[Mac Plumart]

I have just read Bob Crosby's "Joshua Crane" article posted on the "In My Opinion" section of this website.

First, and foremost, great work Bob!

Secondly, how wonderful it must have been to be an active participant in the "Golden Age" of golf course architecture.  CB MacDonald develops his ideas and models, Mackenzie takes an almost opposite stance, Colt makes major steps forward, and Joshua Crane takes an entirely different view on what a golf course is suppposed to be.  No clear direction had been established concerning what the fundamentals of golf course architecture were and all of these guys (and some more) were putting into writing their formal thoughts.  How cool!

Thirdly, I think if you read what Crane was saying/doing...he was right.  At least he was right along the lines of what he was trying to discover.  And that was, what were the most fair and equitable golf courses in the world.  He might have framed his lists as to what were the most ideal golf courses...but he was clearly making a list of the most equitable courses.

Additionally, the debate between Behr and Crane about golf being a sport or a game...spot on!!!  It appears to me Behr is right on that  one...and that is golf is a sport (not a game like billiards) and, therefore, not really designed to be equitable and fair.  His views were an eye opener for me.

And finally, reading how Crane's course rankings differed from consensus opinion highlights how different criteria can yield different results when trying to rank golf courses.  Much like Golfweek varies from Golf Mag. which varies from Golf Digest...and etc.  All use differnt metrics and get different results.  Interesting.  These discrepancies and how they can arise are really highlighted when Crane's criteria are analyzed.

Anyway...not too much response required...

I just really think it is interesting to see how the "Golden Age" battles defined our current game and how wildly different golf course rankings can be depending on the criteria you choose to use.

Thanks Bob!!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mac

Your final comment “how wildly different golf course rankings can be depending on the criteria you choose to use” is the reason I do not like top 10’s, 100’s.

Golf is like out taste in women, friends, sense of humour and probably anything else you care to mention is down to the individual. The only difference is that when we started getting interested in golf there was a basic code (etiquette) and rules we were all not only expected to but also required to follow. Perhaps more so my generation and older, than those born late, say late into the 60’s, 70’s or 80’s.

Golf to many is just producing the lowest score possible every time they play. The very idea of playing a challenging course for the sake of it or for fun rather than achieving, the lowest score is nearly alien to them. Others believe that only a deep lush green colour highly manicured is acceptable as a golf course, irrespective of the surrounding landscape. Many a modern and old golfer have no care as to how to traverse a golf course and some see no harm in banning walking.

So never a truer word has been written ‘criteria you choose to use’, rightly or wrongly defines just about everything that makes us an individual. Therefore, some have decided to drastically changing the face of golf from how the game was originally played to a game of convenience. Perhaps they feel no longer up to the challenge, just seeking the easy option of no physical or mental exertion or whatever ‘criteria you choose to use’.

Happy New Year   

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

Melvyn...again...BRILLIANT!!!

The words you chose to use and the words that Behr used to desrcibe golf almost go hand in hand...which is the polar oppposite of Crane's ideals which were the basis of his list.

Behr described golf as sport...like climbing a mountain.  I took that to mean no mountain is the same and how you get to the top is left up to your own imagination and ability.  Some go the quick and steep route...some take the long and winding road.  Isn't golf the same?  Some choose to go over the hazards, while others choose to go around them...and this is dependant on their ability.  Furthermore, in mountain climbing you might take the steep and quick route...but you might slip on a loose boulder.  In golf, you might try to carry the water and a breeze might blow and keep your ball from carrying it...and splash.  Those are the trials and tribulations of events that have a sporting nature.

Billliards is more like a game (according to Behr).  Standards tables, standard sizes for pockets, perfectly smooth surface.  Change any of those things and the expert billiards player will not be happy as the skill they've acquired by playing the standard tables will be somewhat nulllified.  It is a game with standard dimensions and playing areas.  Not much original thinking and planning is needed to hit shots...line it up...hit it...it goes in...move on the next one.  You must strategize on what shot to hit and how to position your next shot...but it is all on a standard and commonplace playing surface. 

In sport, nothing is standard...the mind needs to be in tune with nature, aware of the playing area, and its potential pitfalls.  Also, you have to be aware of your own personal limitations and abilities.  Behr thought that was the nature of sport and golf was sport. 

Withthis in mind, other sportsmen liek the challenge and the deep thought process behind trying to overcome a golf courses.  This is why courses like St. Andews Old appeal to them...they are unique with optionss and decisions.  They never loose interest in it.

