[John_Conley]

I thought it was recently determined that M.H. Morrow was a fictional creation of another poster.

A man's alter ego is nothing more than his favorite image of himself. Stan Redding

[Terry Lavin]

I will not and  agree why start a new thread on one of the more difficult people ever to grace GCA.

True that. The rest is revisionist history, a failed attempt at softening a hardened individual, one who sought only conflict and not discussion.

[Dan King]

Michael Moore writes:
How is waving the flag for traditional golf more in line with the objective of this site (which we all understand to be the frank discussion of golf course architecture) than discussing golf shots? You can't have golf course architecture without golf shots.

But you can have golf shots without architecture. I think I have answered your question some where.  Oh yeah, here it is in the rest of the paragraph:
If you ride around in a cart and use range finders do you ever really interact with the golf course?  Couldn't you just as easily play your game at a driving range, a golf simulator or a podunk muni?  Seems like many of you would be much more comfortable on a site dealing with equipment, course rankings or almost anything but architecture.

Cheers,
Dan King

Golf is deceptively simple, endlessly complicated. A child can play it well, and a grown man can never master it. Any single round if it is full of unexpected triumphs and seemingly perfect shots that end in disaster. It is almost a science, yet it is a puzzle without an answer. It is gratifying and tantalizing, precise and unpredictable. It requires complete concentration and total relaxation. It satisfies the soul and frustrates the intellect. It is at the same time rewarding and maddening - and it is without a doubt the greatest game mankind has ever invented.
  --Robert Forgan

[David Harshbarger]

I am reticent to get into amateur psychology but I am sure that many of us have wondered about the time we spend on the internet, it's productivity and it's affect on the rest of our lives.   The internet is a wonderful playground and we are richer for it's existence but sometimes it leads us to lose focus completely on what is important in life.  

As is obvious from the potted history of his GCA life in this thread (and several private messages I have had with him), Melvyn is  an intelligent and thoughtful man who has been very generous with his time to many.  When I see pages and pages of negative rants from his keyboard, the first thing i think is "Who wants to spend days on end in such a negative state?  It can't be good for you".  What an incredible waste of his time and emotional energy?    Is he ok with life? How does it affect his relationship with his wife?  

Perhaps I am wrong to be concerned and just projecting my personal feelings on to others.  Perhaps not.  Hopefully some time away from the discussion board is good for him.  

Likewise, I feel incredibly privileged to have met and chatted with Tom Paul.  Again, I thought he was very thoughtful and generous with his time, and obviously an incredibly talented thinker and writer.  When I see his endless debates about Merion with the usual suspects all I can think is "what a pity to waste your talent on such crap."  When he is not a participant on GCA I imagine him doing something much more interesting.  

Some say the internet is addictive, I am no psychologist but it is probably true.  Some can handle it, some get into deep, some are in denial that they have a problem, and some need to go cold turkey to survive.  

At the end of the day, I just hope Melvyn and Tom (and everyone else) are enjoying life.  Then again, perhaps I am just being melodramatic.

David,

I completely agree with you here. 

The characteristics of the medium accentuate some behaviors and personality traits in unflattering and unhealthy ways.  We don't post in a vacuum.  We care that others respond.  The value is in the give and take.  But, it's a blunt, arms length, nuance blanching medium that fosters give and get.  Toss in a random reinforcement schedule since responses may be some time coming, and you get a volatile, addictive stew.

I hope they are happier, too, outside this online world. 

Dave

[Mark_F]

Pat will admit (once in a blue moon) when he is wrong.   

Kevin,

Don't go sitting on any haystacks in the next few days...

[Bob_Huntley]

Or John Kavanaugh's?

Garland,

Does John K insult people?  I rank him right up there with Rich Goodale - with Rich you learn a fantastic new word with almost every post, and with John you get deeper insights into the human condition than Freud or Jung could ever provide.

Mark,

How long have you been on this site?  Does the name Tom Huckaby ring a bell with you? It should. 

