[TEPaul]

"I, for one, would be very interested in reading that article."

You got it Ralph:

I want to check though with those who are doing the research on this stuff. Some of it has been some ungodly searching to do the research and I want to defer to them and some of their reportage work first. The first one was Geoff Shackleford but that's been so long now I just don't think information should wait too much longer. I, for one, want to see this philosophical debate which some of us think may've been a sea-change issue but for some odd reasons got waylaid, get out there once and for all.

I've been in a sort of odd position with Behr and his philosophy for a number of years now. I totally believe in what he says and proposes but I just don't think golfers have ever gotten it or perhaps ever really will.

I have this sinking feeling that he expected more from the golfer than he ever generally gave or ever will. To Behr, and some of his fellow travelers, it was pretty much just about emotion---plain and simple. I think his implied point was if somebody doesn't really care or if on the other hand he wants to JUST scientifically analyze the piss out of golf and architecture he's just going to lose the essence and the point of it all.
 
 
 

[RSLivingston_III]

"I, for one, would be very interested in reading that article."

You got it Ralph:

I want to check though with those who are doing the research on this stuff. Some of it has been some ungodly searching to do the research and I want to defer to them and some of their reportage work first. The first one was Geoff Shackleford but that's been so long now I just don't think information should wait too much longer. I, for one, want to see this philosophical debate which some of us think may've been a sea-change issue but for some odd reasons got waylaid, get out there once and for all.

I've been in a sort of odd position with Behr and his philosophy for a number of years now. I totally believe in what he says and proposes but I just don't think golfers have ever gotten it or perhaps ever really will.

I have this sinking feeling that he expected more from the golfer than he ever generally gave or ever will. To Behr, and some of his fellow travelers, it was pretty much just about emotion---plain and simple. I think his implied point was if somebody doesn't really care or if on the other hand he wants to JUST scientifically analyze the piss out of golf and architecture he's just going to lose the essence and the point of it all.
 
 
 

Tom,
Thanks for your consideration. I think additionally, I will be able to learn much about what the top players were thinking at the time.

[TEPaul]

Ralph:

If you mean by 'top player" Bob Jones you might be right.

But I will make this prediction. If you think that the only opponent in golf is the human opponent I doubt you will understand or get anything much out of Max Behr's article, or his philosophy on golf and golf architecture. Mackenzie, on the other hand, may've been a bit more practical when it came to architectural application. But one really does have to wonder at a man who can base a lot of his golf architecture construction modus off his observations of naturalized military trenches! In my opinon, that observation and adaptation is perhaps the most remarkable there ever has been for golf course architecture.

[RSLivingston_III]

Tom,
I want to read the literal info but I am hoping there is info to reverse engineer out of it that relates to the pro/top am of the day. I am always trying to adjust my ideas about the players of that times perceptions about the game. I like sifting out little bits and pieces from these articles that aren't directly related to the subject matter.

[Matthew Mollica]

Earlier in ths thread I posted quotes from Wayne and Pat -

I think it is pretty clear from the record that the intent of Augusta National was to create a golf course that was challenging for the highest caliber player and also enjoyable for the club member.   That's a tough order and one that required fixes.

and

ANGC was always intended to be a championship venue, hence, fine tuning after opening day would seem to be natural progression.

I replied -

I'm not sure I agree with these views. Reading Clifford Roberts' account of the early days at the Club it doesn't seem a championship venue was a primary focus. I'm happy to be proved wrong however.

Predictably, Pat disagreed!

I think Jones, and perhaps Roberts, fancied the idea of bringing one of those two events to ANGC, even before the course was built.

