[Patrick_Mucci]

I guess another question Tim, is, what do you do on the tee of driving holes when there are multiple bunkers out there with no confirmed yardage to, or to carry, any of them?

JES II,

That's a good question.

Add to it, what does he do on a blind tee shot ?

Why must everything architectural be presented on a silver platter ?

[Michael Moore]

Pat Mucci -

I was just reading about a former student who was maimed in Iraq. He is twenty-two years old. Would you consider him a member of the "me generation?"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci -

I was just reading about a former student who was maimed in Iraq. He is twenty-two years old. Would you consider him a member of the "me generation?"

Michael Moore,

I was just reading about a young actress who was shot and killed by a 19 year old because she wouldn't turn over her purse and chided him for holding her up.  Would you consider hem a member of the "me generation" ?

Try asking questions that are relevant to the architectural issues we're discussing, or do you consider laser range finders and GPS systems in the best interest of the game.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Gravich,

Is it your contention that skyline greens have no place in golf ?

[Brent Hutto]

JES,

I haven't seen Royal New Kent yet but surely I will play there at some point. Royal County Down in my dreams but in all likelihood not in reality.

Personally, I love blind shots. But like you, when it's an extreme example it makes me glad to see it and equally glad to be done with it.

There's a hole early in the round at Littlestone (the 2nd?) where they cut a groove into the ridge fronting the green to make it visible and I'd love to have played that hole prior to the cutout. However, that's a small green and a short approach shot which I think is a more amenable combination for blindness than the opposite situation of a huge green and a long shot (although I'll certainly take your word that HC #14 is not in fact a truly blind shot).

[Tim Gavrich]

In terms of my original, specific question, if there is no way whatsoever to tell whether the pin is 10 yards onto the green or 40 yards (which is the implication of the passage I highlighted), that is neither strategically interesting nor a challenge to one's judgement skills, unless the player happens to be a robot.

Would you classifiy the 17th at Prestwick, the 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 11th and 16th at NGLA strategically uninteresting holes ?

The 5th at Old Marsh ?

The 9th and 10th at Shinnecock ?

The 1st, 2nd, 12th, 15th 17th and 18th at Pine Valley.

The 1st, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 17 and 18th at ANGC ?

I have not had the privilege of playing any of those golf courses.  

Why would you want to, they don't provide the hole locations for you, something you feel is necessary in order to enjoy golf.

GAVRICH: Did I demand to know the hole locations?  No, no I didn't.  I wondered aloud what was so unreasonable about indicating whether the pin was in the front, middle, or rear third of the green, a question that still goes unanswered.

Perhaps I would feel differently after doing so.  

But if the only way to play the holes successfully is dumb luck (vis à vis the approach shot), then I have a problem with that.

How is it dumb luck ?
Do you stand in the fairway having no idea as to where the green is ?

GAVRICH: It's dumb luck because you have no way of knowing whether the pin is in the front or back of the green.  Didn't you give that illustrious list of golf holes as an example of times when you have no idea whether the pin is in the front or back?

What's wrong with architecture creating an unplanned situation ?  A long putt, chip or pitch.

I would cease to have a problem if there was a red-white-blue flag system.  I have yet to hear why that is such an outrageously unreasonable and detrimental-to-the-game request.

It's the whine of a whimp.
The "ME" generation, the need for everything to be layed and and provided for you.

GAVRICH: Is the "YOU" generation one that rejects technology purely for the sake of preserving your idea of the pure form of things?  Well since your view on the game is as it was before modern technology, I assume you play exclusively with hickory clubs and gutta percha balls, right?  And by the way, I am not saying that "everything should be laid out for the player.

But, let's address it from another perspective, that of the superintendent.

Just let one of those special, bright, whimpy flags be off the mark for some reason and the howling from your ilk is deafening.

Why burden the superintendent with the additional work of putting markers on the flagsticks that precisely indicate where the hole is cut ?

GAVRICH: I had no idea that it would be so burdensome to do this.  Do you mean to tell me that with their budgets, clubs such as NGLA, Pine Valley, Augusta, and all the other prestigious venues you have exemplified cannot afford staff to oversee the marking of the flags each morning?