Bob

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I nominate bob for the humanitarian award for splendid service to the site

[PThomas]

I nominate bob for the humanitarian award for splendid service to the site

I second it !

[Jeff_Brauer]

Saw MHM on Facebook this morning, ranting against those who rant against his rants!  Interesting how these websites now cross polinate.  I disagreed with Melvyn, but wish him well.  Perhaps this should be a separate thread, but with him gone, perhaps this thread should be dedicated not to his argumentative ways, but to his arguments themselves?

Specifically, do we think golf is better or worse off for having evolved with geography and climate variations, the times, technology, etc?  Could it have survived as anything other than a small niche if it didn't?

Nothing has to be an all or nothing answer.  You can like some stuff and not like others. I am sure most like walking (but respect the right of the 60% of us who rarely do it) etc.  But, we all use new clubs and balls, and seemingly like them, no?

But, looking at the big picture, what are the pluses and minuses of golf as it exists, vs golf as it used to exist?

[Michael Dugger]

Saw MHM on Facebook this morning, ranting against those who rant against his rants!  Interesting how these websites now cross polinate.  I disagreed with Melvyn, but wish him well.  Perhaps this should be a separate thread, but with him gone, perhaps this thread should be dedicated not to his argumentative ways, but to his arguments themselves?

I'll bite, because it's a pretty short retort.

1. Land fit for purpose.  I think everyone around here agrees, but recognizes design and development does not happen in a vacuum.  Most everyone adores natural courses built upon ideal links land, but there is only so much of it around, and it's not always near populated enough areas to support golf.  Furthermore, if we only built course on land fit for purpose, I question whether or not these few precious courses would be overrun with players since we'd have waaaaaaaay fewer courses.

2. Carts.  I see nothing wrong with having the option.  There are times when my feet can't handle another 18, so I will ride.  Melvyn's dogmatic perspective seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

3. Distance aids.  This seems way overblown.  Play a golf course often enough and you will have a sense of your distances after about 10 rounds, IMHO.  For most mere mortals, the game is hard enough as it is.  I may know I need to hit it 150 to the center of the green, but pulling this off is quite another thing.  Furthermore, last time I checked distance aids do not provide you with an MPH reading on the wind.  150 yd stakes do not tell you how many feet uphill or downhill your next shot is.  Nor do they give any indication of just how firm or soft the incoming terrain may be.  My point is that even when equipped with yardages, the golfer must still rely on their instincts, perception and acumen to properly gauge the shot to hit in order to successfully navigate the golf hole.

In conclusion, I have ZERO problem with people playing golf as Melvyn ranted about.  Nobody is forcing you to play the Castle Course at St. Andrews, nobody is forcing you to ride a cart (with a few exceptions) and nobody is forcing you to utilize a rangefinder (I don't really trust those things that well anyways.)

Last time I checked, golf is just about as popular as it has ever been, so I find it difficult to believe that all our "modern amenities" have lessened the game.  It's just evolving, that's the bottom line, not for better, necessarily, not for worse (unless you are a dogmatist stuck in the past.)

I watch antique roadshows, I am fascinated with golden era courses and all things old.  I'll follow the little lady to vintage stores, I watch Pawn Stars because I might learn something about cool old relics from the past.

But not all change is bad (nor is all change good.)  I feel quite confident that the skills Webb Simpson utilized in winning the U.S. Open two weeks ago are very similar to the skills Old Tom Morris used in winning tournaments back in the day.

Most of Melvyn's beliefs were revealed in about the span of a week.  We heard it, we considered it, we "attempted" to discuss it.

Color me someone who is glad he's gone.  He brought the entire intellect of the website down with his same 'ol same 'ol vitriol.  He'd act like a total jackass to people who dared question him.  As someone else pointed out earlier, to boot, he couldn't develop a cogent argument to save his life. Internet troll....keyboard warrior....call it what you will, but he certainly didn't "get" how we in the modern era discuss.  There has to be a give and take, and sometimes, as we all know, you have to agree to disagree.....AND MOVE ON.

