[David Stamm]

"I call St Andrews a good course generally; but it's bunkers are badly placed. They punish the man who is driving well more than the man who is driving badly, for they are generally the length of a good long drive. If this defect could be remedied, and if there were a few more bunkers at the sides to catch the pulled and sliced balls, then St Andrews would be a fine links indeed."

[David Stamm]

No guesses? The quote was made by a stylish player.......

[Peter Pallotta]

David -

Gene Sarazen?

Peter

[David Stamm]

Good guess, but no. His career did not quite overlap Sarazen's.

[Neil Regan]

Good guess, but no. His career did not quite overlap Sarazen's.

There was some overlap. At least 3 Opens, according to the wiki timelines. The author finished 2nd in one of those, Sarazen finished 2nd in another of them.

[John Sheehan]

Harry "The Grip" Vardon.

[TEPaul]

David:

I have no idea who said that but I would like to play Devil's Advocate and try to take apart the logic of that remark. Do you mind since that isn't the subject of your thread?

I think it sort of flies in the face of what some consider to be strategic golf and architecture. And I think it's also a pretty good prescription for a most interesting new term and idea we will all shortly be treated to known as "equitable architecture." 

In many ways the latter sort of presupposes what a good and bad golf shot is without even considering the shot in the context of a golf course or an architectural arrangement.

[David Stamm]

Good guess, but no. His career did not quite overlap Sarazen's.

There was some overlap. At least 3 Opens, according to the wiki timelines. The author finished 2nd in one of those, Sarazen finished 2nd in another of them.

My mistake. You're correct, Neil.



Neil and John are correct. It was the stylist, Harry Vardon, who made these comments. Now, what's the opinion of his opinion? I was quite surprised to read this, as I thought he held TOC in very high regard.


TEP, no, I don't mind at all. I was hoping it would lead to that.

[Rich Goodale]

David:

I have no idea who said that but I would like to play Devil's Advocate and try to take apart the logic of that remark. Do you mind since that isn't the subject of your thread?

I think it sort of flies in the face of what some consider to be strategic golf and architecture. And I think it's also a pretty good prescription for a most interesting new term and idea we will all shortly be treated to known as "equitable architecture." 

In many ways the latter sort of presupposes what a good and bad golf shot is without even considering the shot in the context of a golf course or an architectural arrangement.

Tom

You raise some good points.  Just imagine a hole that has a "Vardon" bunker in the middle of the fairway at 250 or so, a "Happy Hooker" bunker at 210 or so to the left and a "Sally Slicer" bunker at 210 to the right.

Vardon will have to decide whether or not to try to carry "his" bunker or poke it to the right or left, or even lay up short.  The hooker has to decide if he should aim at the centreline bunker and hope for a draw to the left channel or aim at the right bunker and be rewarded if the hook happens to occur.  On the other side, Sally will either aim at the left side bunker hoping for his slice or at the centreline bunker hoping for his power fade.

This is a variation on the theme of the 2nd at Carnoustie--one of the best holes for inducing strategic thinking on this planet.

Happy New Year

Rich

[TEPaul]

Richard the Sexist and Chauvinist Pig:

I will weigh in with my opinions on the primary subject later but for now I would like to note that you seem to assume that a "hooker" is only a female!! Shame upon you!

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Tom.. I meant to say "he" but tyoped "she."  My bad.  It has been correctred.  Irhc

[Kirk Gill]

Am I completely off-base in thinking that in advocating the bunkering of both sides of the fairway at the landing area to punish hooks and slices Vardon was supporting penal architecture? There have been many advocates of such a penal style, I just never knew that Vardon was one of them.

[TEPaul]

"I call St Andrews a good course generally; but it's bunkers are badly placed. They punish the man who is driving well more than the man who is driving badly, for they are generally the length of a good long drive. If this defect could be remedied, and if there were a few more bunkers at the sides to catch the pulled and sliced balls, then St Andrews would be a fine links indeed."


DavidS:

What I meant above is that the person who made that remark above seems to assume, and actually a number of times, what a good shot is (in one case what he refers to as 'a good long drive' and in the other case when he refers to the man who is 'driving well') before even considering a golf course or its architectural arrangements (in this case apparently bunkers).

How can he consider any shot to be a good one if it lands in a bunker and certainly if that bunker is placed where his "good long shot" may go unless he is of a mind that no bunker should be placed where he would ideally like to hit a ball, even "a good long drive?"

So, my point is, what do people who think like this believe any good golf shot ACTUALLY is----eg some shot in a total vacuum of consequence such as a driving range?

This is precisely how architecture gets sort of formulized and standardized around the context of golf shots that are thought to be good or ideal sans the context of a course or architecture----ie golf shots in a total vacuum of consequence.

If this isn't putting the cart before the horse (ideal golf shots before architecture and its arrangements), I can't imagine what is!  

I would like to remind people who think that way that there are fourteen clubs in a bag and generally a number or reasons to consider the consequences of various distances and directions to go in.