If you can see the flagstick, you should be able to judge where the best spot to approach it from, on the green, should be, and therefore aim for that spot.

GAVRICH: The passage with which I began this discussion implies that the 14th at HC is an exception, whereby the player, even with Muccian powers of depth-perception and judgement, is not able to judge the distance.  I am just wondering why it is praise-worthy for an architect to make a hole's primary defense the fact that one can only hit the proper shot by dumb luck.

If you can't see the flagstick, what difference does it make ?

[JESII]

#14 at Hidden Creek in this context is like 1000 holes you have seen otherwise. How about every hole in the world with a fronting bunker with a lip that obscures the green surface. I think Ran was trying to highlight a beneficial feature of C&C's work.

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim Gravich,

Is it your contention that skyline greens have no place in golf ?

I haven't played enough skyline green holes to form a concrete position.  I liked Mike Young's skyline green 4th hole at Cateechee, but you probably wouldn't, because I recall the golf course having the front-middle-back flag system that you evidently believe contributes to the decline of the game of golf as you know it and the rise of the selfish "ME" generation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

GAVRICH: Did I demand to know the hole locations?  No, no I didn't.  I wondered aloud what was so unreasonable about indicating whether the pin was in the front, middle, or rear third of the green, a question that still goes unanswered.[/b]


Because it diminishes the inherent challenge of the game.


How is it dumb luck ?
Do you stand in the fairway having no idea as to where the green is ?

GAVRICH: It's dumb luck because you have no way of knowing whether the pin is in the front or back of the green.  Didn't you give that illustrious list of golf holes as an example of times when you have no idea whether the pin is in the front or back?

So what, then hit it to the center of the green and you won't be far off.

Previously I asked you,
"What's wrong with architecture creating an unplanned situation ?  A long putt, chip or pitch."

You never answered this question



GAVRICH: Is the "YOU" generation one that rejects technology purely for the sake of preserving your idea of the pure form of things?

Not at all.  Only when that technology obsoletes the architecture meant to interface with the golfer's play.

Well since your view on the game is as it was before modern technology, I assume you play exclusively with hickory clubs and gutta percha balls, right?  

That's not my view of the game, that's your intended presumption with respect to my view of the game.

And by the way, I am not saying that "everything should be laid out for the player.

Yes, you were.
You were complaining that you didn't like it when you couldn't determine exactly where the pin was.

But, let's address it from another perspective, that of the superintendent.

Just let one of those special, bright, whimpy flags be off the mark for some reason and the howling from your ilk is deafening.

Why burden the superintendent with the additional work of putting markers on the flagsticks that precisely indicate where the hole is cut ?

GAVRICH: I had no idea that it would be so burdensome to do this.  

It is.

Do you mean to tell me that with their budgets, clubs such as NGLA, Pine Valley, Augusta, and all the other prestigious venues you have exemplified cannot afford staff to oversee the marking of the flags each morning ?

First, why would they want to ?

Second, who would do the actually locating of the flags ?
The President of the club.  The Green Chairman, the Superintendent, or, a minimum wage worker ?

Do you think he really cares that some spoiled golfers need to know, exactly where the hole is located.  Do you think that on a green 40 yards deep that he might be off in his estimate as to what third of the green the hole is cut ?
That he might make a mistake ?

So, he puts in a flag that says "up front" when it's really more toward the "middle".  The complaining that follows is shrill and absurd.

And, since most greens are pretty visible and 24-30 yards in depth, what's the longest putt you can have if you hit to the middle of the green, 20 or 30 feet ?

How spoiled can you get ?

GAVRICH: The passage with which I began this discussion implies that the 14th at HC is an exception, whereby the player, even with Muccian powers of depth-perception and judgement, is not able to judge the distance.

How are you not able to judge the distance ?
# 14 is a par 3.
The scorecard and the yardage plate tell you the exact yardage to the center of the green.  [size=4x]It's 200 yards.[/size]

How much more information do you need  ?