He could never MOVE ON.
  

[Garland Bayley]

...
Specifically, do we think golf is better or worse off for having evolved with geography and climate variations, the times, technology, etc?  Could it have survived as anything other than a small niche if it didn't?
...

Nearly a century ago A. Vernon Macan was arguing for the worse off through ball technology. He was predicting a time when bombers would dominate, and the art of controlling the ball would be in decline. His original set of principals said no hole should be longer than 475. He said making true three shot holes was an exercise in making boring golf.

Over the years he had to up 475 to 525.

One thing he didn't predict was Bubba Watson.

[Kalen Braley]

Referring to memory, Bill Gates also said that "640K ought to be enough for anybody"

The world is constantly changing and evolving.  Either keep up, or go the way of Melvyn....

[Garland Bayley]

Referring to memory, Bill Gates also said that "640K ought to be enough for anybody"

The world is constantly changing and evolving.  Either keep up, or go the way of Melvyn....

Kalen,

That's a stupid statement.
What have other sports done?
Has baseball gotten rid of the sewn together ball to replace it with a solid ball?
Have the major leagues abandoned the wooden bat?
Have American and foreign football increased the performance of their footballs so they can be kicked farther?
Has basketball replaced the leather ball?
Have chess pieces been granted new powers?
Have springboards been added to the high jump, pole vault, long, and triple jump runways?
Have basketball courts been changed in size?
Has baseball lengthened the base paths? The distance from mound to plate?
Has football increased the size of the field?
Do basketball players use distance measuring devises to shoot?
Do Am. football quarterback use distance measuring devises to throw passes?
Do basketball players use segways?
Does any sport beside golf use segways?

[David_Tepper]

Garland -

Whether it is the equipment, the playing field or technique, alll sports have changed over time. No sport is played as it was 100 years ago.

In baseball, it has been the size & shape of gloves, the designated hitter and the pitching specialists coming out of the bull pen. Banning the spitball was a significant rule change as well.

In professional football, the rules are constantly being changed to impact how the game is played. The equipment the players wear has changed enormously over the years. In point of fact, there are now special balls used when a team is kicking a field goal.

In track & field, the fiberglass pole replaced the steel pole, which replaced the bamboo pole in the pole vault. Techniques in high-jumping and shot-putting have changed/evolved as well. Obviously, the rubber-ized track has changed the sport vs. the cinder track of 50-100 years ago.

Whether it is tennis, basketball, swimming, etc., the list goes on and on.

DT

[Kalen Braley]

Referring to memory, Bill Gates also said that "640K ought to be enough for anybody"

The world is constantly changing and evolving.  Either keep up, or go the way of Melvyn....

Kalen,

That's a stupid statement.
What have other sports done?
Has baseball gotten rid of the sewn together ball to replace it with a solid ball?
Have the major leagues abandoned the wooden bat?
Have American and foreign football increased the performance of their footballs so they can be kicked farther?
Has basketball replaced the leather ball?
Have chess pieces been granted new powers?
Have springboards been added to the high jump, pole vault, long, and triple jump runways?
Have basketball courts been changed in size?
Has baseball lengthened the base paths? The distance from mound to plate?
Has football increased the size of the field?
Do basketball players use distance measuring devises to shoot?
Do Am. football quarterback use distance measuring devises to throw passes?
Do basketball players use segways?
Does any sport beside golf use segways?

Dude,

This is so ludicrous, I shouldn't even respond. 

Yes some things in sports haven't changed much along the way....but the list of things that have changed far outweighs what hasn't.

[Dan King]

Kalen Braley writes:
Referring to memory, Bill Gates also said that "640K ought to be enough for anybody"

The world is constantly changing and evolving.  Either keep up, or go the way of Melvyn....

