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.


Richard Phinney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deception of Perception
« Reply #25 on: March 11, 2010, 06:29:41 AM »
Chris,

Range finders, marked sprinkler heads and yardage books have obsoleted one of the architect's most important assets, the "golfer's eye".

Today, the deception is mostly lost due to the need by today's golfers to rely on artificial aids.

All range finders, marked sprinkler heads and yardage books should be done away with, but, I dout that will happen for a century or two.

Why is it that caddies are never mentioned in the same breath as range finders and other artificial aids.  Nothing worse than playing an architectual gem for the first, and perhaps last time, and having its mysteries obliterated by an over insistent caddie. The rule of golf allowing advice from caddies is an anachronism and should be struck down.


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deception of Perception
« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2010, 07:38:37 AM »
Chris,

Range finders, marked sprinkler heads and yardage books have obsoleted one of the architect's most important assets, the "golfer's eye".

Today, the deception is mostly lost due to the need by today's golfers to rely on artificial aids.

All range finders, marked sprinkler heads and yardage books should be done away with, but, I dout that will happen for a century or two.

Why is it that caddies are never mentioned in the same breath as range finders and other artificial aids.  Nothing worse than playing an architectual gem for the first, and perhaps last time, and having its mysteries obliterated by an over insistent caddie. The rule of golf allowing advice from caddies is an anachronism and should be struck down.



Richard

I agree.  The use of caddies as councellors has been the excuse for all other yardage aids.  If needs be, it is better to eliminate caddie advice rather than compound the problem with additional aids. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deception of Perception
« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2010, 07:58:25 AM »
Chris,

Range finders, marked sprinkler heads and yardage books have obsoleted one of the architect's most important assets, the "golfer's eye".

Today, the deception is mostly lost due to the need by today's golfers to rely on artificial aids.

All range finders, marked sprinkler heads and yardage books should be done away with, but, I dout that will happen for a century or two.

Why is it that caddies are never mentioned in the same breath as range finders and other artificial aids.  Nothing worse than playing an architectual gem for the first, and perhaps last time, and having its mysteries obliterated by an over insistent caddie. The rule of golf allowing advice from caddies is an anachronism and should be struck down.



Richard

I agree.  The use of caddies as councellors has been the excuse for all other yardage aids.  If needs be, it is better to eliminate caddie advice rather than compound the problem with additional aids. 

Ciao

Takin that a step further, I play a lot of courses blind in one day pro events.
Invariably I play much beter when I bring my own caddie, who, like me, has never seen the course and knows to let me just look down the fairway , pick a line and commit to a target.
Nothing worse than a caddie who insists on every tee on telling you where NOT to hit it, which is almost a guarantee you'll find the trouble.
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Carl Johnson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deception of Perception
« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2010, 08:39:47 AM »
Chris,

Range finders, marked sprinkler heads and yardage books have obsoleted one of the architect's most important assets, the "golfer's eye".

Today, the deception is mostly lost due to the need by today's golfers to rely on artificial aids.

All range finders, marked sprinkler heads and yardage books should be done away with, but, I dout that will happen for a century or two.

Why is it that caddies are never mentioned . . . . The rule of golf allowing advice from caddies is an anachronism and should be struck down.

Seriously?  I thought the traditional caddie, not just a bag carrier, was one of the gems of the game to be preserved, or maybe "resurrected" would be a more appropriate word.

Another thought for the players who do not want caddie advice.  Given that they've hired on to work for you, why not simply explain at the outset that you don't want their advice, and why you don't want it (making up something if you believe the real reason might not be the best way to start a relationship).  You're the boss.

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deception of Perception
« Reply #29 on: March 11, 2010, 08:43:51 AM »
Chris,

Range finders, marked sprinkler heads and yardage books have obsoleted one of the architect's most important assets, the "golfer's eye".

Today, the deception is mostly lost due to the need by today's golfers to rely on artificial aids.

All range finders, marked sprinkler heads and yardage books should be done away with, but, I dout that will happen for a century or two.

Why is it that caddies are never mentioned in the same breath as range finders and other artificial aids.  Nothing worse than playing an architectual gem for the first, and perhaps last time, and having its mysteries obliterated by an over insistent caddie. The rule of golf allowing advice from caddies is an anachronism and should be struck down.



Richard

I agree.  The use of caddies as councellors has been the excuse for all other yardage aids.  If needs be, it is better to eliminate caddie advice rather than compound the problem with additional aids.  