Get up and hit the ball, or, heaven forbid, allow your handicap to reflect your inability to judge the architectural signals presented on the playing field

I am just wondering why it is praise-worthy for an architect to make a hole's primary defense the fact that one can only hit the proper shot by dumb luck.

Dumb Luck ?
The scorecard and the yardage plate on the tee tell you it's 200 yards.

Maybe you're confusing "dumb luck" with being "DUMB" or spoiled or both.

If you can see the flagstick, use your sensory perception, your understanding or architecture and your mental and physical skills, and if you can't see the flagstick, use those same skills and decide where best to hit the ball, taking your chances on the results.

That's part of the rub of the green

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Gravich,

Is it your contention that skyline greens have no place in golf ?

I haven't played enough skyline green holes to form a concrete position.  I liked Mike Young's skyline green 4th hole at Cateechee, but you probably wouldn't, because I recall the golf course having the front-middle-back flag system that you evidently believe contributes to the decline of the game of golf as you know it and the rise of the selfish "ME" generation.

Tim,

You're wrong again.

I'd probably love the hole and suggest that the Green Chairman resign.

[Tim Gavrich]

#14 at Hidden Creek in this context is like 1000 holes you have seen otherwise. How about every hole in the world with a fronting bunker with a lip that obscures the green surface. I think Ran was trying to highlight a beneficial feature of C&C's work.

I was speaking of the hole in a metaphorical sense.

The assertion that has been made is that a mark of great architecture is deception to such a point that there is no way for the player to hit the right shot, except by chance.

Perhaps I have been unclear.  I am not opposed to the architect forcing players to "feel" a shot in order to hit it properly.  What I do not understand is why some feel that it is permissible--nay, commendable--to disallow the golfer from formulating a plan for the shot because critical elements of this are missing.

[JESII]

GAVRICH: The passage with which I began this discussion implies that the 14th at HC is an exception, whereby the player, even with Muccian powers of depth-perception and judgement, is not able to judge the distance.  I am just wondering why it is praise-worthy for an architect to make a hole's primary defense the fact that one can only hit the proper shot by dumb luck.

Are you sure about that Tim?

Quoted from Ran's review of Hidden Creek:

14th hole, 200 yards; In an attempt to give every hole immediate visual impact, many modern architects in the past two decades defined the green to such a clear degree that it inadvertently became an easier target.  In the case of the 14th, Coore & Crenshaw could have been easily highlighted the green through the placement of mounds and bunkers.  Instead, they kept the 14th green as an extension of the fairway with the green even slightly below its surrounds in spots and no bunkers down its left side. From the tee, the golfer is hard pressed to determine where on this 51 yard (!) deep green the hole actually is. A simple yet effective hole where the architect didn't get in the way of himself. The less is more principle applied here helps reinforce that the ground is one's friend at Hidden Creek.

[JESII]

Tim,

I think you would appreciate links golf, but you would have to ammend this viewpoint a bit...

[Tim Gavrich]

GAVRICH: The passage with which I began this discussion implies that the 14th at HC is an exception, whereby the player, even with Muccian powers of depth-perception and judgement, is not able to judge the distance.  I am just wondering why it is praise-worthy for an architect to make a hole's primary defense the fact that one can only hit the proper shot by dumb luck.

If you can't see the flagstick, what difference does it make ?

Are you sure about that Tim?

Quoted from Ran's review of Hidden Creek:

14th hole, 200 yards; In an attempt to give every hole immediate visual impact, many modern architects in the past two decades defined the green to such a clear degree that it inadvertently became an easier target.  In the case of the 14th, Coore & Crenshaw could have been easily highlighted the green through the placement of mounds and bunkers.  Instead, they kept the 14th green as an extension of the fairway with the green even slightly below its surrounds in spots and no bunkers down its left side. From the tee, the golfer is hard pressed to determine where on this 51 yard (!) deep green the hole actually is. A simple yet effective hole where the architect didn't get in the way of himself. The less is more principle applied here helps reinforce that the ground is one's friend at Hidden Creek.

The text detached from my blurb are Mr. Mucci's words, not mine.  

[JESII]

It is corrected...any other response to my post?

