Golf as it was designed to be played

[Mac Plumart]

Question for the group...

I am wondering, if a golfer wants to enjoy the full impact of a golf course architects layout and ideas...wouldn't they want to play with the equipment that was being used at and around the time the course was being built?

For instance, playing NGLA, Pinehurst, Lawsonia, Inverness, or Prestwick with modern equipment (460cc driver, ProV1's, etc) might make the course play too easy...or maybe it would ruin the bunkering schemes...approach shot values...strategies...etc.

Likewise, playing Kiawah Ocean or TPC Sawgrass with hickories and gutties would produce a golf experience that might be too difficult and unpleasant and not line up the strategies, distances, etc that Dye had in mind.

I realize some courses have been altered...but as a concept in general, what are your thoughts?

[Ken Moum]

I play a course that Ross routed about 1915.

I have attempted to play it with hickories and balata balls, as likely would have been used then. 

Thanks to irrigation, narrowed fairways, the encroachment of trees and green creep, it's almost unplayable for me with those clubs. Hell, it's almost impossible for me with modern equipment.

The oldest images I can find of the course are aerials from 1948, and the many of the fairways were nearly twice as wide as they are today, and at least two of the greens have lost about 70% of their area. A couple of others have been added to. one intersting thing to see is the mutiliation of strategy via fairway mowing and bunker changes

Oddly, the members think that a tree-choked golf course with tiny greens is a Ross signature--largelt because that's what most of his courses have become.

Now, I would not suggest that we need to go back to the treeless nature seen on some holes, partly because of player safety.  But some of the trees, especially on the inside of dogleg holes, makes the holes impossible to negotiate in the way I think Ross had in mind.

K

[Jason Connor]

Most golfers enjoy their day the most when they score well.

Playing Donald Ross era clubs would not optimize their probability of scoring well.

[Matthew Petersen]

I think the drawback of playing with retro equipment is simply that it's not what we're used to. I'm sure I can't hit a hickory club very well, because I have never done so. But I have been playing golf since I was 8; if I had been playing golf with hickories since that age then I would probably be quite proficient. But for me to go play NGLA today with hickories would only serve to give me an idea of what the course would have been like to a beginner at the time it was designed.

[V. Kmetz]

Mac

Hi again, VK here...

As for your message about your home course, the course you (or your course planning committee) need to see is Siwanoy CC in Bronxville, NY built in 1913-14 by Ross (leaving final design implementation to lead ground man Tom Winton) and the site of 1916's first American PGA.

I actually have an opus magnus-type course profile for the site written and in the can with RM but hasn't been posted as I'm trying to get some more mid-season photos.  After Winged Foot's two courses, it is probably the "noted-antique" course with which I have the most extensive experience.  I think it is the finest overall course under 6500 yards in the Metropolitan District.  The whites usually play an everyday distance of less than 6150, the back tees "say" 6490 is available, but I have never seen it play more than 6425, even for top Met and USGA events.

The course restoration and associated tree removal program undertaken in the late 90s (by Stephen Kay) is frankly, a revelation.  The course had become lousy with tree plantings starting significantly in the 1930s and had been larded with many different, incongruous bunker styles and presentations by various course architects over the years (RTJ, Cornish etc).  While Kay did make two massive changes to the character of #s 12 and 16 (more shocking to the eye than a revision of Ross strategy) the rest is pure gold, playable at all levels from junior to local elites.

If you want more info, contact me privately.

As to your original post, it is my opinion that the genius of most admired courses starts with the green sites and the strategies that ensue, all the way back to the tee.  While those can be subordinated to the powerful faculties of today's equipment the cunning bold target contours of such noted designs still force one equanimity that doesn't change - the ball must be holed out...Shots that need only carry one yard can be brutal if you haven't played smartly.

Yet for the elite level, the insinuation of your question is correct.  On an average day, elite players will regularly defeat wonderful strategy components armed with modern tools.  This is one of the reasons you don't see elite competitions on many classic courses and why annuals like Augusta, Sawgrass, Torrey Pines, Pebble and perennials like Pinehurst etc receive so much tweaking.  That's where the elite convene, so if you want to play as a visitor tourist, be prepared for punishment. While average player's scores have probably come down at NGLA from 1909, I suspect that the movement is glacial and gets smaller and smaller each decade.