Ciao

Takin that a step further, I play a lot of courses blind in one day pro events.
Invariably I play much beter when I bring my own caddie, who, like me, has never seen the course and knows to let me just look down the fairway , pick a line and commit to a target.
Nothing worse than a caddie who insists on every tee on telling you where NOT to hit it, which is almost a guarantee you'll find the trouble.
Jeff-That`s an interesting philosophy regarding your caddie selection. You would rather have a caddie who has no knowledge of the course you are playing rather than one that does. Discounting the things a caddie who carry`s at a certain course consistently could help you with you don`t want any help with the reads or green speed. As you said this refers to a course you have never played before.

Richard Phinney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deception of Perception
« Reply #30 on: March 11, 2010, 10:48:20 AM »


Seriously?  I thought the traditional caddie, not just a bag carrier, was one of the gems of the game to be preserved, or maybe "resurrected" would be a more appropriate word.

[/quote]



This is certainly the view of Bandon Dunes, who state on their website: "we believe that the game of golf is best experienced by walking with a caddie - truly, golf as it was meant to be. "

This is utter nonsense - and I actually find it offensive. If people want to hire caddies, fine,  but to hold the caddie up as epitome of the golf experience is to spit in the face of a century and a half of positive social change.

.
The use of caddies are traditional only in the sense that it preserves the, thankfully, relatively short-lived period (in Scotland) when golf was almost entirely the preserve of the better off, and  lower class men (or barefoot boys) acted essentially as servants on the golf course for the upper classes.  Anyone who teed up a ball off sand (as a caddie would need to do for his master in the 19th century)  knows what this relationship would have been like and books such as Tommy's Honour convey that reality rather well.  There was simply a chasm in class terms, the worst features of which were "preserved" in other parts of the world where there  were similarly great gulfs in income and opportunties.  It also seems to me that the widespread use of adult men (many of them the early professionals) as caddies in the 19th century was more or less limited to St Andrews, and that most caddies would have been youngsters (many of them skipping school) who would not have been looked to for advice in any event. This in fact became a cause of real  community concern, and clubs in St Andrews, Montrose and elsewhere were forced to set up night schools and other arrangements where the caddies could at least appear to get some semblance of an education.

This was not golf's finest hour.

I know many  can cite examples where caddie programs have greatly benefitted the caddies themselves, and I am sure the caddies at Bandon (of all ages and genders) are well treated and well paid independent operators. So the world of caddies has changed in some places in ways that mean the element of exploitation no longer exists  (though not in the developing world, where the barefoot caddie still exists in rather large numbers).

But it is ludicrous to suggest that playing with a caddie is "golf as it was meant to be".   It is golf as it should never have been.


Carl Johnson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deception of Perception
« Reply #31 on: March 11, 2010, 11:07:21 AM »


Seriously?  I thought the traditional caddie, not just a bag carrier, was one of the gems of the game to be preserved, or maybe "resurrected" would be a more appropriate word.

. . . But it is ludicrous to suggest that playing with a caddie is "golf as it was meant to be".   It is golf as it should never have been.
[/quote]
Richard, thanks for your insights.  My own personal view is that if you want to use a caddie, one way or another, and they're available, then have it.  I've only used a caddie once in my life, my first (and only) time on the Old Course at St. Andrews.  I did find it helpful to have him give me a general direction off the tee.  (Like me, none of the rest of my 4 ball group knew the course, either.)  Except for that sort of special situation, the caddie is not for me.  My "Seriously . . . ." comment was intended to be recognized as somewhat tonge-in-cheek, given some of the other views expressed here from time to time.

Carl Johnson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deception of Perception
« Reply #32 on: March 11, 2010, 11:31:49 AM »
Thanks to all for your input and Ed - how far is that bunker away from the green?
Chris, its about 30-35 yards short of the green.
Ed, what about the right side bunker in front of the 15 green at Carolina?  My assumption is that it's also intended as a deception since it doesn't "guard" anything.  Do you have a photo or two you could share, along with your observations about this bunker?  For example, beyond the deception element, does this bunker have an execution challenge?  In my experience, golfers' second shots aren't directly challenged by this bunker, and only poorly hit shots end up in it.
Thanks, Carl

Carl, I don't think the bunker on #15 has much of a deceptive component since it is essentially blind from the place where most golfers hit their approach shots.  Can something be deceptive if it can't be seen?  I agree that it really only comes into play on poorly hit shots.  Unlike #1, you don't have to plot a strategy around it.  Here is the requested picture...



