News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« on: September 27, 2009, 04:58:30 PM »
To keep myself occupied during the commercial breaks of the Tour Championship I pulled out my copy of 'Golf Architecture, A Worldwide Perspective' by Paul Daley. Happening upon page 191, I came across the piece mentioned above by our own Mike Clayton. No truer words have been written and with a delightful Austarlian bluntness that I am sure would please Melvyn Murrow.


If someone has the book...and a scanner, perhaps we can get it into the post.

Bob

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2009, 06:27:35 PM »
Bob,

I thought those words looked familiar.
I wrote that a while ago - and nothing has changed. I am constantly amazed at just how many members are convinced they have to put up with the worst conditioned, unfair and inconsistent bunkers in the country - and all the rest of it!
« Last Edit: September 28, 2009, 08:23:18 AM by Mike_Clayton »

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2009, 06:37:14 PM »
Bob.

Here it is.

How soft are modern golfers?

 Everywhere around us there are signs indicating just how soft the modern golfer has become.
 Clubs revered for their condition luxuriate in the compliments and the knowledge their members will never again face the strain of having to dig a ball out of a less than perfect lie on the fairway.
Yardages are stamped on every damn sprinkler head – or worse, they have those dopey little 150m trees planted at the sides of the fairways.  Even Royal Melbourne, the last bastion, has submitted to the screams of the modernists who insist the information will speed up play. Rubbish. Another battle lost to the nouveau riche golfer.
When we were kids the only question we asked was ‘ what club do you think it is?’ Now all you ever hear is ‘how far is it?’ Steve Williams caddied for me during the 1984 season in Europe and I got used to him saying to pro-am partners ‘ mate, just keep hitting that 3 wood until you get eighty yards away then pull out the wedge’. Williams is a brilliant caddy who uses his instinct and his experience as much as his yardage book when assessing a shot and a club. Our English Pro-am partners usually laughed and took it in the spirit it was meant. The Germans however always struggled with our antipodean brand of humour.
 I want to scream at them. ‘Just have a bloody look. Figure it out. Train your eyes. Use your judgement. It’s a seven iron shot !!!- What else could it be? – it’s not a six and it’s not an eight. It’s so obvious – just look. You are not going to find the answer on the sprinkler and you will never teach yourself the most important part of the game – judgement. Teach yourself what a seven iron shot looks like – or a three iron shot. Good players know what every shot looks like and when to use them. Peter Thomson was a master at it and even the modern pros cannot match the intricate levels of judgement of the Australian master. He just shakes his head at it all, filled with exasperation that his lifetime of campaigning for the purity of the game has come to this. Not surprisingly, he largely blames the Americans for it – and not without justification. Who else could have managed to take a game predicated on walking and turn it into a game played in stupid little cars? Or determine golf was a game to be played almost entirely through the air? What happened to trying to figure out what the ball would do after it hit the ground?  And, what about those infuriating little balls on the flags to tell you if the pin is in the front, middle or back of the green? Who did think of installing GPS systems in carts to tell you everything including the location of the nearest hamburger stand?
 We Australians have just blindly followed the trends. ‘There is money in those golf carts, can’t make a profit without them’ and  ‘The pro’s have all that information, why shouldn’t we?’ On it goes and the traditional game nearly always loses.
Ask a room full of members if the bunkers ought to be consistent and the answer will be a resounding 95% for 2.376 inches of sand in the bottom of every bunker. Never mind that some parts of the course may have very little indigenous sand and other parts may have feet of it. The right hand bunkers at the 5th at Kingston Heath have never had more than the merest spread of sand yet the bunkers high on the hill between the 14th and 15th holes have always had more than an abundance of sand to test good players. They of course prefer less sand as opposed to the poorer ones who want it thick so they can thump the club in behind the ball in an attempt to excavate everything including, hopefully, the ball. To hell with trying to get it close or even spin it a little. Just get me out before the greenkeepers start laughing.
The last thing they ought to be is consistent. Good players should have he chance to show off their versatility and the diligent poorer players can expand their repertoire and perhaps learn how the sole of a sandiron actually works. It’s broad and it has bounce for a reason.
