I personally find the essence of this thread to be fascinating and I think understanding this essence provides excellent context when studying golf course architecture. Specifically, the context regarding the catalysts for changes to golf course architecture.
This thread focused on the sand wedge and I kicked off the responses talking about my replica 1893 50 degree lofter and the continued development of the niblick to, essentially, a de facto sand wedge. To me, this development had to make the game easier and bunkers less of a threat.
But other disagreed with the importance of the sand wedge specifically, while others thought the L-Wedge had an equal impact. Regardless, I think this thread really touches on the effect technology has had on the game. And to me these technological changes have, primarily, been the catalyst for change regarding golf course architecture.
Of course, we have the golf ball itself. Featherie, gutty, haskell, balata, modern ball. MASSIVE impact on the game of golf.
Then we have shafts…hickory, steel, graphite.
We’ve also got the wedges (as discussed), irons, hybrids, persimmon woods, metal woods, 460cc drivers.
I believe all of these things effectively changed the game and, therefore, required changes to the playing field of the game…that is, the courses themselves.
Of course, more and more distance is needed. Fairways get pinched, rough is grown up, bunkers are deepend, greens are sped up, water hazards are needed. Why? To try to defend the courses against technology. Right?
But isn’t it inherent in mankind to progress, improve, conquer, and subdue opponents, obstacles, and challengers? So, this technology race will never end.
So, will golf course architecture always evolve? And right now that evolution seems to be longer courses, faster greens, and deeper rough. More penal architecture, right? This just seems like the wrong path to be going down.
I think back to last years majors. Pebble didn’t really look like the Pebble I’ve read about. Whistling Straits with all those crazy bunkers. We all know the changes made to Augusta. And St. Andrews seemed to be a bit tweaked, but still looked pretty darn good to me. Am I wrong about that? Does St. Andrews have something special that we need to be focused more on?
Sorry for the length of this, just thinking about technology and the game and where we seem to be headed.