Ed, thanks for putting photo up.  I agree that the bunker (on the right in this picture) is essentially blind for the second shot of many, if not most, golfers who play the hole (for those who don't know the course, drives on this hole end to finish in a small valley, so views of the green and bunker in question are cut off by the hill in front of you).  That being said, I wonder what Kris Spence had in mind here.  My understanding of Ross design is that bunkers should have a strategic purpose, for which deception and challenging a shot would both count.  This bunker would rarely challenge a shot.  It could challenge a second shot if you were way wide right on your drive, and there were no trees between you and the green, but there are.  I'd suggest it may be intended as deceptive for those whose drives are worse than average, so that you do see it on your second or third shot, or whose drives are way better than average.  (I'll be interested to see where the drives of the pros who play this hole in the qualifying for the Quail Hollow Championship this year finish up.)  Of course, this raises the broader questions of bunker placement, including whether an architect places all bunkers on the course so they'll provide strategic issues for "most golfers" or the highly skilled golfers, or whether most bunkers are placed that way, while others are placed with a view to providing interest to the less skillful golfers.  Implicit is my belief that you cannot bring all bunkers into play the same way for all golfers simply by having multiple teeing grounds.

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deception of Perception
« Reply #33 on: March 11, 2010, 01:04:21 PM »
Carl, that bunker was on Ross' original plan, but had been lost over time.  I think Kris just put it back in roughly the same spot as before.

Ed

Carl Johnson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deception of Perception
« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2010, 05:40:33 PM »
Carl, that bunker was on Ross' original plan, but had been lost over time.  I think Kris just put it back in roughly the same spot as before.

Ed

I believe you are correct.  My understanding, and I think I heard this from Kris, but I'm not sure, is that the Ross bunker was in fact (as best anyone can tell) intended to directly challenge second shots from far-right drives.  My understanding is that this area of the course was treeless when Ross designed it.  So, if it doesn't work that way today, which I don't think it does, on account of the trees, then why put it back?  No criticism intended here -- just a question from an architectural standpoint.  My own conclusion, or how I would justify the bunker from a strategic standpoint, is that it's intended to serve a deceptive function for at least some golfers.  Incidently, the penal aspect for poor shots also benefits me personally.  I don't hit the ball long enough for the bunker to be a problem for me, even on a poor second shot.  I don't think I've been in it more than once.  However, I play with guys who often find that bunker, to my advantage.

Chris Buie

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deception of Perception
« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2010, 12:35:33 AM »
This is an interesting philosophy of relying purely on one's own instincts and knowledge to gauge distance and strategy.  I can see the appeal of it - a noble purity, I suppose - but if I am playing a course I'm not familiar with, I naturally gravitate toward being told of unknown hazards and optimal angles of play.  I do remember playing Keith Hills for the first time and hitting a nice tee shot on the first hole.  Always nice to start with a good drive.  Except, well, not so nice to find it over the hill and into a marsh!  Penalized for an errant shot I am accustomed to.  Penalized for a good stroke?  I can't say I feel too much enthusiasm for that. 
Take this view of the 14th at Pine Needles.  If you and I were playing this course together for your first time would you really rather me not tell you what awaits you on the other side of the bunker?  Especially if you have a nice round going.  Is the difficulty what you expect?  Are there multiple difficulties that await you?



Jeffrey Stein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Deception of Perception
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2010, 02:39:29 AM »
I have heard that Merion does not have obvious yardage indicators and I know that Friars Head relys heavily on caddies for yardage.  Has anyone been to either of these courses? 

Also for the time being Old Macdonald does not yet have yardage on the sprinkler heads, and relys on caddies (and their rangefinders...).  I felt a great sense of freedom in simply looking at my taget and attempting to judge the distance on instinct.  The lack of yardage indicators simplified the game for me as I was not frustrated by missing my number.

The vast open spaces at Old Mac also demonstrate another way to deceive the golfers eye.  The scale of the fairways, bunkers, and greens all add up to present a BIG picture.  Many of the greens appear much further away than they actually are.  If unsure of a distance I try visualize and add smaller yardages in my head...call me old school I guess.

Kauri Cliffs also has this quality of depth deception on many of the holes that carry the ravines on the course (holes 5, 6, 9, 18).  I also attribute the deception to the vast open views on the course.
I love the smell of hydroseed in the morning.
www.steingolf.com