you choose to play with them more than once it is like the definition of a second marriage--"the triumph of hope over experience."

That's not true.
You only know they're cheaters if you catch them.
If they cheat and you don't catch them, you'll play with them again, and again and again, until you become aware of their cheating, if that ever happens.[/color]

--you are far too paranoid.  

I have yet to observe a golf club that has removed any significant architectural feature because the hackers/cheaters in the club have lobbied for it.
Then your experiences are far more limited than mine.

Let's keep the focus on the higher handicap player.[/color]

All the clubs I am familar with are run by golfers.  It is sad that the clubs you are familiar with seem to be run by the hackers and the cheaters.

You have to be really stupid to make a statement such as the one above.

The cheating comment was in reference to the long range effect on handicap.  That a cheater, who posts lower scores due to his cheating, will have that catch up to him in the form of a lower handicap, vis a vis his lower scores.  However, clever cheats purposely take higher scores on holes where it doesn't matter, preserving and inflating their handicap where they can.

With respect to "Hackers" running a club, if you think that the great majority of golf clubs are run by low handicap golfers you've got a surprise coming.  They don't.   They're in the vast minority in quantity and influence.

I played with the President of a terrific golf club/course the other day.  He made the comment that he's the first "golfer" in eight ( years to be president.  He's about a 9 handicap.

At club after club, relatively new members are in positions of power.  Some joined the club for social reasons, others for business reasons, others because of tennis or pool facilities.
Not everyone who joins a country club or golf club does it because they are "pure" golfers.

Since democracy has taken hold at most clubs, committees are usually large and comprised of a cross section of the membership, and that equates to a great many high handicap golfers on greens, golf, long range planning, finance committees and Boards.

You're living in a dream world if you think otherwise.[/color]

Jim Kennedy,

I'd agree with that.

What I don't understand is, if maintainance equipment and techniques improved since the building of the golf course, why have those features been lost in the name of maintainance ?

Was it budgetary ?  Or was it the difficulty or distaste in maintaining a particular feature/s ?[/color]

[Joel_Stewart]

Olympic Club was changed under the marching orders of "Modernization".  Robert Trent Jones was more than happy to comply as are many architects.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Existing machines won't mow steep banks/ mounds/sharp edges, or rake small/ deep/ narrow traps, unless they are of the hand-held variety. I think it's reasonable to assume that some of the distaste for difficult, hand maintained features is worker driven, coupled with a super's having to work within a budget.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel Stewart,

How did RTJ come to trespass on your property ?

Or, was he invited in by your Board ?

A Board that might have predetermined that THEY needed to MODERNIZE your golf course.

RTJ was merely the instrument to carry out the will of the membership, a will personified in the form of the Board.

[ForkaB]

You're living in a dream world

Darn tooting, Pat!  It's called Scotland, where the handicapping system is robust and accurate, cheaters get found out quickly and disciplined, and golfers dominate most Committees.  Oh, yeah, and the sheep are nervous......

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

Golf occupies a different slice of life in Scotland.
It seems its status is elevated beyond that assigned to it over here.

With so many clubs having been built over the last 50 years, and so many new members and members new to golf populating clubs, governance is different, and that difference manifests itself in agenda driven changes.

It always amazed me that people who wanted to join a club because they liked it, want to change it the moment they become members.

I've been told by some of your fellow members that,
"the sheep lie"

[Joel_Stewart]

How did RTJ come to trespass on your property ?

Or, was he invited in by your Board ?

A Board that might have predetermined that THEY needed to MODERNIZE your golf course.

The year was 1950 or so and it was at the suggestion of the USGA.   The USGA felt the course needed some alterations to hold a US Open which the club was anxious to do. (Our first US Open was 1955).  The club and RTJ did the same thing again in 1964  prior to the 66 Open.