INDESTRUCTIBLENESS

[Sean_A]

John Low once remarked that holes of Hoylake are indestructible.  According to Bernardo what Low meant was that holes of Hoylake were good regardless of the wind direction.  After giving this some thought I wondered if the idea of indestructibleness is better achieved on more open courses rather than on courses which play primarily through/over dunes.  I suspect it depends on the corridors widths,  steepness and height of the dunes.  I have long thought dunes a mixed blessing because of how they constrict play especially in wind, but most folks would agree that a dunescape is one of the more compelling sites for golf.  This is sort of a ramble, but what are your thoughts?

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Seems like indestructible on a windy site means just make a hole hard at minimum, impossible under certain wind speeds and directions.

Alternately, a holistic approach could be a Muirfield type Olympic Triangle routing, where the overall difficulty of the course is maintained even as individual holes may play easier or harder owing to the winds of the moment.

Lastly, it is good to see a Wing nut using thread title formatting to pay subtle but unmistakable homage to this year's team of destiny, the CAPS!

Regards,

[TEPaul]

"I have long thought dunes a mixed blessing because of how they constrict play especially in wind,"


Sean Arble:

I wonder what you mean by "constrict play." Have you given much thought to what you really mean by that?

Could you mean that an opposite or very different wind direction might massively "change" play or massively alter available strategies from one day to the next?

If so, I think one could make a pretty good case that too is a very good thing unless one thinks, for some reason, that the entire amalgamation of shot making strategies on some hole, or even in golf architecture generally , should somehow be standardized for some reason.

I'm afraid there may be a good number of golfers who have come to see things that way and in the over-all that probably isn't a very good thing, even though, at this point, I think I have a pretty good idea why so many have come to feel that way.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Dunes would have to be pretty high to negate the effects of wind. I think most are just high enough to shelter the golfer from the wind, but not high enough to stop its effect on an elevated shot of any kind.  Unless the golfer is playing really low to the ground, its possible dunes make a course harder by concealing the wind somewhat from the golfer.  At least the shot is easier when not being blown over in the wind!

[BCrosby]

John Low once remarked that holes of Hoylake are indestructible.  According to Bernardo what Low meant was that holes of Hoylake were good regardless of the wind direction.  After giving this some thought I wondered if the idea of indestructibleness is better achieved on more open courses rather than on courses which play primarily through/over dunes.  I suspect it depends on the corridors widths,  steepness and height of the dunes.  I have long thought dunes a mixed blessing because of how they constrict play especially in wind, but most folks would agree that a dunescape is one of the more compelling sites for golf.  This is sort of a ramble, but what are your thoughts?

Ciao

Sean -

I read Low's meaning slightly differently. I think Low was trying to say that the intrinsic design of the holes at Hoylake was so good that the wind didn't matter.

That is, the arrangement of hazards, angles and distances made for interesting play without regard to the contingencies of day to day weather. Ergo the holes had design qualities that were "indestructible." Or "permanent", an expression both Low and, later, Max Behr sometimes used.

(I'm starting to think that MacK copped a number of ideas from Behr who in turn copped a number of ideas from Low. A topic for another time. Low was a very bright guy. Something Darwin pointed out early and often.)

That's also how I think Bernardo was reading Low.

Bob

[JESII]

It seems they are distinguishing quality from degree of difficulty...which is certainly a challenge when analyzing a course...isn't that what we philosophize about 'round here?

[Sean_A]

John Low once remarked that holes of Hoylake are indestructible.  According to Bernardo what Low meant was that holes of Hoylake were good regardless of the wind direction.  After giving this some thought I wondered if the idea of indestructibleness is better achieved on more open courses rather than on courses which play primarily through/over dunes.  I suspect it depends on the corridors widths,  steepness and height of the dunes.  I have long thought dunes a mixed blessing because of how they constrict play especially in wind, but most folks would agree that a dunescape is one of the more compelling sites for golf.  This is sort of a ramble, but what are your thoughts?

Ciao

Sean -

I read Low's meaning slightly differently. I think Low was trying to say that the intrinsic design of the holes at Hoylake was so good that the wind didn't matter.

That is, the arrangement of hazards, angles and distances made for interesting play without regard to the contingencies of day to day weather. Ergo the holes had design qualities that were "indestructible." Or "permanent", an expression both Low and, later, Max Behr sometimes used.

(I'm starting to think that MacK copped a number of ideas from Behr who in turn copped a number of ideas from Low. A topic for another time. Low was a very bright guy. Something Darwin pointed out early and often.)

That's also how I think Bernardo was reading Low.

Bob

Bob

I think we said the same thing in different ways!  

All

What I meant about dunes being a mixed blessing was that designing a course on more open land (exactly as Hoylake was back before Colt used the dunes more) makes it easier to facilitate for wind.  We can only make the fairways so wide when holes are routed through dunes.  If a course is designed through dunes to play primarily for a certain wind direction then an alternate wind can sometimes make the game a desperate challenge.  I didn't get the impression that Low meant the holes at Hoylake were necessarily harder if an alternate wind should blow, but that the holes are equally good regardless of wind direction.  Perhaps he meant on the whole as Mark B suggests - I don't know for sure.  

Mark B

First of all, give credit where credit is due.  Willie Park Jr did the old loop within a reversed loop long before Colt ever imagined he would get to work on Muirfield.  Who knows, perhaps Park nicked the idea from someone else, but I have yet to find an earlier example of this design method than Stoneham - which btw - you should see becasue its a lovely course.

Second of all, when the Caps figure out how to score more goals they will have a chance at grasping Lord Stanley's Cup.  Maybe next year....

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - I think Low is distinguishing quality from the *relative* degree of difficulty. That is, he is suggesting that the quality of the design provides a base-line of challenge/interest/difficulty, and that in such a way as to make the relative and changing degrees of difficulty (day to day, and/or player to player) essentially irrelevant.  But even if that's the case, it still leaves your question/comment in tact...

Peter

[JESII]

Sean,

Sorry to swerve off-line a bit here.

Peter,

It seems like your use of the phrase "relative degree of difficulty" must rely on an aggregation of all 18 holes...and that Hoylake's are of a unique quality that regardless of the wind, the sum total of challenge/interest/difficulty will be about the same from day to day.

I say this because a substantial wind changing direction will have to impact the degree of difficulty of a single hole.

[JESII]

And to actually finish that thought...I read Darwin's interpretation of Low's comment as looking the specific holes individually, without the idea of aggregate quality.

How do you interpret my interpretation of Darwin's interpretation of...

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - I'm not sure I can even interpret MYSELF....

Yes, I was thinking of the aggregate, but I wasn't thinking that the sum total of challenge/difficulty would stay the same regardless of changing wind conditions.  What I meant was that these changes in wind conditions (and thus in difficulty and in scoring-in-relation-to-par) aren't relevant to a discussion of the quality of the golf course. That is, yes, some holes would no doubt play harder some days, others less so on other days; but the quality of the architecture ensured an interesting and challenging experience all the time, throughout the round, and independent of the conditions.  I say this asuming that neither Low nor Darwin was putting as much stock in the scores shot, per hole and in aggregate, as the modern reader does.

Peter