[Frank M]

Often I see media compliment a course by saying "everything is right in front of you." Usually this is followed by some additional comment referencing the lack of magicians who designed the golf course by noting there are "no tricks."

When did everything "being in front of you" and "no tricks" become compliments?

[John Kavanaugh]

And you read media blab why?

[Kalen Braley]

Reading through typical media blab and often I see them compliment a course by saying "everything is right in front of you." Usually this is followed by some additional comment referencing the lack of magicians who designed the golf course by noting there are "no tricks."

My questions is simply...when did everything being in front of you and no tricks become compliments?

Since PGA tour players starting saying this.  Its monkey see monkey do in every professional sport right down the line from style of play to what shoes they wear...golf is no exception.

[Mike Sweeney]

Frank,


Can you provide some examples for context? I did a Google search on "everything is right in front of you" and added in "golf", and nothing came up.

[Peter Pallotta]

Frank -
I believe it was in about 1958, give or take a few years.
Men stopped wearing fedoras; the 1940s were well over and done with, and with them the trials and sacrifices of the war years. Suburbs were sprouting up rapidly all over the country, and the American Dream was in full force.
It was a time to look to the future, to forget the past, to reap the rewards under President Eisenhower.
In golf, a new hero was about to emerge - a man of the people, yes, but one who had graduated from Wake Forest, not from the caddy yards. Clean cut; well spoken, someone you could imagine on the first tee of the new RTJ course built right next door to a new neighbourhood of clean, new, neat little bungalows.
There were to be no weeds in this new garden, no blemishes, no problems: just healthy growing families and comfortable station wagons and good paying jobs -- and Sundays free for dad to get out before church for his weekly round with his friends.
So when he got to that first tee and looked out across the peaceful blessed landscape, what else could he have wanted but a course "that was all there in front of him"?
Crystal clear, and as honest and uncomplicated as the life he now expected to live.
Twisty, tricky and complex golf holes were from another age: the Jazz Age and Prohibition and Al Capone and Flappers and the Depression, and crowded urban centres and tenement houses -- and golf as a game for either rich amateurs or hard-scrabbled hustlers.
But all that was now in the past; golf and its fields of play had finally become democratic -- a game for the average man, the common man, the man of straightforward manners and simple tastes.
And that common man wanted a golf course that was just as fair and direct as he was.
In short: 1958 for the desire/concept to emerge, but then several more years before they developed a catchy tag-phrase for it.
That's my guess, at least.
Peter

[George Pazin]

Right around the time fairness became the goal of everything.

[Joe Hancock]

I don't know, but that Peter Pallotta guy sure can write a captivating story...and he can break 80!

[Peter Pallotta]

Thank you, Joe.
I believe you will be richly rewarded for your continued kindness.
In the meantime, however, you will get no strokes from me! 

[BCowan]

I don't know, but that Peter Pallotta guy sure can write a captivating story...and he can break 80!

+1, that was good.  It's starting to come together now. 

[Sean_A]

I reckon for most archies most of the time, everything right in front of you was always good stuff.  Its just that for the first 50 years of architecture, most archies, most of the time weren't willing to go to much trouble for the concept.  It was the Oxbridge lot which I reckon really started the concept because they are the first archies to pay much attention to aesthetics and willing to eliminate blindness.  Like TOC is a good answer for best this or that, so too is the Oxbridge lot for architecture. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Seems like an argument could be made that once-upon-a-time holes played over features because the equipment didn't exist to remove them and when equipment that could remove such features began to appear at reasonable prices then "everything is right in front of you" became achievable.
atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Like a few, I date it to Tour Pros getting involved with design, although, technically, it began with the Tour getting so popular newspapers started quoting tour pros who liked to complain. I vividly recall a debate where pros stated (vigorously) that a green was blind if you couldn't see the bottom of the pin and the edge of the green nearest to it, not just the top of the flag.