And when it comes to TOC I would remind the man who makes remarks like that of Tiger Woods' British Open Championship win in which he never went in a bunker in 72 holes. Do you think he felt there was something wrong with TOC and its architecural arrangement because he didn't hit his driver on holes he might have?  

[Tom_Doak]

A hundred years ago, it was MUCH more difficult to hit the ball consistently solid and straight, so it's not surprising that some good players would think a course should reward that consistency.  And yet there were many strategic courses, by Tom P's definition.

The strange thing is that nowadays, with modern equipment, consistent ball-striking is not nearly so difficult, and yet today's players are MORE insistent that bunkers should only punish a bad shot.

[TEPaul]

"The strange thing is that nowadays, with modern equipment, consistent ball-striking is not nearly so difficult, and yet today's players are MORE insistent that bunkers should only punish a bad shot."

TomD:

Even though I don't agree with it I doubt it could be considered a strange thing today.

This mindset, is, in fact, the apparent logical extension of the idea that one way to highlight and increasingly reward some well struck shot (perhaps a good long driver) is to increasingly penalize shots that are in some ways different, even if by choice!

This is precisely how this mindset eventually leads to architecture that relies on rote physical execution and little thought that also starts with some idea of what a good or ideal shot is without first considering the context of architecture.

The counter action in architecture to this rote physical execution with little though mindset is basically Max Behr's idea of "Line of Instinct/Lines of Charm" that actually places hazards precisely where that type of player and mindset stubbornly wants to hit his "ideal good long drive" in a vacuum of consequence such as the slightest possiblity of risk of penalty!

Behr and architects like him simply advocated the removal of that vacuum of consequence for that player and adding real consequence of risk and penalty in those areas where those ideal shots would go.

But of course we all know that and have heard it a million times. My only point is people who make remarks like that one above put the cart before the horse, in my opinion----eg they put the importance of their own laundry lists of "ideal golf shots" completely before architecture!

I think it should be the other way around, architecture first and then a reflective consideration of what the ideal shot should be and of course to me that means one that does not end up in a bunker, for instance.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bunkers are there IMHO to persuade the good player to think about his game and therefore not necessary directed against the poor to average player.

Today we seem to give the good players more opportunity to be seen as good players instead of testing their metal. Yes we know he/she is good but just how good – the problem is money (the difference between 1,2,3, etc places is a lot of money so perhaps these players do not want to be really tested).

This is one reason why I am not that keen on the Pro game and to be honest why should a course be easy or seem to be easy on good player. I don’t know about the rest of your but I want to see exciting test shots that make good players into Champions. So I am very keen in removing yardage markers/booklets/info from Caddies, bring in well positioned bunkers and more blind holes.

When has golf been easy, it should be about overcoming the challenge of the course, the designer and making what is difficult look easy. I have for many years believed a long tee shot proves very little. A wide fairway with traps challenges gives the golfer and forces him/her to think before the shot, rather that concentrating mainly upon distance. Anybody can drive a car fast on a straight road but the real test comes at the left and right hand corners/bends, for me the same applies in golf.

So bunkers and traps are there for all but predominately to test and challenge the good golfers IMHO.

Melvyn   

[Peter Pallotta]

Good thread.

I think another interesting aspect of this is that Vardon wrote an article (I think it was in 1914) in which he argued that America was still not producing top notch golfers because American courses were not 'testing' enough (a situation he said hadn't changed since the last time he'd visited America more than a decade earlier).  He said it wasn't the fault of American golfers, but of those creating the golf courses. 

Also, I find interesting how neither Vardon (nor anyone else back then, I think) ever talked about different kinds or classes of golf courses, as we do today, i.e. for them, there were no "resort courses" or "executive courses" or even "championship courses" -- there was only one kind of golf course, and for Vardon that golf course was either properly testing or it wasn't.

Peter

[Rich Goodale]

Good thread.

I think another interesting aspect of this is that Vardon wrote an article (I think it was in 1914) in which he argued that America was still not producing top notch golfers because American courses were not 'testing' enough (a situation he said hadn't changed since the last time he'd visited America more than a decade earlier).  He said it wasn't the fault of American golfers, but of those creating the golf courses. 

Also, I find interesting how neither Vardon (nor anyone else back then, I think) ever talked about different kinds or classes of golf courses, as we do today, i.e. for them, there were no "resort courses" or "executive courses" or even "championship courses" -- there was only one kind of golf course, and for Vardon that golf course was either properly testing or it wasn't.

Peter

Peter

I doubt it was in 1914 since Francis Ouimet had whipped Vardon's arse (and Ray's) at Brookline in 1913.....

Rich

[Melvyn Morrow]

Rich

I do remember reading that the first Oxford/Cambridge Tour to the USA put their victory down to the quality of play on the Greens. It would appear that the Tee shots were consistent with the GB guys but the US game fell away on the Greens.

Melvyn 

[Rich Goodale]

Could be, Melvyn

I remember the 1970's Walker Cup at Hoylake when the US waxed GBI and the mantra from the losing side was, "We played to the greens, they shot for the pins."  Swings and roundabouts.....

Rich

[BCrosby]

Nevermind. I didn't spot the answer above.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()