What relevance does all this have to golf design?
 Spring Valley is a suburban Melbourne sandbelt course just down the road from Kingston Heath and it was designed by the greenkeeper at The Heath, Vern Morcom.
Morcom’s father, Mick, had built all of Alister MacKenzie’s bunkers at Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath and it was a skill he passed down to his son and he built some beauties at The Valley.
The club rerouted the driveway to the new clubhouse in the late nineties and it necessitated building a new 10th hole. Previously it had been a 150-metre par three to a medium sized green surrounded by some of Vern’s typically excellent bunkers. It was a terrific hole but you could hit the green with a marginal shot. That was not to its detriment but after sixty years the 6100 metre course was feeling the ravages of technology especially on the many dogleg holes where players were forced to resort to long irons from the tees to avoid running through the fairways.
The alternate site for the new hole was not particularly wide and it afforded the opportunity to build a hole of only 135 meters. Perefect. The 10th at Kingston Heath is a similar length hole to a long, narrow green surrounded by bunkers and it asks for a good, but not great shot to hit the target. That job is afforded to the great 150 metre, 15th where only a fine shot works. Many a big championship has been lost on the final day as those with great hopes missed the green. Nothing marginal ever hit the green on the wonderful hole MacKenzie himself built with Mick Morcom during his twelve week tour of Australia in 1926.They surrounded it with the most fearsome bunkers on the sandbelt and saving par if you miss the green is not impossible but most fail.
The new 10th was to be an amalgam of both holes. It is the length of the 10th but with a green not quite as long and bunkers left and right that were intended to determine whether a player could handle a sand club with a reasonable level of competence. Anyone who cannot hold the face open throughout the swing and slide it under the ball at the requisite angle is in trouble. In other words anyone who has a poor grip that almost always conspires to shut the face on the backswing necessitating a scoop through impact in order to put any loft back on the club.  Anyone who has tried that method will attest to its futility.
The hole turned out really well except the members seemed to hate it. Too hard they screamed. We can’t get out of the bunkers they cried.
It is infinity easier than the 15th at The Heath but because that hole is recognized for what it is no one dares suggest alteration so Mrs. Jones on 36 handicap can get out of ‘Big Bertha’ on the left. The late Ted Ball, a fine Australian tour pro, once took six to get out in a big tournament in the sixties so the committee reason if he had to endure it so can Mrs. (or Mr.) Jones. A recent attempt to redistribute the sand in the floor of that bunker met with derision as members cried it had rendered the famous hazard too easy. Now that is a spirit you have to love.
The new hole however exemplified to me how much the game has, at almost every turn, resorted to softening the challenge for the golfer. Every hole has to be ‘fair’, whatever that means. Everybody has to be able to play it no matter they have made no attempt to learn the basic grip or stance or fundamental of a swing plane.
 High handicappers are the lifeblood of most clubs but does that mean we dispense with the important challenges that stimulate the good and diligent (but not necessarily good) players?
There, of course, needs to be a balance but in an age of amazing equipment advance- 60 degree wedges, huge headed drivers (even the hackers are convinced they are hitting 30 meters further) and wonderful balls that spin but don’t cut – why are we doing everything we can to make it even easier?
And please don’t tell me it is to make the game more fun.




Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2009, 07:09:34 PM »
Mike,

Thanks for doing that. I cannot think of a wrong note in the whole of the essay.

Do you know David MacKendrick? A young Australian from Melbourne, who has just graduated from LSU at Monroe. He played with me at MPCC a couple of days prior to playing in the prelims of the PGA School here at the Black Horse course in Seaside. He shot 71,71,67
and 71 to finish second.

best wishes.

Bob

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2009, 07:19:41 PM »
Bob,

I don't know David - but he shot some pretty decent scores.
Where did he play in Melbourne.It sounds like he left when he was pretty young and before he could make a name for himself here.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2009, 06:23:44 AM »
Soft, we reached that stage in Golf when the cart was introduced. Its was equivalent to the introduction of the TV Remote Control making many at a click of a button ‘couch golfers’.