[Glenn Spencer]

I just finished reading this entire thread and enjoyed it thoroughly, but my question is, What are you playing in Tim, that does not have pin sheets? In a  casual round of golf or club championship or gambling game, the advantage goes to the golfer (veteran, rookie, high or low handicapper) that has the best vision, the smarts to do what Patrick was saying and put it in the middle of the green and move on. I,for one, hit about three times as many shots that end up close because I thought the pin was somewhere different as I do hitting perfect shots. If you hit a perfect shot, you will be rewarded. Vision is to golf as height is to basketball and speed is to football. They are advantages that help determine who is better.

[John Kirk]

With regards to the 14th hole at Hidden Creek, my vision should be able to tell me whether that pin is front or back on a 51 yard deep green.  After seeing 13 flagsticks, I should have a feel for how tall they are.  A 160 flag is going to look 20% taller than a 200 yard flag.

I am going to play better if I know my exact distances (assuming I can judge uphill/downhill reasonably well), but there are always clues to help one interpret the course's demands.

[Michael Christensen]

I just dont see the problem with front/middle/back pins??  Because they offset a perceived advantage for people with 20/15 vision.  I don't get it

BTW, the 4th at Cateechee is a great hole.....with or without multiple pins for green level.

[Tim Gavrich]

My latest reactions will be headed "TG:"  I am not yet computer-savvy enough to color-coordinate my responses.

GAVRICH: Did I demand to know the hole locations?  No, no I didn't.  I wondered aloud what was so unreasonable about indicating whether the pin was in the front, middle, or rear third of the green, a question that still goes unanswered.[/b]


Because it diminishes the inherent challenge of the game.


How is it dumb luck ?
Do you stand in the fairway having no idea as to where the green is ?

GAVRICH: It's dumb luck because you have no way of knowing whether the pin is in the front or back of the green.  Didn't you give that illustrious list of golf holes as an example of times when you have no idea whether the pin is in the front or back?

So what, then hit it to the center of the green and you won't be far off.

Previously I asked you,
"What's wrong with architecture creating an unplanned situation ?  A long putt, chip or pitch."

You never answered this question

TG: I don't know what you mean by "unplanned."  If an unplanned situation is one that arises even though the golfer has done all he/she can to hit a good shot, I am not crazy about it.  The game is hard enough as it is; we should ideally be punished for bad shots, and rewarded for good ones.



GAVRICH: Is the "YOU" generation one that rejects technology purely for the sake of preserving your idea of the pure form of things?

Not at all.  Only when that technology obsoletes the architecture meant to interface with the golfer's play.

TG: Do you not believe that the Titleist Pro V1 balls and TaylorMade driver (or equivalent) that you use has done the same thing?


Well since your view on the game is as it was before modern technology, I assume you play exclusively with hickory clubs and gutta percha balls, right?  

That's not my view of the game, that's your intended presumption with respect to my view of the game.

And by the way, I am not saying that "everything should be laid out for the player.

Yes, you were.
You were complaining that you didn't like it when you couldn't determine exactly where the pin was.

TG: WRONG.  I'm asking to know which THIRD (1/3) of the green (depthwise) on which the pin is situated.  Nothing more, nothing less.

But, let's address it from another perspective, that of the superintendent.

Just let one of those special, bright, whimpy flags be off the mark for some reason and the howling from your ilk is deafening.

Why burden the superintendent with the additional work of putting markers on the flagsticks that precisely indicate where the hole is cut ?

GAVRICH: I had no idea that it would be so burdensome to do this.  

It is.

Do you mean to tell me that with their budgets, clubs such as NGLA, Pine Valley, Augusta, and all the other prestigious venues you have exemplified cannot afford staff to oversee the marking of the flags each morning ?

First, why would they want to ?

Second, who would do the actually locating of the flags ?
The President of the club.  The Green Chairman, the Superintendent, or, a minimum wage worker ?

TG:  Who locates them currently?  It's not difficult (or expensive) to have a few extra red, white, and blue flags so that whoever lays them out can determine which third of the green the hole will be located.

Do you think he really cares that some spoiled golfers need to know, exactly where the hole is located.  Do you think that on a green 40 yards deep that he might be off in his estimate as to what third of the green the hole is cut ?

