Is today's golfing public so obtuse that

[TEPaul]

"TePaul,
Isn't there a good argument to be made that blind shots aren't as strategic as visible ones?"

Jeff:

That is a totally fascinating question! And it's one I sure don't have some simple and easy answer for. Let me go to bed and sleep on that one.

[paul cowley]

.....come on...don't go to sleep...stay up with us...

[TEPaul]

Paul Cowley, you need a downer---your mind is waaay too active. Most all the contributors on here CAN'T HANDLE questions like that. But I'll tell you right now if I had any sake I'd smoke it this moment and provide you with an answer when it presented itself.

But, in my opinion, JeffB is right. He calls it renewal----I just call it change and there's no denying "change" is America's middle name. With that we probably do destroy more things than most any other culture but perhaps the good news is we are so into change it creates much quicker cycles than other cultures and because of that we might tend to want to "change back"  more than the rest and faster too.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I think TD said it best - in Scotland, they tend to accept things as given a bit more. IN the US, we tend to want to change, renew (sometimes for the sake of renewing) etc. Its part of our culture.

I'd agree with that[/color]

That said, all of your verbiage doesn't necessarily address TePaul's point.  Why do we assume the gca had it right if he produced a blind hole. Just because he is retained as architect, doesn't mean he is infallible does it?  Or, if a hole - built to be enjoyed by the membership - is not enjoyed by the membership that their will should prevail.

In the context of the questions, I think you have to extract yourself from viewing an individual hole and examine trends.

The trend is clear, blindness and semi-blindness have been and continue to be removed.

One day I hope you'll take me up on my invitation for you to visit GCGC.

Some object to the blindness created by the excessive growth of the Blue Stem this year.  But, if you examine the individual holes, you can see that the architect build blocking berms, berms intended to preclude the golfer from seeing a clearly defined DZ on many of the holes.

Even with very wide fairways, uncertainty takes its toll on the golfers mind and his ability to execute without fear of failure.

Many of the tees at GCGC transition seemlessly to the fronting rough and fairway, just as the greens transition seemlessly out of the fronting fairways.

Blessed with good drainage, I'll guarantee you that many would propose elevating nearly every tee to provide the visual certainty that the architect deliberately chose to avoid.

And, if put to the vote, with a little lobbying, I guarantee you that you could build a sizeable faction, if not a consensus.

That's being obtuse.

Just because a membership votes to alter a feature or hole doesn't mean that the decision is an intelligent or one beneficial to the play of the game.

Chances are that 6 wolves and 3 sheep voting to determine what's for dinner won't end well for the sheep, and eventually, the wolves will run out of sheep, so it is with eliminating or homogenizing architecture.  Pretty soon you'll run out of distinctive featues which were unique from the golf course and seperated it from all others.

Eventually, this trend leads to a global sameness.

Doesn't that partially explain why so many local club members want to play Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Bethpage, NGLA ?

Because those courses offer something so architecturally diffrerent from their home courses ?[/color]

What is more important - a consensus built over several years of playing a hole by those who count or a decision made perhaps in a split second by a gca in an office miles away?

The flaw in your premise is that the choice is limited to only two answers.

The consensus built over years of playing TENDS TO BE FAD DRIVEN.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard of different proposals to alter a hole, seperated only by 5 or so years.

Tastes change, styles change, membership desires change, great architecture endures, but, not always in the ground.
Over time, the number of disfigurations appears to clearly outnumber the number of improvements.

Today, in America, golf course architecture at the local level is akin to being a chameleon, changing to suit the latest environment.

Now that's a global statement.
I'm not saying that on a feature and hole specific situation that improvements can't be made.... they can.

But, the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that more courses have been disfigured than dramatically improved.[/color]

As to challenge, there are many different types of golf challenges, and many would argue that blindness reduces that challenge as much as it enhances it. At the very least, someone could legitimately determine that it is not the kind of challenge they wish on their course.

I agree, but, that's the problem from my perspective.

The moment you put architecture to a general vote you're going to compromise the existing feature and the perceived solution.[/color]

At best, many would accept both situational blindness (wrong side of fw) and occaisional blind shots as change of pace.  Few, as you note, would want a constant diet. Some want none, and in fact, I think thats been the general consensus.