The moment came and went and no one noticed but it has changed the face of golf, certainly IMHO not for the better. The legacy of complacency has scarred our courses with cart tracks and increased the initial budgets massively, placing financial burdens of developers/owners/clubs. With dwindling players, revenues reduce making repayments a problem. Yet we still push the carts to the detriment of the golfer’s wellbeing. I wonder if that can be described as assisted suicide.

Melvyn

Mike Wagner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2009, 08:49:28 AM »
Mike,

Absolutely beautiful!  That's exactly how we played as kids....hmmm....what did I hit from here last time?  How much different is the wind...it was FEEL!!  It's gone.  I love it when folks ask me if there's GPS in the carts, or why no yardage books, or that the course isn't maked enough, why are you not on sky caddie, etc, etc.

I always love the "that course is unfair...you never get a flat lie."

How soft are modern golfers?.....like microwaved yogurt.

Rob Rigg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2009, 03:52:29 PM »
Mike,

That is fantastic - it is unfortunate that modern golfers are so obsessed with score - I think that is where a lot of "softness" comes from.

"That bounce was unfair"
"My putt was going in and then it hit something - what the hell?!?"
"The shot was perfect, the green just wouldn't hold my ball"
"That sprinkler head is missing yardage, what kind of goat track is this?"
etc. etc.

I say bring back the match and let's start enjoying the game again - the good and bad shots and bounces, and the walk inbetween.

Golfers need to start using the "force" again - we are all becoming dumber with the introduction of devices and course conditions that make the game easier. Not that this will ever happen, but it really would be good for the game.

Wags,

We missed you at Chambers - now that was some fun golf with good/bad/evil bounces and a lot of thinking.

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2009, 05:22:01 PM »
We are SOOOOO soft!

I just returned from 9 rounds in Ireland, getting my brains beat in by the wind, begging for my irons to bite on the greens, going crazy when I failed to catch my irons perfectly off hard-packed fairways with imperfect lies.

I remember siiting on the plane home, thinking that I could not wait to get back home to plush, soft fairways and greens that would hold a down-wind 4 iron...I realized that I was a soft and spoiled golfer.

I actually never caught a bad fairway lie in Ireland.  But as Grounds Chair at my club, I remember thinking:  our members would have been been in an uproar by the less than perfect "look" and the hardpan play of links fairways. They'd run me off the Board and fire our superintendent so fast. Then I realiized that they are far softer than me!

But I do admit to a guilty pleasure when I got to hit my first full iron from the fairway at my home course :)
« Last Edit: September 28, 2009, 05:29:18 PM by Bill Brightly »

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2009, 06:06:44 PM »
Dave,

There is no question that the modern ball - distance question  aside - has been fantastic for the game.
When hackers were all playing with a Top Flite or a Pinnacle there were never ending complaints about the greens being too hard - and so few realized that it was all but impossible to stop those balls on a firm green.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2009, 06:56:31 PM »
Modern technology isn't aaaaallllllll bad.

There has been one good thing that's come of it and it was alluded to in this piece:

the modern ball that spins but doesn't cut!

Forgetting for a moment how far they go (which is a separate issue), nobody is going to convince me that today's ball that spins but doesn't cut is a bad thing.  

One of the worst feelings I can recall about the game as a kid (and there were almost none - I was in love with the game at first sight!) was the enthusiasm of breaking open a brand new sleeve of Titleist balatas on the first tee....usually Christmas presents, since I had no dough of my own back then...followed by the utter despair I felt after rendering all of them useless to me, generally within an hour's time.  

It's downright cruel to design a toy that a kid can break by noon on Christmas day, and I'm glad for the modern no cut/high spin ball.

I very clearly remember in 1959, asking my old pro, Floyd Hudson (Indian Valley Golf Club, Novato CA), if a certain brand of ball "cut easily."

"How the hell would I know?" he sneered!  ::)

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2009, 08:26:42 PM »
 >:( >:( 8)

it's really a shame that most players equate their scoringwith a course being good or bad.......anybody in the business of golf in the US knows this all too well!  Proobably a pretty good indicator of the "softness" of the golfers of the modern era.