TG: At least he will have tried.  If he's getting paid the big bucks to take care of the course, his powers of estimation should be pretty good.

That he might make a mistake ?

TG: If he puts a blue flag where a white flag is warranted, it would be better than the then-current situation.

So, he puts in a flag that says "up front" when it's really more toward the "middle".  The complaining that follows is shrill and absurd.

TG: So the players can ignore it anyway, relying on their own powers of judgement.  That way, everyone is (more) satisfied.

And, since most greens are pretty visible and 24-30 yards in depth, what's the longest putt you can have if you hit to the middle of the green, 20 or 30 feet ?

How spoiled can you get ?

TG: Why the abusive rhetoric?  I'm trying to argue my own case.  I may be younger and less wise, but I'm no moron, and I have played a lot of golf in my time.

GAVRICH: The passage with which I began this discussion implies that the 14th at HC is an exception, whereby the player, even with Muccian powers of depth-perception and judgement, is not able to judge the distance.

How are you not able to judge the distance ?
# 14 is a par 3.
The scorecard and the yardage plate tell you the exact yardage to the center of the green.  [size=4x]It's 200 yards.[/size]

TG: But as the review suggests, we can't tell where the pin is in relation to the center.  Knowing what third of the green (a region 17 yards deep, as opposed to 51) on which the pin is located would make the hole more enjoyable, given that the player has a better (not perfect) idea of where the hole is.

How much more information do you need  ?

Get up and hit the ball, or, heaven forbid, allow your handicap to reflect your inability to judge the architectural signals presented on the playing field

TG: So you're saying that the lower one's handicap, the lower their ability to "judge the architectural signals?"  What is your handicap, then?  50?  I doubt that's what you meant.


I am just wondering why it is praise-worthy for an architect to make a hole's primary defense the fact that one can only hit the proper shot by dumb luck.

Dumb Luck ?
The scorecard and the yardage plate on the tee tell you it's 200 yards.

TG: That's great, but the hole location could make the hole play from 180 to 220 yards.  And I would be unhappy knowing which the distance was, because (let us imagine, for the sake of argument) it is not possible to tell.

Maybe you're confusing "dumb luck" with being "DUMB" or spoiled or both.

TG: I hope not.

If you can see the flagstick, use your sensory perception, your understanding or architecture and your mental and physical skills,

TG: But if the whereabouts (depthwise) of the flag cannot be discerned, this doesn't do any good.

and if you can't see the flagstick, use those same skills and decide where best to hit the ball, taking your chances on the results.

TG: That is acceptable.  It is why I love the 3rd at Yale.  The flagpole is sufficient indication of where the (small) green is.  If there were no flagpole, I would say differently.

That's part of the rub of the green

TG: Fine.  I just don't see the big deal in breaking a green down depthwise into thirds, in the name of speeding up play and giving players a slightly more sporting chance at success.  Isn't that what makes golf fun and intriguing, the prospect of success on a given hole?    The game is quite hard enough; I don't believe that the thirds suggestion is nearly as detrimental as you make it out to be.

Wow, that's a long post.  I think I've said all I can on the subject in defense of my position.  I'm probably too young to be able to articulate it as well as many of you can.  But, I do not believe myself "spoiled" or "dumb," as has been implied.  I just have a different opinion.  I do not mean to be a villain or a spoiled brat.  I'm just trying to learn about the game I play.  If my inquiries that offer a slightly different (dare I say, modern ?) view are going to be met only with abusive rhetoric, then perhaps I'll do a lot more reading before daring to challenge the Elders.

Cheers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

My index is +0.9, although it's probably closer to "scratch" or 1.  

Tim,

Your handicap would indicate that you know enough about the game to get around the golf course without having everything spoon fed to you.

If you were a struggling 24 or 36 handicap I could understand your position.

Unfortunately, the desire to make the game "more fair" tends to be a self centered perspective.

You'll learn that as part of the maturing process.

