The Chicken or the Egg

[Tom_Doak]

Just look at the Chicago Golf Club motto:  Far & Sure.  That says it all.

I believe Chicago Golf expropriated their motto from Royal Liverpool (Hoylake).


I also believe it was intended to be about hitting the ball solidly, not about the change from the featherie to the gutty.  The motto precedes any other equipment changes [Haskell ball, steel shafts, etc.].

[Mark Pritchett]

The egg.

[JC Jones]

The egg.

-1

[Peter Pallotta]

The egg.

-1

Gee, that's even worse than being at level par (in the modified stableford scoring system).


I wonder if there were so many golfers shooting under par back when the Haskell
first arrived that architects felt compelled to lengthen their courses? Do you think so - do you think golfers back then (or when steel shafts arrived) were suddenly shooting lights out and making changes to golf courses inevitable? Me, I can't quite imagine that,  no.

[Phil McDade]

The egg.

-1

Gee, that's even worse than being at level par (in the modified stableford scoring system).


I wonder if there were so many golfers shooting under par back when the Haskell
first arrived that architects felt compelled to lengthen their courses? Do you think so - do you think golfers back then (or when steel shafts arrived) were suddenly shooting lights out and making changes to golf courses inevitable? Me, I can't quite imagine that,  no.

Peter:


There were maybe a dozen courses of note in the United States when the Haskell ball came along in 1901-02. The Haskell ball first had its major influence on British courses, many of which I think the record would show were lengthened in response to the longer-distance improvements in the ball. Par had little to do with it, as most British golf was oriented toward match-play and not stroke play.

[Sven Nilsen]

There were maybe a dozen courses of note in the United States when the Haskell ball came along in 1901-02.

Not sure what you mean by "of note" but of the thousand or so course in existence in the US by 1901-02, there were well more than a dozen that were highly regarded.

[jeffwarne]

The egg.

-1

Gee, that's even worse than being at level par (in the modified stableford scoring system).


I wonder if there were so many golfers shooting under par back when the Haskell
first arrived that architects felt compelled to lengthen their courses? Do you think so - do you think golfers back then (or when steel shafts arrived) were suddenly shooting lights out and making changes to golf courses inevitable? Me, I can't quite imagine that,  no.

Peter,
The same lame argument is trotted out today.
It's not low scores that are the problem with modern tech.
You could give many amateurs 30 more yards and their scores wouldn't change because they are too naive/stubborn to improve their short games.
It's the sheer scale of the game that changes when new breakthrough distances are achieved via a tech breakthrough.
Make no mistake, the Haskell ball changed the scale of the game and courses were lengthened to accommodate it. I suppose some here would say the courses that adapted to stay relevant were wrongheaded to do so as many courses are doing today.How relevant would Shinny or Garden City be at 4500 yards today?
Again, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - I'm not here (or on Jim's thread) so much disagreeing with you as I am suggesting that the solution to ever longer courses is more likely to be found in embracing (and helping the golfing collective/ establishment to embrace) a different notion of architectural relevancy. As long as low scores and longer tee shots (for whatever reasons, talent and/or technology) are seen as evidence that the architecture is failing/has failed, committee members at classic clubs and developers of new course are going to keep making their courses longer. I think we can certainly learn THAT from history too.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff - I'm not here (or on Jim's thread) so much disagreeing with you as I am suggesting that the solution to ever longer courses is more likely to be found in embracing (and helping the golfing collective/ establishment to embrace) a different notion of architectural relevancy. As long as low scores and longer tee shots (for whatever reasons, talent and/or technology) are seen as evidence that the architecture is failing/has failed, committee members at classic clubs and developers of new course are going to keep making their courses longer. I think we can certainly learn THAT from history too.

When the implements improve dramatically, the architecture does fail, or at least change for many.
That is my point exactly. Human nature isn't going to change.
1.Players will always seek a legal advantage.
2.Courses will always expand to stay relevant.(those who say they shouldn't are rarely members of 4500 yard courses from 1898-mainly because they all closed if they didn't adapt)


The governing bodies can choose to mandate how much of #1 players can gain. They do it all the time. Anchoring, Grooves-They just happen to be misguided and fearful of manufacturers so they ignore the 800 gorilla-distance-the one factor that drives cost and time the most.


What really amazes me is when people state that the distance gains have leveled off and that there's not much left to gain. No doubt they said that in 1775, 1895, and 1940.


Tennis was the first to ruin itself with one swing rallies, golf is following suit.(well that and promoting it as "cool"  )

[Mark Bourgeois]

I think it's about the chicken eating the egg.

Designers like Mackenzie designed their courses with elasticity and with a few shots that were beyond the reach of nearly everyone. Manufacturers innovated I&B, which golfers saw could bring more shots within their reach. If it could be done, the courses were then elasticated^TM (and then new courses came online reflecting the new status quo).

It's just feeding eggs to chickens.

[Phil McDade]

There were maybe a dozen courses of note in the United States when the Haskell ball came along in 1901-02.

Not sure what you mean by "of note" but of the thousand or so course in existence in the US by 1901-02, there were well more than a dozen that were highly regarded.

I'll give you....



Kebo Valley, Town and Country, St. Andrews, Shinnecock, Palmetto, Oakhurst (a stretch, if you ask me), Essex County, Chicago, TCC, Newport, Van Cortland, Glen View, Ekwanok, and Quoque (another stretch).


