[George Pazin]

Matt -

I'm going to have to think about that, because I don't really remember the holes that well, which is generally an indicator of how much I enjoy a course.

Off the top of my head, a few holes that stuck out:

7 & 8 (?) - a 90 degree left turn dogleg par 4 followed by a loooong downhill par 3. I liked these two holes, thought they were quite fun.

10 ? - I liked the moderate length par 4 with the ravine crossing the fairway.

15 ? - 17 - downhill meandering par 5 with the green jutting out into the water, followed by the par 3, followed by another downhill par 4 with an interesting green. Might have overlooked a hole after the par 3. Frankly the par 3 and subsequent par 4 were really mostly notable for their long downhill tee shots, though I did think the green complex on the par 4 was pretty cool.

There was another long par 3 on the back that I really liked, but I can't even begin to guess the number. 12? 13? 14? I liked the false like front and the strong pitch to the green.

Maybe I'll come up with more after reviewing my notes. I can't really remember having an awkward stance the whole day & I hit my shots into plenty of weird places.

My strongest memory of the course (not my playing companions, who were a delight, particularly with their patient attitudes toward my struggles) is that someone who likes to be perched up high to watch his tee shots fly fly fly would really love the course.

My other strong memory was what a bunch wusses the rest of the gang was - our foursome walked!! It wasn't that much tougher a walk than many hilly courses in western PA and in fact wouldn't have been any tougher if not for the repeated climbs to elevated tee boxes.

[Lou_Duran]

Shivas-

To paraphrase Ed, hitting into a divot in a fairway occasionally in my book is neither fair or unfair, it just is (sort of like dribbling on a dead spot on a wood floor, or the turf giving way while making a sharp cut on a passing route).  However, if it happens often, it is unfair and a sign of either bad maintenance, design, or both (punchbowl fairways).  The expectation of a decent lie is inplicit in the very word, "fairway".

Given the conditions that most golfers play under, philosophically, I would not have a fit with a local rule allowing lift-clean-and place within the fairway.  However, because of all the attendant problems (pace of play, cheating, tradition, etc.) I personally prefer playing the ball down at all times.

Hazards and sand traps are another matter.  In my opinionn, the positioning of these and their configuration should relate to the type, length, and green complex of the hole.

In my earlier reply, I was making the point that missing the target by a yard or two should not result in an unplayable lie because the sand was unraked.  This actually happened to me during the finals of the club championship match play on the 11th hole at Scarlet (400 or so slight DL left over a valley), where I hit my approach shot to a front left pin placement just short right, and it bounced backwards into a foot print in the bunker nearly a foot deep.  Under normal conditions, the ball would have rolled to the bottom of the hazard where a par would have been possible and a bogey assured.  Having to take an unplayable lie was certainly UNFAIR.    Bottom line: not raking traps or creating furrows in locations which often come into play is UNFAIR as the entire field is not subjected to the same controllable conditions.  If the edges are ragged, or plant materials are allowed to grow in the hazards which are not very close to the line of play, that's a different situation.

[TEPaul]

Michael Whitaker:

You're post #171 is brilliant. I find it inconceivable that a post could better describe Matt Ward!  

Shiv:

Sounds like NGLA was something other than in its "ideal maintenance meld" when you played it. When the greens are  slick and the green surfaces firm along with the ground "through the green", landing a ball a few yards short of the green surface and a few steps right of it is the "redan shot" on that Redan. Then the ball will just filter very slowly onto the putting surface and roll slowly left down towards the pin. But when the course is not in its "ideal maintenance meld" then in your club and shot selection you have to be something like the race driver who can feel the limit of adhesion of the road in his seat!!

Hitting a 'low, punch, hooked 4 iron' in there isn't exactly the traditional redan shot! In racing parlance you were trying to heel and toe it with your toe on the accelerator when it should've been your heel!    

I'm sort of sorry it wasn't Matt Ward who hit that shot and got the bad bounce you did. Then all of us on here could hear him tell us that contrary to decades of opinion to the contrary the redan hole at NGLA is actually not a good hole or good architecture and additionally that since he refuses to belong to a golf club he's the only one who has the guts and the architectural analytical honesty to criticize that hole for what it really is!  

[Michael Whitaker]

Lou - I'm sorry your ball wound up in a footprint, but that is unfortunate not unfair. Playing surfaces are not supposed to be perfect. That's why the rules of golf address "rub of the green." Sometimes you just get a bad break and have to live with it. I know it's hard to swallow taking an unplayable when you don't feel like it is your fault, but that's what "rub of the green" is all about. It feels unfair so, it must be unfair. But, it's not... it's just golf.

Shivas - I agree that "bad breaks" (like hitting a flagstick) can be tough to take, however, this is different than the realm of "fair vs unfair." Even the player who complains of holes being "unfair" can accept the fact that occasionally their ball will bounce off a flagstick.

No, what gets to me is the attitude some players have that their shot-making skills are such that they have a special insight into course design. They tend to offer as prove of their insight the "fact" that their "perfectly" struck shots were not rewarded as they "should have been." One of their favorite complaints is holes that don't present them with an option for play that they feel will properly reward their level of shot making. The classic example is a hole that forces them to lay up off the tee with something less than a driver... it drives them crazy! How can a hole like that be "fair," they exclaim, when it doesn't allow them to display their golfing prowess and forces them to play from the same location as a player with "less skill." They just don't get that that is often exactly the point.