Remember too, that shooting 75 was indicative of competitive play at the elite level in the first American era, I imagine the average player was shooting far, far worse on those classic courses (one of the reasons that match play was the common standard until some years later). Drawn out to infinity on a technology path, of course the day will come when average play might be actually be defined by "72" or level-fours and scratch will be the general standard as 14 HCP is today.  But god, we might have colonies on Mars by then. 

FINAL ANSWER:  Technology aids the elite in defeating the classic architects, but not the other 99.99% of us.  The only way hickory and Haskell an teach us anything about architectural intent is if you are prepared conceptually to accept a round of 99 as fair for an average player.  In relation to what the elites scored at the time of design, and the kind of everyday club play MacDonald describes in SGG, that would be about right.  In the meantime, bold varied green design will always challenge us 0-22 HCP mortals.

cheers

vk

[Mac Plumart]

Great posts...thanks guys...and good points.  VK, I will contact you privately.

I guess the reason I asked the question is that I've been playing with my hickories a good bit lately.  And it just a different game.  And I wondered what playing, say, Pinehurst with hickories would yield a more pure experience.  You all gave great answers and great points.

Jason says most like golf when they score well.  I certainly like to score well, but I think I like the challenge of the game more.  Which is why I had so much fun playing Kiawah Ocean on a VERY windy day.  And would much prefer the 90ish I scored that day versus the 81 I put up on a less intriguing course.  I can't be alone on the "loving the challenge" aspect of the game vs "loving golf when scoring low" aspect...am I?

Along those lines, I actually got some gutta-percha balls and will be playing them this weekend with my 1885ish style hickories.  I've hit the gutties a little bit, but never for a full round.  They are WILD!!!  Sounds like you are hitting a crouqet ball rather than a golf ball.  I am sure it won't travel very far...but it should be neat.  I also like the challenge of trying to stop a chip shot close the pin with smooth faced irons and/or getting out of a deep bunker with clubs developed prior to the invention of the sand wedge.  I find it fun.  Actually broke 90 with them from 5500 yards and replica bramble balls last weekend.  I think the gutties will yield a more difficult challenge.  And I was wondering if there are courses that are more ideal for this type of play.  Hence, my original post.

In fact, I think this experiment has helped me appreciate the technology developments and their effect on many different aspcets of the game.    Arhcitecture, distances the ball flie, shot selection, etc.

Anyway, thanks for the input.  Cool stuff.

[Jason Connor]

Mac, I agree.

I should correct / refine my answer.  Players enjoy scoring well on a tough challenging course -- I dare say perhaps golf courses and women are the same that way.  He like to score, but scoring is far more enough when it's challenging.  The easy scores are far less interesting / memorable.

Anyway, I think that scoring on a 6400 yard course with a persimmon and 1970 Wilson Staff irons will not hold the same allure for a golfer as scoring on a lush 6900 yard course with his new Callaways.  Not saying I agree myself or like it, but that's the way it is.  The mainstream golfer wants to make birdies with long carries.

Though I'm all for ideas that will save the short old courses, make walkable courses more attractive, and lead to shorter rounds and more manageable maintenance budgets (which shorter courses have).

[Peter Pallotta]

"Oddly, the members think that a tree-choked golf course with tiny greens is a Ross signature--largelt because that's what most of his courses have become."

Ken - that's really interesting. It raises the question of when a golf course achieves/reaches its 'maturation point', i.e. At what point (in years, or in the proces of change) does a signature Ross stop being a signature Ross (or Mackenzie of Colt etc)?  And of course, the other and perhaps more interesting way to ask the question is: At what point does a golf course become a signature Ross, even if the signature is clearly --to the experts at least - a forgery?

Peter

  

[JESII]

Peter,

Don't take this as snide, but...that's the whole point of my 10 year contract idea...for the architect to take ownership of the course.

As much as Tom Doak gets it right on opening day (and the results speak for themselves, he and his team get it right!), there's just no way to replace, replicate or faultlessly project how a course will impact its players through actual play.

I don't really care if it's 10 years, 2 years or 20 years...I think the fact that just about all of the best courses in the world evolved speaks volumes.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - yes, it makes a lot of sense to me. Both short term and (much) longer term. I bet many around here would be much happier if the old greats had been put on long term contracts, i.e. we could then actually know for certain what architect X would have done with the encroaching trees or narrowing fairways or technology-driven changes etc. I think the perspective/pov changes for modern architects who are still right in the midst of things, busy building new courses, watching older courses close through no fault of the architect. But maybe 30 years from now, if they go back and see that what they designed as big bold greens have shrunk down to 50% of their original size, that contract idea might seem more appealing.