Bunkers are another example of this as the desire for perfect lies , even in a hazard is a sore point for most purists but it's just the way most players are conditioned to think....it's the Augusta effect ...my home course has much improved conditions than a decade ago, but some of our best members , really good guys , moan and cry if they get a bad lie in the rough...

this being said the economics of the day might allow for a lessening of the expectations of perfect conditions , but it might take a few lean years for the golf comittees to filter the word about how much it costs for a second cut of rough , or greens that stimp at 11 or 12 feet.....lots of publinxers get this better than the country club set...they would rather play ten rounds at $40 per play than 5 at $100 at a CCFAD  .  So they accept less maintenance more willingly, if it keeps the cost down. 

A positive of this might be the firm and fast maintenance meld might catch on a little more 





Kyle Harris

Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2009, 08:30:46 PM »
Archie, et al,

How do you think the expectations and satisfaction from a round changes when the golfer is paying $30 to walk vs. $100 to ride?

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2009, 08:47:04 PM »
Modern technology isn't aaaaallllllll bad.

There has been one good thing that's come of it and it was alluded to in this piece:

the modern ball that spins but doesn't cut!

Forgetting for a moment how far they go (which is a separate issue), nobody is going to convince me that today's ball that spins but doesn't cut is a bad thing.  

One of the worst feelings I can recall about the game as a kid (and there were almost none - I was in love with the game at first sight!) was the enthusiasm of breaking open a brand new sleeve of Titleist balatas on the first tee....usually Christmas presents, since I had no dough of my own back then...followed by the utter despair I felt after rendering all of them useless to me, generally within an hour's time.  

It's downright cruel to design a toy that a kid can break by noon on Christmas day, and I'm glad for the modern no cut/high spin ball.

So true; I remember the shock and delight of playing a Titleist Professional for the first time and realizing that after 18 holes it was still round, uncut, unscuffed.  I never bought another balata ball.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2009, 09:20:58 PM »
Yesterday morning I played with absolutely no yardage reference forthe first time in my golfing life.  No yardage markers were available and I sought no outside information and made no attempt to pace anything off. Everything was done by eye-balling. As a bonus the round was played in a steady 20mph wind.  It was an extremely enjoyable experience.

I won't be joining the purist movement and I will continue to use yardage references when readily available, but I highly recommend the pure feel experience to anyone that hasn't tried it. Part of the trick is finding the course with no reference points. 

Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2009, 12:03:57 AM »
Tim,

I play courses with reference points all the time - but I almost never look.

Chris Kane

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2009, 12:22:02 AM »
I don't know David - but he shot some pretty decent scores.
Where did he play in Melbourne.It sounds like he left when he was pretty young and before he could make a name for himself here.

Played Pennant for Kingston Heath, from memory.

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2009, 04:06:08 AM »
Soft, we reached that stage in Golf when the cart was introduced.

Melvyn


Melvyn

Spring Valley (and the Melbourne sandbelt) are ot really cart places - there are some bu not the extent implied by your note.  The softness of golfers is not limited to those who us carts.

A group of golfers who I admire are the shorter-hitting ladies and older members of some of the classic courses, who somehow get around a course that so many more able golfers would complain as too difficult, if that were their home course.  Members seem to get what they wish for, unfortunately.

James B
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

TEPaul

Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2009, 05:37:22 AM »
MikeC:

That essay is wonderful.

Why have some done to the game what they have? Face it, it's just the natural inclination of Man to make practically anything he comes in contact with scrutable; he almost always tries to expose and understand most anything he considers inscrutable. Man just may be the only thing in existence who is not content to leave mystery alone or appreciate it; it is his lot to rid his universe of it, not to even mention many think there has always been profit in doing just that!  ;)

But let's not be totally doomish. Since Man tends to move forward very fast, he also runs out of breath from time to time at which point he tends to look back to determine what of worth he destroyed along the way and often he feels he needs to recreate it and enjoy it again. This is why people like you write an essay like yours and why enough others buy your book and read it and put a part of it on an Internet website and discuss and praise it.