Others?

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - not coincidentally it was less than a year later that Dr MacKenzie created the first of his now-famous "omniverous bunkers".


I hope it's not uncharitable of me to point out that in past threads you mistakenly labelled them "carniverous".


Peter

[Joe Hancock]

I hope it's not uncharitable of me to point out that in past threads you mistakenly labelled them "carniverous".

Which, as I understand it, is the very type of bunker that Pete Dye was forbidden to use when he did the work at Whistling Straits for Herb Kohler.....

[Mark Bourgeois]

That's quite the memory, Peter.

Joe, have you had the breakfast at the American Club?

BTW I call my postulation the "Mother and Child Reunion." Now I need to find ways to disseminate it into the general populace. Perhaps a toe-tapping ditty.

[Sven Nilsen]

There were maybe a dozen courses of note in the United States when the Haskell ball came along in 1901-02.

Not sure what you mean by "of note" but of the thousand or so course in existence in the US by 1901-02, there were well more than a dozen that were highly regarded.

I'll give you....



Kebo Valley, Town and Country, St. Andrews, Shinnecock, Palmetto, Oakhurst (a stretch, if you ask me), Essex County, Chicago, TCC, Newport, Van Cortland, Glen View, Ekwanok, and Quoque (another stretch).


Others?

You left off a few courses that had hosted the amateur by 1902 (Morris County, Onwentsia, Garden City and Atlantic City) and a few that would in subsequent years (Baltusrol, Nassau and Englewood).


There were also the courses that hosted the Women's Am (Meadow Brook, Ardsley and Philadelphia).


Let's not forget the US Open (Baltimore). 


I wouldn't put in anything from most of California or the South, as they hadn't quite managed to grow grass greens yet, but there were courses of note in towns like Tacoma, Oakland, Kansas City, Lake Geneva and Colorado Springs, to cite a few examples.  Just in a city like Chicago you have three additional candidates in Flossmoor, Midlothian and Westward Ho (the longest course in the country when it was built).  There are many more the closer you get to the Atlantic, including noted courses in Detroit, Cleveland Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston and the entire Tri-State area (with a good many of the NY/NJ private clubs being much more highly regarded than Van Cortlandt).  Pinehurst had already been extended to 18, and a course like Apawamis was tipping out at over 6,200 yards.


And these are just the 18 holers.  There were a good number of recently built 9 holers that were given their fair share of praise.  Some of those were built at distances that were surprising, including Cranford which measured over 3,400 yards or Skokie at almost 3,300 yards.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Interesting.
 
Not one of the perpetual "title whiners" came forward to complain about the title of this thread.
 
Hypocrites, whining little hypocrites.

[Peter Pallotta]

"When the implements improve dramatically, the architecture does fail, or at least change for many (my italics)"

Jeff -

not to belabour this point too much longer, but what I have italicized seems to me the key point and difference between us.

A year ago Tom D started a thread asking what yardage/tees most of us play most of our golf from. If memory serves, the majority of us (maybe even the overwhelming majority) answered "about 6,500 yards". 

Without getting into a numbers/historical argument, I think we can agree that there are hundreds and thousands of courses across America that are -- and have been for decades and decades -- 6,500 yards long, give or take. 

That means that for most of us here (and only a fraction of us are using old equipment/persimmon), the great architecture past (and present) has not failed, and is in no danger of failing any time soon.   

Yes, technology has developed much too quickly (for my tastes), and yes, some golfers hit the ball farther today than the golden age architects could've imagined, and yes, the tour pros can shoot remarkably low scores on just about any golf course in the world.     

But my point is that all the harping for the last decade (from and amongst us purists) about the technology and about how far the ball goes and about the low scores being shot by tour pros has not done one bit of good -- either in helping to protect older golf courses from committee members eager to lengthen them or in lessening the pressure put on architects today by the developers to build 7500 yard courses.

Instead, the harping seems only to have confirmed in the minds of the golfing collective the notion that technology is making existing courses obsolete -- and that the distance the ball flies (for some) and the low scores that some can shoot is making the architecture irrelevant.

And so, since that harping approach does not seem to have worked, I've been suggesting that we try instead to do our part to help the golfing collective embrace a different notion of architectural relevancy -- one that keeps the focus not on the technology or the distance the ball flies but instead puts the focus on the vast majority of us who, still today, need no more than 6,500 yards to keep us happy and engaged.

Peter

[Sean_A]

Pietro


Si.  A lot of time is spent contemplating how to make the Merion's of the world revalent...mainly for the sake of history, but also because the architecture is fantastic (in the case of Merion anyway).  The interesting thing is TOC isn't relavant in terms of a scoring challenge for the Open, but very much remains so in terms of its stature in the game.  We should think as to how that is accomplished and try to shoot for that type of admiration for the historic US courses.  Perhaps the USGA should just let things go and play an untricked up Merion regardless of scores and put more emphasis into the architecture during broadcasts.  Lets spend more time celebrating what we have rather than what was...then maybe folks will see the Merions as more than merely places to play the US Open and hang outs for the well connected.   Or...just get sensible and bifurcate. I would be very willing to support either approach given the hounding the USGA from afar has accomplished a fat egg.

Ciao