As we know, Clifford Roberts penned "The Story of the Augusta National Club" (1976)

On pages 12 & 13 he writes

"In playing various courses Bob had become a student of golf course architecture and was eager to try his hand at it.  His idea was to utilise the natural advantages of the property that might be selected, rather than impose any particular type of golf hole which might result in artificiality rather than the natural made layout he had in mind.  He wanted particularly to avoid precipitous slopes, which are artificial in appearance and expensive to maintain.  He planned to use mounds rather than too many bunkers, on the theory that they are more pleasing in appearance, require less upkeep, and can be quite effective as hazards.  He hoped to find a mildly rolling piece of ground with a creek or two that could provide some water hazards.  HIS CHIEF OBJECTIVE WAS AN INTERESTING COURSE FOR THE DUES-PAYING MEMBERS.  Man made hazards which penalise only the poor player were to be omitted.  Punishing rough was also to be done away with, on the theory that golf is a game to be enjoyed, and that there is no fun in looking for lost balls or risking physical injury trying to  recover from deep rough.  He had no particular place in mind, so long as it was in the south and not too far from home.  HE VISUALISED A SIMPLE PLACE DEVOTED  STRICTLY TO GOLF, RATHER THAN A COUNTRY CLUB WITH SOCIAL ACTIVITIES. The Club was to be open for play during the winter season only.  BY INTRODUCING A NEW CONCEPT OF GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE, HE HOPED TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE POPULARITY OF THE GAME, AS WELL AS PLEASING HIS FRIENDS."

The passages important in the context of this discussion are capitalised.  I trust it is clear to most that there’s little focus on a professional annual tournament in these writings. The similar themes to Bob Crosby's post earlier in this thread (top pg #2) regarding MacKenzie's revolutionary design are also apparent.

Further into the book (p.32) Roberts writes -

"Bob and Dr. MacKenzie completed plans for the course in time for construction work to begin in the first half of 1931."

Later, under the heading of “A New Golf Tournament is Born” on page 51, Roberts writes - 

"During late ’32 and early ’33 some discussions occurred about holding the US Open on Bob’s course.  The Open had never been played in the South and Augusta seemed to be the logical place.  Bob was intrigued with the idea, but after much thought and a number of meetings, it was decided that our Club could render a more important service to the game of golf by holding regularly a Tournament of its own.” 

It's very clear to me and hopefully you too Pat, that course design and construction were undertaken and completed years before the notion of hosting a tournament of significance ever occurred. Resultantly, the notion that ANGC was always intended to be a championship venue, is simply wrong.

Where we may agree Pat, is in regard to the course undergoing alterations in the name of the Masters Tournament. Yet even Roberts freely wrote of the negative impact of the Tournament upon the course. From Roberts’ book, (p. 35), an account of the original the 8th green -

“Unfortunately, this unique green had to be sacrificed in later years in favour of the Masters Tournament; we could not allow the patrons to occupy the eight mounds, as they would both interfere with play, and too often be hurt by offline approach shots.  And, if they were kept off the mounds, they could not see what was happening.  But I have no hesitancy in saying that, if the Masters should ever be discontinued, the first order of business would be to restore the eighth green to its original form.” 

Matthew

[BCrosby]

Pat -

Sorry, I've been away from computers for a couple of days.

I'm glad I was. Mathew did a better job above than I could have confirming the mindset of the organizers of ANGC at the outset. There are other things that Jones and Roberts wrote that confirm the gist of the above.

In short, Roberts and Jones wanted to start a very private, exclusive, small golf club. As with other similar clubs such as Cypress, SFGC, NGLA, PVGC, etc., they did not seek publicity and the idea of opening their course to the hoi polloi for national tournaments would have been unappealing to the membership they were trying to attract. 

That they did begin hosting an annual major tournament later was a function of a lot of things, but mostly it was economics. Unlike the exclusive clubs noted above, ANGC was not near a major metroplitan area so the Great Depression hit it harder than others. They were forced to make compromises that Cypress, SFGC, NGLA, PVGC and others were not forced to make during that period.

I've always thought (and this is me speculating, but it's based on a pretty thorough reading of the available literature) that Jones would have been happy to drop the Masters at any point along the way. He did not seek or enjoy the attention it brought to him. But the tournament took on a life of its own and Roberts was not about to let it go.   

Bob
 

[BCrosby]

Ralph:

If you mean by 'top player" Bob Jones you might be right.