Of course, like flat greens, it makes some sense to them because they play a course once per year and need to learn it quick.  Not a problem when one course hosts the tourney every year, but there was a lot of change over every year, too.  Until Butler, the Western Open rotated among five courses, for example.  (No TPC network back then)


Of course, with the popularity of the Tour, and the presumed infallibility of Tour Pros logic, it essentially became the mantra.


But really, to Thomas' point, it was a growing realization over decades and centuries. All the ODG wrote against blindness being bad, especially to the green, but they couldn't always do much about it, and weren't around as much to make sure their vision happened, so they didn't harp on what was essentially their fault due to inattention.  And, really, there are few blind greens at TOC, even if there are blind bunkers, and not that many blind holes there after Prestwick and some of the surviving vestiges of 1700 courses.


Jack N's favorite course was Muirfield, and it was because it was the most "straightforward" of the Scottish links, with this version dating mostly to 1892 or so.


By the way, the phrase "All in front of you" was sometimes coined as "Lays out like a road map" and other iterations, like "straightforward", etc.

[Adam Lawrence]

Seems like an argument could be made that once-upon-a-time holes played over features because the equipment didn't exist to remove them and when equipment that could remove such features began to appear at reasonable prices then "everything is right in front of you" became achievable.
atb

That's certainly true to an extent. But there were other factors too. One was the tendency to put greens in natural low points so they would collect water and thus stay alive in very dry periods. Another, which is less well-attested, but which I personally believe is 100 per cent true is that when the early golf courses were laid out, the equipment made getting balls airborne much harder, and therefore people would often choose to play over tall obstacles as a test of skill and macho. Picture it: it is 1885 and some guys are prospecting over a piece of virgin linksland, with a few gutty balls and a couple of hickory clubs to try out potential holes. They come to the largest dune on the property. Someone is going to say 'I bet you two farthings and a groat that I can hit my ball over that, and you can't.' And that's why the very old links always had a one shot hole straight over the largest dune!

[Mike_Clayton]

For some pros the 'everything is right there in front of you' line is the modern day Gary Playerism 'It's the finest course of its type I've ever seen.'

[Thomas Dai]

Seems like an argument could be made that once-upon-a-time holes played over features because the equipment didn't exist to remove them and when equipment that could remove such features began to appear at reasonable prices then "everything is right in front of you" became achievable.
atb

That's certainly true to an extent. But there were other factors too. One was the tendency to put greens in natural low points so they would collect water and thus stay alive in very dry periods. Another, which is less well-attested, but which I personally believe is 100 per cent true is that when the early golf courses were laid out, the equipment made getting balls airborne much harder, and therefore people would often choose to play over tall obstacles as a test of skill and macho. Picture it: it is 1885 and some guys are prospecting over a piece of virgin linksland, with a few gutty balls and a couple of hickory clubs to try out potential holes. They come to the largest dune on the property. Someone is going to say 'I bet you two farthings and a groat that I can hit my ball over that, and you can't.' And that's why the very old links always had a one shot hole straight over the largest dune!

Agreed Adam. Bit like little kids challenging each other to climb a tree or jump over a stream without getting wet!
Atb

[Sean_A]

Seems like an argument could be made that once-upon-a-time holes played over features because the equipment didn't exist to remove them and when equipment that could remove such features began to appear at reasonable prices then "everything is right in front of you" became achievable.
atb

That's certainly true to an extent. But there were other factors too. One was the tendency to put greens in natural low points so they would collect water and thus stay alive in very dry periods. Another, which is less well-attested, but which I personally believe is 100 per cent true is that when the early golf courses were laid out, the equipment made getting balls airborne much harder, and therefore people would often choose to play over tall obstacles as a test of skill and macho. Picture it: it is 1885 and some guys are prospecting over a piece of virgin linksland, with a few gutty balls and a couple of hickory clubs to try out potential holes. They come to the largest dune on the property. Someone is going to say 'I bet you two farthings and a groat that I can hit my ball over that, and you can't.' And that's why the very old links always had a one shot hole straight over the largest dune!