Peter

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mac

Now there is a very good question, alas we all know the answer but how many will really admit to it. The modern human psyche is preset on success at nearly any cost so long as that can be translated in to material success. Money and the need to win has surpassed the pleasure of the game for a hungry band of Pros, to the point that the game and even the course is just a by product in the quest for their material success.

Of course many will deny this, but like Judas they seek their payment first. Don’t agree then why will they not put aside the distance aids, simply for fear that it may reflect unhealthy upon their score. The game of golf has been demoted to the last place in the pecking order, its all about the money, the circus that allows these player to bask in their own glory (crudely translated that means bed of money with manufactures seeking their agreement to take on lucrative product endorsements at silly prices – well with Tiger’s recent antics there are a few manufactures looking for a suitable replacement).

Question a guy making money out of golf and one of the fist lines of defence will, ‘oh well we do charity work as well’, wow that’s big of them, but what about the game that produces the money that’s the core business of the modern game, in case some have forgotten its called playing golf.

So many will not experiment with out of date equipment (because they believe that they can’t win with this type of equipment – mainly because they have not endeavoured to familiarise   themselves with the equipment – believing that it will not help their score).

It’s the old story of the human psyche, the problem is today winning is far more important than enjoying taking part, yet there can only ever be one winner and today that is not Golf.

I like you thinking, and in the current environment it could be a good little earner for the older clubs to offer this facility. First due to the novelty and also allowing the members to understand the original design intent of the course(s) plus the potential revenue which could supplement the non use of carts. Perhaps it may be a way of explaining GCA to the modern golfer.

The problem as with most things today it’s all judged by material success and enjoyment seems to have taken a back seat (certainly a cart seat) since the Korean war.

What a great and novel idea, playing golf because we totally enjoy the experience and challenge. What better way than play with the equipment the course was originally designed to accommodate. I’m so tempted but I am worried that I might be seen as a loser, so I may just battle on letting my equipment achieve the shots that perhaps I really don’t have within me.

Mac, you are certainly embracing golf, I wish we had thousands more like you. As I said love the thought behind your thread.

Melvyn   

[Jud_T]

Mac,
Wouldn't you need green speeds, grasses and old school conditioning to get the full experience?

[Mac Plumart]

Jud...I think you are right, which is why I am so interested if some of you guys have courses in mind that best represent on ODG's style and original work.

For instance, I played East Lake Tuesday with some GCA'ers.  I used my modern clubs as the Rees Jones interpretation of a Ross course at East Lake has "dumbed down" countours and sped up greens.  So, even though it might be a Ross...I think it plays more in-line with a modern day PGA course.  Hence, no hickories.

I am interested in finding courses most appropriate for specific equipment. Like modern equipment for courses like Kiawah Ocean, TPC Sawgrass.  Maybe hickories at Askernish...maybe Mussellburgh...Pine Needles?

Anyway...maybe it isn't do-able...but I would LOVE to play these great courses the way the architects originally designed with the equipemnt of the time.

EDIT..Melvyn, I just saw your post.  Thanks for the kind words.  I suppose I just love golf and am interested in having some knowledge of what some of these arguments are all about.  In this case, the technology issue.  People argue golf isn't the same and this advancement had this effect on the game...etc.  Well, let's see first hand.  Let's play gutties and hickories and then r9's and pro v1.s  And why not see what, say, Donald Ross really designed when he put together Seminole and play with the equipment of that day.  Etc.  If nothing else, I'll have fun and learn a lot.  Maybe I won't score well...but I don't think I'll end up being a pro golfer anyway...so I won't lose out on anyhting by doing this.

[John Moore II]

I didn't really read through all the posts, so I'll just go back to the original question. It all depends on the course and how many alterations have been made. You try to play Pinehurst #2 with hickories, etc., and you'll shoot 200 and feel good. That course is altered to the point that its not really an original course in terms of design. Now, if you go down the road a bit, you could play Mid Pines, Southern Pines, or for that matter #1 or #3 with original equipment and not notice a huge difference. You certainly couldn't play ANGC with original equipment. But it all depends on the course. If the course is somewhat original, then its probably manageable with original equipment, but the tournament courses, its just not possible to play in the original form.