But I will make this prediction. If you think that the only opponent in golf is the human opponent I doubt you will understand or get anything much out of Max Behr's article, or his philosophy on golf and golf architecture. Mackenzie, on the other hand, may've been a bit more practical when it came to architectural application. But one really does have to wonder at a man who can base a lot of his golf architecture construction modus off his observations of naturalized military trenches! In my opinon, that observation and adaptation is perhaps the most remarkable there ever has been for golf course architecture.

Tom - I open myself to ridicule for bringing this up, but here goes. Your post above raises (sort of) a series interesting questions about the ontological status of the golf course. Specifically:

How and in what form does a golf course exist as an "opponent" to a player? How would the answers of Crane and Behr and MacKenzie to that question differ?

There is an interesting essay buried in there somewhere.

Bob
  

[Jim Nugent]

It's very clear to me and hopefully you too Pat, that course design and construction were undertaken and completed years before the notion of hosting a tournament of significance ever occurred. Resultantly, the notion that ANGC was always intended to be a championship venue, is simply wrong.

Matthew -- this seems wrong, just from the dates you gave in your own post.  The club didn't open until 1933.  But the quote you gave from Roberts says they were talking in late 1932 or early 1933 about holding the U.S. Open there.  That is not years after the course was completed.  It may not have been completed at all. 

Before the club opened its doors, they already had plans to hold a significant annual tournament there.  And in fact they held their first Masters in 1934.  One year later. 

Whatever Roberts says, the timing of events strongly contradicts the idea that they did not design the course with top players in mind.  That top tournament did take place there almost immediately.  I would be real real surprised if in reality that was not in their minds when they designed and built the course.  Regardless of what they say in their memoirs. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mathew Mollica & Bob Crosby,

The historical record is often a product of who's writing the text's.

While I value the retrospective words of Roberts and Jones, I give more credence to the contemporary words of Roberts and Jones.

Reading your post, one is presented with the image of a golfing "Nirvana"

Absent from your quotes are the references to the initial commercial aspects of ANGC, the commercial lots available for sale.
About one third of the property was intended for building lot sales, to raise money for the club, yet, it's rare that that aspect of the early days of the club is mentioned.

I've yet to read an autobiography that was critical of the author.

The prospect of bringing a Major to ANGC occured as early as 1933, shortly after the club had opened, and the PGA added ANGC to their schedule the following year, so, if I was off by a five or six months, I'll modify my statement to, "From within months of the very begining, ANGC wanted to host championships."

And, I stand by my theory that Jones, an incredible golfer and competitor, keenly aware that the Amateur and Open had never been contested in the South, didn't want to bring either of those two events to ANGC, before and after it opened for play.  It's too counter intuitive to think otherwise.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - I think you've zeroed in on something with that ontological question, at least in terms of why Crane and Behr seemed to be talking in different languages sometimes.  That is, Crane was coming at the question of what exists with an a priori, analytical, objective approach; whereas Behr seems to have thought that very approach misguided, and the results therefore almost meaningless.  I think Behr might've been talking in terms of a 'subjective ontology' when it came to golf courses, and rightfully so in his mind -- after all, the way golfers experienced the opponent (i.e. the golf course) was bound to be and should be a variable and changeable and subjective experience.

I've tossed off a lot of words, and may be using them wrong; but I hope you know what I'm trying to get at.

Jim N - yes, I still have questions about that too. The earliest article I've read by Mackenzie talking about the building of their ideal golf course included on every hole the yardages from both the "regular tees" and the "championship tees".

Peter       

[BCrosby]

Jim -

See my post above. ANGC was always designed with top players in mind. It was,however, not designed with the idea that it would hold a major tournament on a regular basis.

As for the timing, the Depression didn't really hit home until '32/33.  The course had been designed and, essentially, built by then. (Note that about the same time ANGC filed a state court receivership because if financial problems. Things were not good.)

I've seen nothing in the writings leading up to the design and construction of ANGC that suggest that holding a major, national tournament was important goal for anyone. No more than that was an important goal when MacK did Cypress or Passa or Crystal Downs. That idea did occur to people, however, by the time ANGC opened on January of '33. Or soon thereafter.