Agreed Adam. Bit like little kids challenging each other to climb a tree or jump over a stream without getting wet!
Atb

Holes were built away from heavy dunes much more often than not back in the day.  Locations were usually selected because they were flatter and more managable for golf. I think today we get an uneven sense of the amount of sporty holes built because a small number survive and tend to be famous.


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Up-n-over challenging terrain - an example from a long, long time ago -



The Cader hole at Aberdovey - see thread for how the hole has changed -http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58817.msg1382553.html#msg1382553

atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

To me, its pretty apparent that almost nobody really liked blind shots, so as they could be eliminated, they were. 


It seems apparent that anyone espousing strategic golf (which is almost everyone) would also be against blind shots, perhaps even confusing shots.  The course should offer (and make fairly obvious) potential options to best allow a golfer to choose their best option.


I wonder how many here really like blind shots, more than would occur naturally in a rational design scheme, and how many pine for them mostly as a matter of nostalgia, or even a way to raise pros scores just because.....well, just because?

[Frank M]

I wonder how many here really like blind shots.

I love them 

[Sean_A]

It seems apparent that anyone espousing strategic golf (which is almost everyone) would also be against blind shots, perhaps even confusing shots.  The course should offer (and make fairly obvious) potential options to best allow a golfer to choose their best option.

Jeff

Architecture shouldn't be about strategic VS penal design.  Both concepts and everything inbetween are important aspects of design and should be embraced.  Its more about picking and choosing when to throw in a whammy and how many whammies should there be.  Of course, that should mainly be site dependent, but I don't see anything wrong with an archie creating a blind penal hole from nothing.  Obviously, I prefer blind shots which are self-imposed by the golfer, but that is nowhere near a hard and fast preference.  There are simply way too many blind and penal shots which are very cool.  Yes, cool, partly because we get to play history or at least think we are playing history, but also because the best penal holes tend to be all-world...and some are blind.  Imagine what par 3s would like like if we all smacked down penal architecture....a pure bore fest. 

Strantz was willing to take chances with blindness and I expect these holes are just as polarizing as most of the world reknown blind holes.  Polarization is good so far as I am concerned.  Oherwise, we may as well get the cookie cutter out to design courses.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

To me, its pretty apparent that almost nobody really liked blind shots, so as they could be eliminated, they were. 


It seems apparent that anyone espousing strategic golf (which is almost everyone) would also be against blind shots, perhaps even confusing shots.  The course should offer (and make fairly obvious) potential options to best allow a golfer to choose their best option.


I wonder how many here really like blind shots, more than would occur naturally in a rational design scheme, and how many pine for them mostly as a matter of nostalgia, or even a way to raise pros scores just because.....well, just because?

We're just going to have to disagree.....


You're telling me that blind shots eliminate strategy?
Is every course designed to be played just once?
Can you at least consider a hole strategic where one can avoid blind by playing to a certain spot? (which is a massive oversimplification and I'd say underuse of some potentially great terrain and fun as there are multiple other ways to use terrain and blindness to create strategy-and certainly fun)


learning, 'seeing", judging and visualizing the flight(and eventual bounce and roll) of a shot where one cannot "see" the target is a learned skill, that some have and many don't. Those that don't have that skill have  sought to eliminate their weaknesses through better "modern" design-for the last 150 years.






Rather than "nobody really liked blind shots", I'd say it's just another example of the tyranny of the minority...
(of course early architects may have sought to eliminate blind shots out of habit if they were blessed/cursed with such land that produces a majority of blind shots and lacked ability to move dirt)


Most club decisions are made by the so called "better" players at a club-i.e. those who think they are better than they are and are the type that feels  it important to be in a position of power at a club (ever try shortening a holr from the ladies tee? the better ladies will freak out)


Blind shots went the way of bunkers actually being hazards, and rough being not rough but uniform."
What's so ironic is that now with the bunkers and rough being neutered, that same committee member is being forced to "putt"from 40 yards off the green with a hybrid due to the never ending search for super tight agronomy to torture the higher handicapper.


