[Tom_Doak]

Jeff B:

I did find out quite a few things from Jack N. while doing Sebonack about what he didn't like on a course visually ... little did he know how I intend to use those ideas.

Certainly, though, green contours are the biggest one.  Just hearing you say how much the pros hate a contour in a green that might "punish" a bad shot, I am wondering why Pete Dye's greens aren't even more severe than mine.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

Could it be because you have not been called back to rebuild all of your greens somewhere yet?

[Sean_A]

Good points Sean, but......

.....I think you over-modernise the perspective of those with moderate ability.  Some of my favo(u)rite golfing partner(s) know well how to tack across the fairway to avoid hazards, no matter where they might be, and they have huge amounts of fun in doing so.  From what I have read about the players of earlier ages, they were even more deferent to the realities of design and one's own capabilities.

Just think of McIver in "Golf in the Kingdom"..........

Rich

Rich

Of course you are correct in what you write, but the telling words are "Some of my fav(u)orite golfing partner(s) know well how to tack across the fairway to avoid hazards, no matter where they might be, and have huge amounts of fun". 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

" Do we have the Great Triumvirate to blame for this sort of approach?  Why do folks try to make the comparison of what pros do to their own game?"


Sean Arble:

That just seems to be basically an historical given right on through the early history of golf and architecture. Whether the designer was a professional player or one of those interesting "amateur/sportsmen" players from that early era that built such enduring courses it's just an historical fact that the people from those clubs turned to golfers who played the best to design the courses. Obviously, the thinking was if someone played well he must know more about what a playing field was supposed to be than those who didn't play well.

I don't see that there should be any mystery in that historically. It's a fact and can be easily proven.

[PCCraig]

Does everyone think that perhaps the most unnerving thing for professionals and low handicaps is Mother Nature? In both golf course architecture, natural hazards, and weather conditions?

The oldest courses in the world where there is no discernable architect and where they still occasionally play major golf tournaments on, from the top of my head I can think of two TOC and TCC-Brookline (which I have far more experience on). I think what the pros hate is fitting their games into the natural and unpredictable surroundings. There was no person the routed the course through the natural features at TCC, just a couple of members that decided that their routing was the most scenic, easy to walk, and challenging they could find on the property. In fact, the reason they used the land they did there was because it was unfit for many other activities. For example, holes such as the Par-4 3rd and Par-5 11th are two which there is genuine strategy for both the average golfer and tour pro, which is mostly derived from having to manage two huge rock outcroppings on your tee ball and beyond. I think when there is no architect to say what is or is not fair for anyone, that is was the pros dislike the most.

[Sean_A]

" Do we have the Great Triumvirate to blame for this sort of approach?  Why do folks try to make the comparison of what pros do to their own game?"


Sean Arble:

That just seems to be basically an historical given right on through the early history of golf and architecture. Whether the designer was a professional player or one of those interesting "amateur/sportsmen" players from that early era that built such enduring courses it's just an historical fact that the people from those clubs turned to golfers who played the best to design the courses. Obviously, the thinking was if someone played well he must know more about what a playing field was supposed to be than those who didn't play well.

I don't see that there should be any mystery in that historically. It's a fact and can be easily proven.

Tom P

Don't forget, these pros were designing at the same time all the non pros were designing and if I am not mistaken, the pros have gotten their asses kicked over the long haul by the "no nothing" likes of Colt, Dr Mac, Fowler, etc.  This is partly why I say Taylor was a reactionary and to some degree I think Braid was too.  However, I can't say that is the case for Vardon.  He is the really odd duck in all of this.  Which brings me to Darwin - who seemed to straddle the fence (like any good reporter) between the "camps" and not really get too far down the line with public declarations about this or that archie.  

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

"Some of my favo(u)rite golfing partner(s) know well how to tack across the fairway to avoid hazards, no matter where they might be, and they have huge amounts of fun in doing so."

Rich, you just described my Dad's method of playing this game to a tee. (horrible pun intended).

This is among the many reasons he remains my favorite golfing partner. (US spelling, hey, he's American and has never played over there).

Thanks for the reminder.

TH

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

On post #30, I really don't know what you mean, particularly with the professionals who were getting their asses kicked by the likes of Colt, MacKenzie and Fowler.

Are you talking about those jack-of-all trade early immigrant Scot and English architects who doubled as pros, clubmakers, greenkeepers etc?

If so, don't you think that was because they were spending far less time involved in their projects than the others you mentioned? Noone can design great golf course architecture in just a day or two including Colt, Mackenzie and Fowler et al.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

That last sentence of yours is important.

It was nearly a decade between the time that Colt was first summoned to Portrush and the time when he got to finally build "his" course.  Could you imagine Braid being so patient--particularly when the fee for Colt's decade of involvement was only slightly more than 200 pounds?

The more I think of it, the more I believe that one of the common factors in "greatness" in GCA is the time and TLC spent by one or two dedicated champions--think, Fownes, Crump, Wilson and Sutherland amongst many.  Amateurs all.

Rich

[Sean_A]

Sean Arble:

On post #30, I really don't know what you mean, particularly with the professionals who were getting their asses kicked by the likes of Colt, MacKenzie and Fowler.

Are you talking about those jack-of-all trade early immigrant Scot and English architects who doubled as pros, clubmakers, greenkeepers etc?

If so, don't you think that was because they were spending far less time involved in their projects than the others you mentioned? Noone can design great golf course architecture in just a day or two including Colt, Mackenzie and Fowler et al.

Tom P

No, I am talking about the next generation - The Great Triumvirate.  But if you want to include the first wave of Scots and any wave of professionals for that matter, thats fine.  As a group, they still get their asses kicked by a handful of what I would call the first professional archies in the sense of what we think of as professional today. 

I can't tell the exact reason why most pro golfers' work doesn't shine as bright as the best archies.  Its probably a combination of many factors of which time is likely one.  But its also probably the case that as a group they weren't as good either.  I don't believe they were immersed in the profession like some of their contemporary pro archies so their learning curve wasn't nearly as sharp.  This is understandable given their other commitments, but it doesn't alter the fact that as a group they were inferior - despite or perhaps because of their knowledge of the game. 

Ciao   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()