Bob

[Sean_A]

It's very clear to me and hopefully you too Pat, that course design and construction were undertaken and completed years before the notion of hosting a tournament of significance ever occurred. Resultantly, the notion that ANGC was always intended to be a championship venue, is simply wrong.

Matthew -- this seems wrong, just from the dates you gave in your own post.  The club didn't open until 1933.  But the quote you gave from Roberts says they were talking in late 1932 or early 1933 about holding the U.S. Open there.  That is not years after the course was completed.  It may not have been completed at all. 

Before the club opened its doors, they already had plans to hold a significant annual tournament there.  And in fact they held their first Masters in 1934.  One year later. 

Whatever Roberts says, the timing of events strongly contradicts the idea that they did not design the course with top players in mind.  That top tournament did take place there almost immediately.  I would be real real surprised if in reality that was not in their minds when they designed and built the course.  Regardless of what they say in their memoirs. 

Jim

I don't know the specifics or intentions of the design.  However, it was always my impression that The Masters didn't take on any sort of major status until years after it was running.  I thought it was more like a "clam bake" as much as anything - a bit of fun that snowballed.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"How and in what form does a golf course exist as an "opponent" to a player? How would the answers of Crane and Behr and MacKenzie to that question differ?
There is an interesting essay buried in there somewhere."


Bob:

I can't say how Crane's or even Mackenzie's answers to that question would differ or even what their answers would be. The only one whose remarks on that question I'm sure of is Behr because he did write very specifically about it.

How and in what form does a golf course exist as an opponent to a player? Well, it is the only thing that actually exists in a physical form that can actually tactiley oppose him and his golf ball.

Behr mentioned that a golf course is the only ACTUAL opponent to a golfer for the simple reason a golf course is the only thing that can actually come in contact with a golfer or a golfer's golf ball and for that reason it is technically the only thing in opposition to him in a physical sense.

As we know another golfer has never been allowed under the Rules of Golf to actually oppose or physically or tactilely come in contact with a golfer or his golf ball or even influence it during the course of a player playing his golf ball. The only slight vestige of that in golf was the stymie and that was basically a result of the fact that in the early Rules a golfer was generally not allowed to touch his golf ball between the tee and removing it from the hole and so the golf ball of another golfer occasionally got in the way of the golf ball of another golfer. A competitor in golf not being allowed to touch or influence and certainly not to vie for a common ball makes golf pretty unique in games.

Regarding a human opponent or fellow competitor Behr referred to him  as a "psychological hazard" only to a golfer. By that he apparently meant that the things a human opponent was doing in competition with his own golf ball could effect and influence other golfers in only a pyschological way.

[BCrosby]

Sean makes a good point above. The original Masters field was comprised of a lot of old friends (Egan, Ouimet and so forth) in addition to some pros. It was partly intended as a reunion (in Jones's mind) in addition to a golf tournament (in Robert's mind).

Bob 

[Sean_A]

"How and in what form does a golf course exist as an "opponent" to a player? How would the answers of Crane and Behr and MacKenzie to that question differ?
There is an interesting essay buried in there somewhere."


Bob:

I can's say how Crane's or even Mackenzie's answers to that question would differ or even what their answers would be. The only one whose remarks on that question I'm sure of is Behr because he did write very specifically about it.

How and in what form does a golf course exist as an opponent to a player? Well, it is the only thing that actually exists in a physical form that can actually tactiley oppose him and his golf ball. Behr mentioned that a golf course is the only ACTUAL opponent to a golfer for the simple reason a golf course is the only thing that can actually come in contact with a golfer's golf ball and for that reason it is technically the only thing in opposition to him in a physical sense. As we know another golfer has never been allowed under the Rules of Golf to actually oppose or physically or tactilely come in contact with a golfer or his golf ball or even influence it during the course of a player playing his golf ball. The only slight vestige of that in golf was the stymie and that was basically a result of the fact that in the early Rules a golfer was generally not allowed to touch his golf ball between the tee and removing it from the hole and so the golf ball of another golfer occasionally got in the way of the golf ball of another golfer.