I don't think anyone, including Melvyn, is arguing against change. The argument is good change versus stupid change. At the time Bill Gates said that, 640k was more than enough. But the world changed, people found more uses for computers and more memory was needed. That was smart change.

Cartball and GPS devices are not good change. They slow down the game and take the golfer away from the golf course. I don't agree we should change just because we can. How is golf being improved by allowing cartball and distance devices?

Cheers,
Dan King

I didn't want ot change the name on the towels.
 --Lee Trevino (on marrying second wife Claudia after divorcing first wife Claudia)

[Matthew Petersen]

3. Distance aids.  This seems way overblown.  Play a golf course often enough and you will have a sense of your distances after about 10 rounds, IMHO.  For most mere mortals, the game is hard enough as it is.  I may know I need to hit it 150 to the center of the green, but pulling this off is quite another thing.  Furthermore, last time I checked distance aids do not provide you with an MPH reading on the wind.  150 yd stakes do not tell you how many feet uphill or downhill your next shot is.  Nor do they give any indication of just how firm or soft the incoming terrain may be.  My point is that even when equipped with yardages, the golfer must still rely on their instincts, perception and acumen to properly gauge the shot to hit in order to successfully navigate the golf hole.

Michael,

This is an interesting point about distance aids and something I have wanted to bring up in those discussions, but not done (unfortunately). So often we see the argument, even from those who use such devices, that they somehow stifle golf shot creativity or the way you think about playing. I find that to be placing blame where it doesn't belong. Knowing you're 152 vs. having a pretty good idea that you're about 150 means nothing in terms of the shot you have to hit. As you say, it says nothing of the wind, ground, or terrain. It also doesn't mean anything in terms of how you should play the shot (aerial, punch, bounce it in, etc). If using a distance aid makes you feel like you're a robot trying to hit everything exactly to the number, the fault lies with your own lack of imagination, not the distance aid itself.

[David Harshbarger]

3. Distance aids.  This seems way overblown.  Play a golf course often enough and you will have a sense of your distances after about 10 rounds, IMHO.  For most mere mortals, the game is hard enough as it is.  I may know I need to hit it 150 to the center of the green, but pulling this off is quite another thing.  Furthermore, last time I checked distance aids do not provide you with an MPH reading on the wind.  150 yd stakes do not tell you how many feet uphill or downhill your next shot is.  Nor do they give any indication of just how firm or soft the incoming terrain may be.  My point is that even when equipped with yardages, the golfer must still rely on their instincts, perception and acumen to properly gauge the shot to hit in order to successfully navigate the golf hole.

Michael,

This is an interesting point about distance aids and something I have wanted to bring up in those discussions, but not done (unfortunately). So often we see the argument, even from those who use such devices, that they somehow stifle golf shot creativity or the way you think about playing. I find that to be placing blame where it doesn't belong. Knowing you're 152 vs. having a pretty good idea that you're about 150 means nothing in terms of the shot you have to hit. As you say, it says nothing of the wind, ground, or terrain. It also doesn't mean anything in terms of how you should play the shot (aerial, punch, bounce it in, etc). If using a distance aid makes you feel like you're a robot trying to hit everything exactly to the number, the fault lies with your own lack of imagination, not the distance aid itself.

Matthew,

I see distance aids as part of an ecosystem of technologies that define, support, and encourage the "aerial game".  High spin balls, matched irons, the Dave Pelz wedge game, GPS, as components in a system, frame golfing as a form of lawn darts.   

The argument against this framing is that if you succumb to this notion, you find yourself playing a less vital and engaging form of the game.

Dave

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dave,

I have never really bought into the "no ground game" = "less vital.  Is hitting close to a target any less of a challenge or skill one way over the other?  Even if less challenging (no stats to back it up anyway) if the point of the game is to get closer and closer to the target, without defining means, then why is the harder one really better?

As to distance aids, I think that there is no real comparable in other sports, but they all rely on more tech.  Teams scout film for info on oppenents, and the course is the real opponent in golf, so why not try to get as much info as possible on it?