[Tim Gavrich]

I just finished reading this entire thread and enjoyed it thoroughly, but my question is, What are you playing in Tim, that does not have pin sheets? In a  casual round of golf or club championship or gambling game, the advantage goes to the golfer (veteran, rookie, high or low handicapper) that has the best vision, the smarts to do what Patrick was saying and put it in the middle of the green and move on. I,for one, hit about three times as many shots that end up close because I thought the pin was somewhere different as I do hitting perfect shots. If you hit a perfect shot, you will be rewarded. Vision is to golf as height is to basketball and speed is to football. They are advantages that help determine who is better.

In the face of the situation I originally outlined, I (and most everyone else) would have little other choice than to aim for the center of the green, and that just doesn't seem ideal to me.  I've seen far less agreeable holes.

The only time I have had pin sheets has been in junior tournaments.  Other than that, I play almost all rounds under this three-flag system, and I am seldom unhappy with it.  And the game is certainly difficult enough .

Cheers.

[JESII]

Another thing, don't let Mucci trap you into the bold and color technique all in one big quote box...people see that and just go to the next post. Mucci then tries to convince you that something you said in that big box was his and by then you really don't know anyway...

[Glenn Spencer]

Tim,

I have no idea how old you are and I think you articulate your position well. I guess I am just wondering what does it matter? If you are playing for fun, well, sometimes those unknowing type holes are fun once in a while. If you are playing for something, you will have a sheet. With your current handicap, you will have plenty of time to shoot low numbers. Shooting a 65 or an 85 for fun is just that. You are good enough to know, that the only thing that matters is what you shoot when you have to sign a card at the end. Otherwise, just enjoy the change of pace these holes have to offer, no?

[Darren_Kilfara]

Wow...if this is the best GolfClubAtlas can do in answering a non-doctrinaire question, this site isn't as smart as it thinks it is. Tim seems to me to be asking a quite logical question, one with which I greatly sympathise, but the essence of the responses to his "Why?" has been a simple (and, at times, rather patronising) "Because." It's not like the "Because" is completely bereft of wisdom and insight, but the way it is being articulated here, how could someone who doesn't already drink the GCA Kool-Aid be persuaded of the rightness of that position?

Cheers,
Darren

[Darren_Kilfara]

Having just lost a detailed response to Sean's post at the vagaries of GCA.com, let me simply say this:

--The answers which have been posted, IMHO, have generally been good if you're preaching to the choir, but rather less effective if not. Tim seems to be winning the argument to me, here - I'm more convinced by his opinion than I was at the start of the thread, which for me says something about the quality of counter-arguments thus far presented.

--Honest, well-argued disagreement should be welcomed, shouldn't it? I don't find anything remotely stubborn or nonsensical, never mind "self-centered" (to quote a recent post), about Tim's position, which is not something I can say about all of his detractors...for that matter, Tim's position is quite moderate anyway, wanting only a rough idea about where some pins are only on holes with large and hidden or semi-hidden greens, and therefore hardly worthy of such forceful criticism.

--Why is visual acuity deemed by some to be an important skill to have in golf, when the game has evolved in a direction - whereby it is easy to generate precise yardages on the vast majority of courses - which invalidates that skill? The skill set needed to escape bunkers before Gene Sarazen invented/popularised the sand wedge is far different than what it is now; should we all become Luddites and go back to life without them? Sure, there are some people who refuse to invest in modern technology, or even step backwards in time to the era of hickories and gutties on a regular basis, but let's not confuse such ideas with anything mainstream.

--The ridiculous thing is that great architecture often succeeds by causing you to disbelieve the facts you have in your possession - even when you calculate a yardage and have that knowledge in your possession, it tricks you into trusting your eyes instead of your brain and thereby disowning that knowledge. Taking that knowledge away altogether turns golf into less of a sport and more of a hobby, which I suppose is fine if you don't play golf as a sporting contest but less so if you do, whereas giving that knowledge back does not invalidate the greatness of any great architecture. (Some of the arguments here sound like the Catholic church's insistence on withholding Bibles from their lay congregations, on the grounds that directly disseminating such knowledge was dangerous, around the time the Protestant Reformation was popularising their individual usage...)

Cheers,
Darren

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()