Regarding a human opponent or fellow competitor Behr referred to him  as a "psychological hazard" only to a golfer. By that he apparently meant that the things a human opponent was doing in competition could effect and influence other golfers in only a pyschological  way.

Tom

I guess its a real psychological zipper when a player rather than the course walks off with the trophy!  Sometimes, chaps (would be philosophers) such as Behr are wrong - as is the case here.  Behr mistakingly uses the term "competition" and others perpetuate the innaccuracy.  Lets be very clear, players compete on a golf course.  To say you are competing against a course is to suggest that the concept of a golf course is a living thing.  Of course this isn't true.  The living elements which when combined make up the form of a course - which decidely isn't alive.  There are all sorts of competition, but what Behr describes is decidedly not competition.

Before you go on with waxing Behr poetically (the wording order is intentional), I don't disagree that a certain magic can happen on a course all by yer lonesome.  I don't take issue with this.  Its the label Behr and you give this phenomenon I take issue with. 

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Sean says:

"Lets be very clear, players compete on a golf course.  To say you are competing against a course is to suggest that the concept of a golf course is a living thing.  Of course this isn't true.  The living elements which when combined make up the form of a course - which decidely isn't alive."

Bob says:

Ah, but Sean, you don't see the philosophical problem here?  People do in fact think they are competing against a course, even though they know (at some level) that it isn't a living thing. Or is it?

Bob

[TEPaul]

"Tom
I guess its a real psychological zipper when a player rather than the course walks off with the trophy!  Sometimes, chaps (would be philosophers) such as Behr are wrong - as is the case here."

Sean:

Behr is not wrong in what he said. He didn't deny that humans compete against one another in golf, he merely said that in an actual and physical way another human being in golf cannot physically come in contact with a golfer and his golf ball like they can in almost all other ball games. In that way they cannot actually oppose him or his golf ball and act the part of a physical opponent as they do in most all other ball games or stick and ball games.

If you can't find any significance in that as it relates to golf and golf architecture, Sean, well then, you just can't. But Behr certainly could and I for one see precisely what he means and the signficance of it in golf and architecture. Again, he's not wrong, it's just if you think he is you have a somewhat more limited view of golf than he did. But even that's OK too, I guess, as people tend to get out of the game what they bring to it.  

"The key to the endless fascination of golf is that it is the only game played on natural terrain"
Herbert Warren Wind

Apparently Warren Wind could understand the significance of what Behr (the naturalist) was talking about in golf as a golf course being the only actual physical and tactile opposing entity to a golfer.

[TEPaul]

""Lets be very clear, players compete on a golf course.  To say you are competing against a course is to suggest that the concept of a golf course is a living thing.  Of course this isn't true.  The living elements which when combined make up the form of a course - which decidely isn't alive."

MY GOD, what a remarkable statement! Not until today did I realize the earth and all the physical things about it are dead and us humans are the only things on it still alive.

BobC, can you believe what you're reading this morning?!? Will there ever be any end to the extent of human self-possession, arrogance and myopia?!?  

[Sean_A]

Sean says:

"Lets be very clear, players compete on a golf course.  To say you are competing against a course is to suggest that the concept of a golf course is a living thing.  Of course this isn't true.  The living elements which when combined make up the form of a course - which decidely isn't alive."

Bob says:

Ah, but Sean, you don't see the philosophical problem here?  People do in fact think they are competing against a course, even though they know (at some level) that it isn't a living thing. Or is it?

Bob

Ah, but Bob, the concept Behr describes may be one of deep philosophical merit (I will leave that to the Behrists to decide as I am one to hit the ball, find it and hit it again), but what Behr describes is not competition whether Joe Bloggs calls (thinks it is?) it that or not.  I wonder what floated this idea of competing with the course before the idea of bogey, then par, or whatever a person uses as a measuring stick, was invented?  How exactly did folks "compete" against the course back in 1750, or was golf in this period not considered golf?  Did they use a different measuring stick or did they define golf differently?