It's a Big World and there is STILL plenty of room in it for everyone!  ;)

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2009, 06:15:35 AM »
Archie, et al,

How do you think the expectations and satisfaction from a round changes when the golfer is paying $30 to walk vs. $100 to ride?

I think Kyle has hit it on the head.  Most golfers will accept less than good conditions (meaning they may in fact be very reasonable) if they are paying £30 to walk on.  Once clubs start to ask 50, 75 a 100 quid or more golfers tend to raise their expectations, not usually for architecture, but for better conditions.  The GCA.com crowd is slightly different in that most will overlook conditions if the course is interesting and fun, even if a bit pricey. 

I just a bit of a revelation this past weekend.  I always think of Pennard as scraping the barrel condition wise.  Rye was a real eye opener for me.  Here is a club that is meant to be near the top of the tree in England, yet the conditions there were poor imo (in relation to the hefty green fee) - meaning worse than what I get at Pennard!  Fairways were scrappy and greens were just ok.  I took a good look around Pennard on Sunday and it dawned on me that it is a totally different product.  The course is really one of the few remaining virtually natural (for lack of a better word) courses left in the UK.  There are many areas of open, slit, blown sand about, cow pats, divotted fairways and just about acceptable greens.  The scruffy look to a large degree is what defines Pennard and most golfers would recognize this and accept it.  However, at Rye it is a bit of a different matter because of the standing of the club and how it tries to present the course especially compared to some of those wild pix of the course hangin in the house - the course Mayday said he wanted, but didn't get til he went to Pennard.   

Are golfers soft today?  Yes, we all are, but the important question to ask is if we are willing to slum it and play in conditions that Pennard offers on a daily basis?  I think most GCAers would say no thank you and that is the bottom line.  No matter what is the cutoff point for acceptable conditions is, there are very few golfers who WANT to slum it.  This makes it ever so hard to blame the "industry" because it is apparent it delivers what golfers want.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tim Bert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2009, 09:26:31 AM »
Tim,

I play courses with reference points all the time - but I almost never look.

mike it is one thing when you ignore sprinkler heads or perhaps subtle markers. It is another thing entirely when you have a black and white striped barber pole in the middle of the fairway. You will know +/-  10 yards how far out you are unless the course is extremely deceptive.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2009, 10:16:11 AM »
It's a mistake to think that golfers have brought softness down upon themselves, they've been set up by every concern that wants to wring dollars out of the game and by the Tour, which demands perfection and fairness. 

 
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2009, 11:09:10 AM »
Valley Club is only marked w/ random trees and it's wonderful. It gave the course a simple, uncluttered look.


I remember reading an account of the late Payne Stewart and his retelling of the time he asked his caddy, Mike Hicks, why he always gave yardages in 5 yard increments. It was never 163, or 161, it was 165 or 160. Hicks responded by saying "Because I don't think you guys are that good."
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Will Haskett

Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2009, 11:15:19 AM »
I agree with many of the points on here (carts, perfection of grass, whining) and will add to it those people who would rather cancel a round than play in bad weather. I relish playing a match in windy or wet conditions, because the mental side of the game becomes much more important.

One thing I am constantly amazed by (and I don't think this makes the modern game "soft") is the lack on some courses of yardage. I don't want a computer (GPS or SkyCaddy), but a sprinkler head that isn't marked is an ultimate pet peeve of mine. I don't have the best depth perception in the world, so hitting a perfect 7-iron from a guessed distance and air-mailing the green is the worst feeling.

If you are a good golfer, you should take pride in your ability to know how far you hit certain shots And if you are not allowed an opportunity to gauge the actual distance, why bother playing?

I don't think it is too much to ask for sprinkler head markers or subtle 100, 150 and 200 markers (discs in fairways or on cart paths). I don't think golf was ever intended to be played where the player had to constantly guess his yardage.

Bob_Huntley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How Soft Are Modern Golfers?
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2009, 11:36:40 AM »

I don't think it is too much to ask for sprinkler head markers or subtle 100, 150 and 200 markers (discs in fairways or on cart paths). I don't think golf was ever intended to be played where the player had to constantly guess his yardage.

Will,

I beg to differ.

Bob