I agree that that's been the general consensus and I think that erodes some of the core challenge of the game.

I like situational blindness, I tend to associate it with risk/reward.

And, I like occassional blindness.
While some say that it's only blind once, there is a directional disconnect with non-duplicated shots.

The general problem as I see it is that there's a clear trend to remove blindness on existing courses and a clear trend to eliminate or reduce blindness on new courses, and I don't think that's good for the GAME OF GOLF.[/color]

And, if blindness is so easy to get rid of because its an easy consensus that its not good, why argue to the other way?  


Because it erodes the core challenges of the game.[/color]

Because you know better than those heathens who pay the dues?

Jeff, you know as well as I do that memberships tend to produce vocal complainers, they're the vocal majority.  Those satisfied with the status quo are rarely as vocal.

Hence, features and/or holes that come within the crosshairs of the complainers tend to get altered.

I also think that some members are more studied and understanding of the relationship between the features and the play and challenge of the game, and yes, those members and non-members know a lot more than those dues paying members.

Remember, just because their pockets are lined with gold, doesn't mean that they sing well in the shower, too ! [/color]
 

[paul cowley]

....nuff said...sleep well my friend

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think I can sum this up for you.

In the early days of American golf, the golfer accepted what the architect and the land combined to present as a challenge.

Today, the golfer wants to change the land and the architecture which doesn't integrate well with his game.

He wants to "dumb down" or tailor make the challenge to his liking, and that's not good for golf, or the other golfers.

[paul cowley]

Patrick....please let me someday buy us the first round of sake

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Maybe this jag I've been on for years on here is complete bunkum that America is such a dynamic culture that it changes faster and cycles back to some former time faster than any other culture.

I do admit that Lilly Pullitzer's style is back in town right now and it only went out of fashion about 35 years ago. A friend of mine bought up the rights to it only ten years ago and he's cleaning up with it right now.

On the other hand, I hear Geisha girls are back in fashion in Japan and Neo-Nazis are springing up like rabbits in Germany so what do I know?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

America cycles pretty fast but you are a bit slow on the Merry-Go-Round.

What you just said to me on that last thread is what I said to you and taught you, and just about word for word, not more than seven years ago.

If a student thinks he can become a teacher to his teacher I'd say his teacher did a pretty fine job, wouldn't you?

That's enough pearls of wisdom for one day.
I'm hittin' the hay.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Cowley,

I've fought too hard to live and am not about to drink Sake just to committ Hari Kari.

However, I will have some Sake, in celebration, after we capture and return TEPaul to HappyDale Farms.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Thanks for the thoughtful answer.  One more question - at your club are you in the vocal majority?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Thanks for the thoughtful answer.  One more question - at your club are you in the vocal majority?

Jeff,

NO, and I don't know, with respect to the issues at hand, if that's good or bad.

I've seen terrible mistakes made to the golf course over the last 40 plus years.

The problem with mistakes is that they're not easy to reverse.

First, the group that makes them has to go out of power.
Second, the membership has to have the financial desire to want to spend more money to fix something that already cost money to disfigure, so, another time gap or lag gets created.
Third, inertia sets in as time goes by, which works against repairing the damage.

There appears to be a belief and trend at certain clubs that if they "modernize" their golf course it will become more attractive to perspective members, ignoring the cadre of existing members who like the golf course as it is.

That's akin to treating perspective girl friends better than your wife.

Each club has its own culture, so you have to analyze what makes each club tick when it comes to alterations to the golf course.

ANGC is driven by the fact that they hold a Major every Spring.  Other courses are driven by other factors.

On the whole, I'd say that clubs made more mistakes than improvements.

But, TEPaul will never admit to that.

However, Wayne would be the first to sound the alarm about Flynn courses that have been altered by their memberships over the years.

[TEPaul]

"Pat,

Thanks for the thoughtful answer.  One more question - at your club are you in the vocal majority?  

Jeff:

Patrick has been on a lot of green committees and he's been fired from all of them.

Believe me, I know the feeling.