Tom

Reread what I wrote.  I think I am correct in stating that a course can be created from living things, but that the idea of a golf course is not living.  In fact, I would surmise that a golf course could be made up of non-living things and be completely artificial, but we could still recognize it as a golf course, perhaps of somewhat dubious quality, but a course just the same.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - I must be misunderstanding you on this point or missing something, because I really don't see how you can disagree with the idea of the course as an opponent. Taking Max Behr's ideas completely out of it, I'm still left with this:

What is the object of the game? To use sticks to get a ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible.

Does the object of the game change depending on whether you're playing alone or with/against someone else? No, except that in the latter case, the issue of "fewer" strokes also becomes relevant, at least post facto.

If the human opponent is not ever in contact with you or your golf ball, what is there that can affect the golfer's ability to achieve his objective? The golfer's skill level and the nature/qualities of the course.

A golfer's skill level remaining fairly constant, can a golf course be a more or less challenging opponent in this regard? Yes; an overwatered 5,000 yard course with 18 perfectly flat greens will be a less worthy opponent/obstacle to achieving the golfer's objective than Pine Valley.

Since golf is played outdoors and in nature and on natural ground, can and should you prescribe a standard for the nature/qualities of the opponent, and for the obstacles it provides? No, you shouldn’t and you can’t – nature could never be fixed/standardized in the way that a billiard table is or a tennis court is, and of course in any event in those two games the human opponent is very much in contact with your ball   

Given this, is it meaningful to discuss how a golf course might be designed so as to be the optimal or most interesting or most challenging opponent for a wide variety of golfers, either playing alone or in competition?   I'd answer "yes". Would you answer "no"?

Peter

PS - It's very strange that it should be ME asking YOU about this question, since it's through all YOUR posts about those great but lesser known English courses that I've been getting a better sense of how golf courses themselves can stifle and challenge and befuddle the golfer from attaining his objective...in both subtle and dramatic ways

[TEPaul]

"Tom
Reread what I wrote.  I think I am correct in stating that a course can be created from living things, but that the idea of a golf course is not living.  In fact, I would surmise that a golf course could be made up of non-living things and be completely artificial, but we could still recognize it as a golf course, perhaps of somewhat dubious quality, but a course just the same."


Sean:

The aspect of artificiality in golf architecture or the look of it was one of Behr's primary concerns. That's obviously why he was so concerned, as Mackenzie was, that the look should not be one of artificiality but should be one of naturalism in golf architecture.

Behr did not say there was no "competition" between humans in golf, all he said was a human cannot act as an actual "opposing" force or entity (an actual physical opponent) as he can in other ball or stick and ball games such as tennis or baseball or football etc. Only the physical golf course can do that in golf by essentially taking the place of the human opposing force in those other games.

Here's what Behr did say about a golf course and human competitors in golf:

"A mistake commonly made by golfers is to look upon their human opponent as the actual opponent. In reality he occupies merely the position of a psychological hazard, nothing more. The actual opponent is the concrete hazards of the hole. Against these hazards the players in a match make a joint competitive attack. And a side wins which overcomes the hazards of a hole in the least number of efforts."

[Sean_A]

"Tom
Reread what I wrote.  I think I am correct in stating that a course can be created from living things, but that the idea of a golf course is not living.  In fact, I would surmise that a golf course could be made up of non-living things and be completely artificial, but we could still recognize it as a golf course, perhaps of somewhat dubious quality, but a course just the same."


Sean:

The aspect of artificiality in golf architecture or the look of it was one of Behr's primary concerns. That's obviously why he was so concerned, as Mackenzie was, that the look should not be one of artificiality but should be one of naturalism in golf architecture.

Behr did not say there was no "competition" between humans in golf, all he said was a human cannot act as an actual "opposing" force or entity (an actual physical opponent) as he can in other ball or stick and ball games such as tennis or baseball or football etc. Only the physical golf course can do that in golf by essentially taking the place of the human opposing force in those other games.

Here's what Behr did say about a golf course and human competitors in golf:

"A mistake commonly made by golfers is to look upon their human opponent as the actual opponent. In reality he occupies merely the position of a psychological hazard, nothing more. The actual opponent is the concrete hazards of the hole. Against these hazards the players in a match make a joint competitive attack. And a side wins which overcomes the hazards of a hole in the least number of efforts."