[David_Tepper]

Dan K., David H. & Matthew P. -

Isn't one of the nice things about golf (the 99.8% of golf that is not tournament golf) the fact that one can choose to play golf in the manner they enjoy the most?

Assuming they are maintaining pace of play and treating the course with respect, why should I care if the group in front of or behind me (let alone on a course in another city, state or country) is walking or riding, using a rangefinder or a course guide or playing with hickory clubs. It is certainly no business of mine how they choose to enjoy the game. I cannot imagine why anyone should worry about how I choose to do so..

DT      

[Ed Brzezowski]

DT    great point.

Personally I think Scots are a bit whacky. I sat next to a beautiful woman going back to Glasgow last summer and heard how we in the states do everything wrong, and I mean everything. Healthcare, insurance, politics, food, beverages , well you get the idea. Finally before dozing off in a scotch coma I asked what the population of Scotland was. Five million and she said only two thirds had heat and running water, her statement not mine. Wow. More people  here know where Merion East is than live in Scotland!!!

Explains alot of " lets go back to the old days " opinions. They are still in the old days!!.

I will keep the Melvyn stickers on my rangefinders in his honor.

[DMoriarty]

Assuming they are maintaining pace of play and treating the course with respect, why should I care if the group in front of or behind me (let alone on a course in another city, state or country) is walking or riding, using a rangefinder or a course guide or playing with hickory clubs. It is certainly no business of mine how they choose to enjoy the game. I cannot imagine why anyone should worry about how I choose to do so..

DT      

Well, this is a website about golf architecture . . . so perhaps you should care because riders have come to predominate to the extent that golf architecture is changing to suit riders and IMO the quality of golf courses has suffered because of it.  

I am not a zealot about whether others walk or ride. In fact I am grateful for carts because they allow continued access to the game for those who, whether because of age or infirmity, would not otherwise be able to play.   But I am more of a zealot about the golf courses.

[Adam Lawrence]

DT    great point.

Personally I think Scots are a bit whacky. I sat next to a beautiful woman going back to Glasgow last summer and heard how we in the states do everything wrong, and I mean everything. Healthcare, insurance, politics, food, beverages , well you get the idea. Finally before dozing off in a scotch coma I asked what the population of Scotland was. Five million and she said only two thirds had heat and running water, her statement not mine. Wow. More people  here know where Merion East is than live in Scotland!!!

Explains alot of " lets go back to the old days " opinions. They are still in the old days!!.

I will keep the Melvyn stickers on my rangefinders in his honor.

I think she might have been tweaking your tail....

[Ed Brzezowski]

She could have done anything with me she wanted.
 I meant to type central heat.

[David Harshbarger]

Assuming they are maintaining pace of play and treating the course with respect, why should I care if the group in front of or behind me (let alone on a course in another city, state or country) is walking or riding, using a rangefinder or a course guide or playing with hickory clubs. It is certainly no business of mine how they choose to enjoy the game. I cannot imagine why anyone should worry about how I choose to do so..

DT      

Well, this is a website about golf architecture . . . so perhaps you should care because riders have come to predominate to the extent that golf architecture is changing to suit riders and IMO the quality of golf courses has suffered because of it.  

I am not a zealot about whether others walk or ride. In fact I am grateful for carts because they allow continued access to the game for those who, whether because of age or infirmity, would not otherwise be able to play.   But I am more of a zealot about the golf courses.

I'm with David on this, particularly on the feedback loop between the predominant ball trajectory and the corresponding architectural qualities that deliver a valuable game experience.

No quote to hand, but I believe Tom Doak has said that he will add design elements to bedevil  the aerial game, through the use of ground features that act differently based on the different ball flight characteristics of aerial vs. ground type shots.  Design features like kick plates and backboards are largely irrelevant in a pure aerial game.  When they decide to embed mirrors in kick plates, I'll start to believe distance aids support the ground game, too.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()