Crane like the predictable "standardized" courses which make his scoring more predictable.  Hence his disliek for the "quirk" of St. Andrews...it messed up his scorecard.

Those are the criteria these men choose to use in evaluating golf and, therefore, golf courses.

At least that is how I read Bob's great article.

[Adam Clayman]

Yet even while I admire the marvelous co-ordination between eye and muscle called for this modern [American] target golf, I cannot but regret that it has taken us so far from the original conception of the old cross-country game. One of the things which distinguished golf from every other past time was that while other games were imitations of war in miniature, golf was an imitation of life, in which the player had to thread his way among unexpected dangers and undeserved bad lies. Of golf, almost alone among games, it could be said that a man’s worst enemy is himself.

That is still true, but we have been so anxious, in the sacred name of fair play, to take all the element of luck out of the game, that we have to a proportionate extent destroyed its value as a test of each man’s ability to stand up to bad luck. Modern golf is a stiffer test of a player’s skill, but it has robbed the game of something of its charm as an adventure of the spirit.

Give me the spirit over the vanity every time. Although I doubt you will get all the movers and shakers (and their wannabees) to agree.

Mac, The game mind is more complex then the difference between the confines of a pool table and the freedom and variety of nature.

[JESII]

Mac,

I think Adam touches on another real distinction between Golf (and all other Sports) and "Games"...the player is not competing against another. Whether it's a mountain, or a fish, they are on their own.




Melvyn and Adam,

Is it possible for me to strive for the lowest score WHILE appreciating every aspect of the game that you both seem to think I am missing?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

Of course, but then I believe you have like many on this site the experience, quality and depth of knowledge of the game of golf. Perhaps giving you a much finer understanding than the average player and would appear to have produced a sense of humour as well.

How many times have you failed to beat your previous score (and not really caring) yet come away having fully enjoyed the day’s golf?

Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac,
Here are a few place listings by magazine, first number being Golf Digest, then Golf Magazine, then Golfweek Classic.

Augusta         1/3/9
Pine Valley      2/1/2
Shinnecock     3/4/3
Cypress          4/2/1
Oakmont        5/6/5
Pebble           6/5/7
Merion East     7/7/4
W.Foot west   8/14/16
NGLA             15/9/6
Fishers Island   9/20/11
Seminole        10/13/

The only discrepancies between the lists for the top 11 places are: 

Oak Hills makes Golf Digest’s, 
Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and Pinehurst #2 make Golf Magazine’s,
Crystal Downs and Prairie Dunes make it onto Golfweek’s list.

What these lists show is that even though a system like Crane’s looks at it differently, finding the true worth of a thing like a golf course always comes back to one thing, using the samplings from the largest and most interested persons removes as many individual idiosyncrasies (like Crane’s or yours or mine) as possible, and gives the best result.

[JESII]

My sense of humor is purely American...I need it explained...

How many times have you failed to beat your previous score (and not really caring) yet come away having fully enjoyed the day’s golf?

I don't think the previous days score is a fair comparison...but maybe my expectations for the day would be.

To your point, I enjoy myself just about every time I play...but, the times I don't are tied to score as much as anything else.

For what it's worth, the days where I start off poorly and turn it around and have a decent score are probably the most enjoyable...assuming all other things are equal (playing partners, course, course conditions, weather etc...)

[Garland Bayley]

Joshua's rating system is reproduced on this thread.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32246.0/

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, Thankfully there are those, (a minority) who can achieve the lowest scores, and are able to think and feel more then just about themselves and their scores. 

 The road taken in golf course architecture, (as well as society as a whole) is responsible for the foul trend of vanity and ego be coming so acceptable. It's the Me Me Me generation, magnified. I've postulated before that the GCA exemplifies this horrid trend. This hypothesis was formed on what I gathered from reading the early days of GCA.com, when the opinions expressed were more honest, and frank.

Since hindsight is 20/20, it boggles the mind how the majority still can't see how the words of Max Behr were prophetic. And, why the designers who have heeded Max's insights are now comprising the lists of the best courses built in the last decade.

[JESII]

Adam,

Do you think the notoriety bestowed on GCA.com had anything to do with those honest and frank commentators of a decade age leaving? Do you think they were only honest and frank because they thought the door was closed?

[Adam Clayman]

I've not given much thought on why they left, other than they likely just don't have as much patience as those who have stayed. 