Tom

I am saying what thet Behr said there is no competition between players.  I am saying there is no competition between golf courses and people. 

You have subtely shifted the terminology from competition to opponent.  However, I don't think it matters much as I don't believe a golf course is the adversary in a competition.  The opponent  is still the other player(s) whether or not they can effect any player's quality of play.  Why?  Because the "least number of efforts" is dependent on the opponent's quality of play, not the golf course.  A player can believe all he wants that he beat the course (presumably an under par score), but this is a meaningless measuring stick.  Behr is attribute some human behaviours/traits to a golf course.  A golf course just is.  It doesn't stand in opposition to anybody.  In fact, if we are going to attribute human behaviour to a golf course I would say the player and course are more cooperative than competitve. 

Pietro

I do believe the object of the game changes depending on if you have an opponent.  What is the object when you play alone?  You are trying to get the ball in the hole, but what is the measuring stick?  I think it is set before one starts play and perhaps it is adjusted to coincide with reality after perhaps a good or bad run of holes.  When you play against somebody, that measuring stick isn't known til quite near the end of a competition.  You only need to play well enough to win.  In fact, some might say that a mark of the best players is that they can win with less than their best game.  Again, the course just is.  In the big scheme of competition it doesn't matter if the course is wet, dry, short, long etc.  The object is to beat the opponents.  How does one beat a golf course?  No matter how that is measured, it is subjective to human impressions, opinions etc.  There is nothing subjective about beating one's opponent. 

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Sean -

The ontological question raised by talking about a golf course as an "opponent" has nothing to do with Max Behr. It is just a philosophical conundrum I thought merited closer scrutiny.

It's my question, not Behr's. It's something I've always thought was odd. As a sidebar, however, it might be fun to speculate about how Behr, MacK and Crane would deal with it. That's all I was trying to say. So I don't quite get your response.

Bob

[RJ_Daley]

It occurs to me that we have had this debate and discussion of the many aspects of the meaning of ANGC, its original intent as conceived by the founders, the evololution of the courses design, here on GCA.com, since the first year which was 1999.  That is more years than the effective years of depression on the course, and more years than the opening of the course to the closing for WWII, when it was used to pasture cows for dairy.  I think a case can be made that GCA.com ongoing discussion has been more robust about the ontology of ANGC in retrospect than what it all meant as it happened.

The design changes from the early flipping of the 9s, to the significant changes by Maxwell on the position of the green on 10 and the chain reaction of that siting to  corridors of 11 and so forth, the desolution of the old mounds of 8, not to mention the altering and damming of the Creek by RTJones Sr, to create what is now 16 and all the other stuff... along with the impact of the maintenance meld, and its deliterious effect on the American perception of ideal maintenance, took place in real time; and we are retrospectively placing those concepts in ethereal time by reconstruction of motives and surmised philosophical approaches of the principal players of the times. 

It is all fun to revisit every year as folks do on GCA.com...

But, I'll tell you who else I'd like to see delve into all these deliberations... the participants at the annual Master's eve dinner!     

While we still have about a dozen players that "knew" Bobby Jones, and Roberts and some of the behind the scenes members of great historical influence, and some of whom of those players are in some fashion, golf course designers or architects, or playing consultants to architecture - you'd think that they would be valuable participants and contributors to these sort of discussions.  If I could, I'd tell those folks that they are to convene a round table discussion of these matters, after the dinner this year.  Unfortunately the most knowledgeable and ones that really might have the best insights, Sarezen, Snead, Nelson have now passed in the last few years... But Palmer, Player, Nicklaus, and to a lesser extent Watson, Floyd and a few others must have some sense of what the founders might have thought about all this.  I wonder if they even care about these matters as much as many of our participants?

[john_stiles]

I would like Billy Joe Patton's take on many of the same subjects.

Of course,   he might very well go from being the only two time member of ANGC to hopefully, in a few years,  a three time member. 

Really doubt if many of those listed would have any interest in discussions such as those at GCA.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()