Rather than give you 100 examples of great blind holes, I'd going to mention Southampton's 16th where in the recent renovation they raised the face/mound of a centerline bunker 40-50 yards short of the green.Laying up behind it makes the second shot dicey as the lack of visibility creates a difficult 50-90 yard shot.
Driving it close to or to the sides (risking rough or bunker) makes a much easier shot and makes a previously 330 yard mundane hole very interesting.
All with a bit of dirt.




Reminds me of the Commentator on the Euro Tour yesterday commenting on how "consistent" the sand and lies were in the bunker, and how the players loved playing from them-a freaking hazard-even went so far as to they were indeed preferable to the rough.
He then commented on how unfair it was that a player had to play from an uphill lie to the green (after a 335 yard drive)


The more we cave to those with just enough knowledge to be dangerous in favor of their games, i.e.those with little or no imagination, the more bland our game becomes(well we did that already actually in the 60's and 70's)but I don't play those courses.
Or we can just all go play Top Golf

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,


Excellent show this weekend comparing golf to tennis. If I recall you mentioned this very title in not a good light.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Frank,


You are a member of a very exclusive club!


Sean,


The right kind of polarization is okay, but there are wrong ways to polarize, too.  Agree in general 1950-1980 or thereabouts, 100 years of good practice morphed into much, too much, standardized designs, but for 99% of golf holes, those principles still stand.


Certainly a blind hole when it can't be overcome is still okay and generally accepted.  A course with a few penal holes would also be accepted, but would quickly lose favor if overdone.  While you can name hundreds of good, blind holes, actually, very few of each are really, really cool.  Maybe 1 in a 100. Most are just terrible.


Now, self induced blindness as a result is just fine, IMHO.  I call it not "outdriving your headlights."  The short term push for total visibility (to the base of the pin) seems to have waned.

Strantz does get browny points for creativity, but over time, I think the view of his courses has started to decline a bit.  I could be wrong, as I don't follow those things that carefully.  I still believe the small percentage of players who tout blind shots (and the large percentage of those who participate here) do favor some of them just because we have gotten perhaps too standardized.  That doesn't make it a template for a good hole, though.  If you compare a competitive golfer to a general in battle, both wants the most information they can get before executing a battle plan.  Both are uncomfortable when shooting blind. 


For a recreational sport, I don't see the need to be uncomfortable, while you do, and in fact, the best blind shots are somehow defined enough for the golfer, and then quite exhilarating, such as a carry over a hill.


As to Jeff W's post, yes, I guess we will disagree.  As I said, good thinkers like Ross and others of the Golden Age had pretty well discarded blindness as a purposeful design tool.  I don't think improved agronomy is a reason to put blindness back in the tool bag.  Again, its the wrong kind of response to the problem (if a problem exists at 90% of US clubs of being "too well maintained.")


Basically, blind and excessively penal holes are fine once in a great while as counter point, and not much else.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,


Excellent show this weekend comparing golf to tennis. If I recall you mentioned this very title in not a good light.

Thanks
That must've been Sunday's show.....because I remember it.
Monday's show followed an epic Sunday night...may have to go to the audio review....

[Mark_Fine]

There was this architect by the name of William Flynn who some here might have heard of who made the following quotes:


"A concealed bunker has no place on a golf course.  When concealed, it does not register on the player’s mind as he is about to play the shot and thus loses its value.”


“The green is the final objective and how can a man reach the objective satisfactorily if he can not see it?  However, it is not always possible to have visibility of every green but the hole that does not have a visible green should have some other feature or indicator which tells the player where to go to get the best results.  Visibility in the shot to the green is much to be desired and a little more time spent in modifying the layout may perhaps bring about the result desired and increase the pleasure in the play of the course.”


Of course this guy Flynn never made a trip across the pond to see/study the great links courses but he did design one or two good ones despite that 


And by the way, this was one of his famous quotes about trees - "It is impossible to conceive that the "Canny Scots" would have denuded their courses of trees if there had been any there originally.  As a race they are entirely too thrifty for any such waste as that." 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()