Also, There's a huge difference between constructive criticism and mean spirited discourse. Although, one would think a modern GCA would be use to critics, and, a few of those, who might've been insulted, could've defended their positions, or at least, tried.  Rather than barring anyone in their firm to post.

[JESII]

It would be curious to me if people whose opinions are very well regarded left the site for site specific reasons...like patience...but forget that for now.



I'm curious about this concept of playing golf for something other than the lowest score...I see that as cheating the architect, cheating the game, and cheating nature. Forget all the etiquette and enjoyment stuff, I do it and understand it...I even understand not caring about final score, after all it's not life...but I cannot understand when someone says they play a course "for the sake of it"...

I want to know how someone can claim they are appreciating the golf course and experimenting with the architecture when they aren't trying to find the best way to get the ball in the hole as quick as possible.

[Mac Plumart]

Jim...

I think almost everyone who plays tries to get the ball in the hole as efficiently as possible.  That is the point of the whole endeavor. 

But I personally don't like playing courses that our too easy.  I like the challenge...and since I am an 11.6 index...combining these two things rarely leads to really low scores...but I enjoy the game nevertheless.  HOWEVER, some people that I play with go bananas when they don't hit their expected score.  They aren't enjoying anything about the game or the course in the midst of their sorrow/antics/anger/frustration.  Perhaps that is a key point...you don't seem to be in that camp.

I can also add this...the first few times I played after each of my surgeries I scored about 10 shots above my index...but I was happy to be playing.  In fact, I played a few great and new courses during this time and I did enjoy seeing the courses and the interest they could have provided my game had I been able to actually play near my ability.

And finally, now that I can walk a course...I get a big thrill out of simply walking a course and seeing all the parts of the golf course I missed zooming around before.

But make no mistake about it...I've played really well lately and that makes it just a little more fun to play.  No doubt!  But I would rather shoot an 89 on a course like Kiawah Ocean in 30 mph winds that 81 on a rinky dink course that is too easy with no architectural interest.

I don't know if that adds anything or not...but at least it was long winded!! 

[JMEvensky]

I want to know how someone can claim they are appreciating the golf course and experimenting with the architecture when they aren't trying to find the best way to get the ball in the hole as quick as possible.

Me too.

Presumably,an architect designs a golf course as a test.The player's objective is to get through the test in as few shots as possible.How do you know if a golf course is good if you're not really trying to play it?

[JESII]

Golf to many is just producing the lowest score possible every time they play. The very idea of playing a challenging course for the sake of it or for fun rather than achieving, the lowest score is nearly alien to them.

Mac,

An 89 at Kiawah in some wind is a better score than an 81 at a rinky dink course, so that's consistent with being more happy with success, but the above comment by Melvyn is just the most recent of several comments over time from people claiming to not be trying for the lowest score...and in my opinion, if you're not trying for the lowest score, you're cheating the architect and the game.

Letting your score dictate who you are is an entirely different matter, and that's where I suspect the people that think they're not trying get stuck, they see people like your guys that go bananas.

[Mac Plumart]

Jim...

Of course...only Melvyn can answer what he means by that.  Perhaps the spirit of it was along the lines of my last post...but like I said only he knows.

And for the record...I agree with you...you are cheating the game and the architect and the course if you don't try to do your best and rise to the challenge the game and the course present.

However...I'VE GOT IT!!!  Here is an instance of someone I know who doesn't try to get the lowest score he possibly can.  I've played golf with a guy from time to time who people say is a sand-bagger concerning  his handciap.  He can shoot 79 when the stakes are high...or 95 when he is playing for nothing.  But his argument is that he puts the score in the GHIN system just as his score card says...which indeed is an accurate reflection of his score that day.

But here's the kicker...

When he plays match play, he will try like heck to win each and every hole.  BUT...when he is out of a hole he mysterisouly hits poor chips, mis-reads putts, mis-clubs on his approach shots, etc.  So, yes he may have indeed scored a 7 on a par 3...but it is pretty clear that his effort isn't his best. 

This efforts results in a higher than normal handicap and success on winning money on the course...but strangely enough not very many people want to play with him.  Go figure!!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

I play golf for the fun and challenge of the game. On old courses, that I have played many times the score is not the issue – it never is, it’s reading the course and navigating through different approaches. Some major errors have befallen me as my skill was unworthy of some of my efforts, yet I rose to the challenge and perhaps ended with an 8 or so on those holes but did I enjoy trying to extricate myself from these disaster, you bet I did. Why, because the score is just part of the enjoyment of playing the game of golf.

I also love courses that I have never before played upon, either alone or if possible with friends. Again, it’s the challenge. I may never win the biggest dick (head) competition but I will try and come out with the biggest smile, perhaps that’s what defines us Brits against you Yanks. It’s playing the game because it is a game, of accumulating and understanding the skill requirements of each phase of the round. I am not after a clinical approach, life is just too short to go down that path, ask Tiger.

Relax, enjoy and perhaps you may find that your scorecard will reflect that state of mind, if not don’t worry, there is always tomorrow.

Melvyn

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, Perhaps I missed it, but where did you get the notion that someone isn't "trying"?

I'm one who enjoys playing shots of differing styles (Traj and curve) on almost every swing. To me that's fun. I score well when my putts fall.  Which means I don't try to hit high soft fades on every shot like the robots that dominate the modern game. Why do they dominate? Back to my point about the architecture and maintenance melds only asking and allowing for that shot. If I don't score well it isn't the end of the world and doesn't preclude me from appreciating the architecture. On the flip side... If the architecture ONLY allows for a one dimensional player to score well, I don;t think it's very good architecture.

Since I have not been there, I assume Oakmont, even though it's very difficult, still allows a player the flexibility in deciding how they want to play the shots and attack the hole. And, is inherent on why it is considered a great course.  George Pazin's accounts are at the heart of my assumptions. I like difficulty, I get up for it, as long as it isn't the same task over and over and over again. Such as high soft shots required on every swing.

[Dale Jackson]

I think somewhere in between Melvin, and JMEvensky and Jim Sullivan is match play.  The aim is not to take the fewest strokes but to take fewer than you opponent on each hole - a subtle but important difference.

I will make a more conservative or aggressive play if I think it will improve my chances of winning the hole, but that play may well lead to a higher score for the hole.  I might lag a 10 foot putt to ensure a win on a hole in match play, when in stroke play I might be more aggresive and try to make birdie (or par  ).

Similarly, a hole may be described as a good match play hole because of its "knife-edge" qualities, a bold play may result in a better chance of defeating my opponent on that hole, but failure may be disastrous.  In stroke play, the risk would not be worth the gamble, in match play, depending on the circumstances of the match, the gamble may be indicated.  The decision making process does not consider the number of strokes but the outcome of the hole.

I will guess that all those who line up on the "must try for the lowest number of strokes" side of this discussion are from North America.  That is the way we are taught to approach the game, match play is an afterthought.  It seems like even when we play match play, we still will remain in stroke play mode. Pity!

[JESII]

I may never win the biggest dick (head) competition but I will try and come out with the biggest smile, perhaps that’s what defines us Brits against you Yanks. It’s playing the game because it is a game, of accumulating and understanding the skill requirements of each phase of the round. I am not after a clinical approach, life is just too short to go down that path, ask Tiger.

Relax, enjoy and perhaps you may find that your scorecard will reflect that state of mind, if not don’t worry, there is always tomorrow.

Melvyn

Your inability to leave the "Holier Than Thou" attitude behind makes it very difficult to have a reasonable conversation, I'd be happy to try.

[JESII]

Adam,

I didn't necessarily think you don't "try", at least most of the time, but there's a very strong condecension on here against those that worry about score..."Scorecard & Pencil..." and I think they (you included on occassion) are missing something if they don't look at each shot as an opportunity/challenge to hit the best shot you can in an effort to finish the hole as quickly as possible. Melvyn's comment above about plauing just for the sake of it is only the most recent example.

Again...letting your score affect anything else about you is a shortcoming not related to golf.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

How on earth have you managed to come up with your "Holier Than Thou" statement based upon my comment.

Holier than thou, I am astounded, no shocked.

There is nothing more worth saying on the subject if that is your opinion.

Melvyn

[JESII]

Melvyn,

I put it in quotes for you.

Most every post of yours is a diatribe on you Brits doing it the right way and us Yanks screwing it up...we got your point, but it doesn't help move the conversation along.



If you're interested, please explain how you could stand in the middle of the 17th fairway at TOC and just play the hole "for the sake of it" as opposed to trying to manuever your way to the lowest possible score on the hole without disrespecting the game. And in my opinion, the only distinction between Match Play and Stroke Play in this conversation is that the desired lowest score might be different based on ones opposition in Match Play.

[Adam Clayman]

Jim, You have assumed too much from both mine and Melvyn's posts. You are dead wrong if you think I don't try to make every swing the one that gets the job done.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()