[TEPaul]

Shivas said;

"Hell, pins are unfair!  How many perfect shots have you hit the pin with, only to get "screwed"?  It's happened to me dozens of times.  That's just the breaks."  

Shiv:

I generally hit the pin a couple of times per round and I almost always get screwed. But it's just one of those unavoidable "unfairnesses" about golf I learned to live with years ago. I've even praticed hitting the pin to see if I can't perfect that shot and prevent getting screwed so much but as long and hard as I've practiced it I still can't figure out how to keep the exact spin I want on the ball when it comes in contact with the pin. But I'm confident that I'll perfect that shot one of these days and then I'll feel free to really go after the pin with regularity!

[Norbert P]

Unfair is when the ball bounces and rolls.

Fair is when it doesn't.






                                         

[Steve Lang]

 

Hmmm..
The more he practiced, the luckier he got.. adopted skills lead to better experience

Fairness/unfairness has to be independent of luck or randomness, its equality bestowed upon those who wish to compete for the prize, be it par, birdie or whatever, all play upon the same grounds, i.e, literally and figuratively under the rules of competition set out.  To not play by the rules is unfair.  

Nothing more , nothing less.

 

[Lou_Duran]

Shivas,

You must play at much better courses than I do.  Perhaps it is an issue of frequency and probabilities, or maybe it is a regional thing, but I find divots on a fairly regular basis (no, not the one I made on the day before!).  Personally, I do not have a problem with divots, and they seldom present an unconquerable challenge.  Architecturally, large collection areas are problematic because of divots and wet turf (right center Pasa #12).  Unfair may not be the proper term, perhaps just undesirable.

I am not offended at all being compared to Matt Ward.  Just don't sick TEP on me.  Perhaps I am just obtuse, but I too enjoy variety and a course that challenges me to hit all the shots.  While I don't expect perfect bounces and great lies each and every time, my hope is that if I generally do my part well, that I will achieve the desired results.  Hitting two good shots to O-Lake #18 in the US Open and having little chance at two putting is not my idea of golf, fair or otherwise.

Within my concept of the game, hitting the driver on every hole is not close to being a requirement.  I do generally have a problem with par 5s which don't allow for aggressive play.  Holes which require one to lay-up off the tee, then hit a longer club on the approach are an abomination, though there are probably a few that have some design merit.

Finally, if it was common ettiquete not to rake sand traps, I could probably live with that.  Like not fixing ball marks on the greens, I just don't see a compelling reason to adopt that practice.

Michael W-

I am not one to parse words.  Nor do I believe that "fairness" or the expectation of cosmic justice is something we should pursue at the exclusion of everything else.  My "unfortunate" situation at OSU many years ago sticks in my mind not because it had much to do with the outcome of the match, but because it was such a poignant reflection of what I saw wrong in the game and society at large- a lack of respect for the common courtesies and traditions which have been adopted and validated through long periods of time.  Why anyone would want to advocate unkept sand is beyond me.  Why not also dump a bunch of rocks randomly to really make it hard and subject to chance?

Your comment about the ability to hit shots and insights to design is an interesting one.  Since golf architecture is so often compared to fine art on this site, do you believe if you have little knowledge or aptitude for painting that you might possess special insights in that field?  How can a guy who can't hit a mid-iron shot high and soft nor punch it right-to -left (the majority of golfers) have a great appreciation for a traditional Redan?  How can a golfer who can't carry the ball 200 yards see a hole like #16 at CPC (thank you Ms. Hollins)?
I am sorry, but I think that the reality is that most of our better courses have been built by people who could hit the shots that they visualized.  Even MacKenzie used expert players to give him and verify some ideas.  Raynor was an engineer who trained under an accomplished player and great researcher, and both adhered to the concept that imitation is the best form of flattery.

While we all here love North Berwick, why do you think that similar courses have not been built?  In my opinion, building courses which do not yield on a FAIRLY consistent basis the "expected" results given the level and quality of effort expended are sure to fail.  Human nature, even animal behavior seeks some consistency in results.  Pavloc's dog would not be salivating if when he heard the bell he was kicked in the balls from time to time instead of just given a treat.  I wish that I could end-up in a foot deep foot print in a bunker and be pleased and challenged by the unfortunate situation.   I know that Dan King and others like to be amused and entertained, but, alas, that is not why I play golf.

     

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Good grief -- you're not morphing into TEPaul -- are you?

You know -- the seer / gatekeeper of all that defines architecture. I, alas, am nothing more than an infatel who has crashed the party.

I thought you were an ally on this thread.

P.S. I don't care what I score just as long as skill is the chief ingredient when playing. By the way I know full well about what you speak regarding Sand Hills and I still loved it!

[Rick Shefchik]

I knew there was too much luck in this game. Shivas hits the pin way more often than he ends up in a divot.

I end up in a divot more often than I hit the pin.

[TEPaul]

Lou Duran;

Why would anyone want to sick a guy like me on a man of manners, taste, impeccable common sense, architectural perspicuity and the much rarer architectural perspicacity like you have?

[Matt_Ward]

Lou:

Don't fall prey to the luring sounds of the "DARK SIDE."

First, they kill you with kindness then they just kill you.

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward said:

"Shivas:
Good grief -- you're not morphing into TEPaul -- are you?"

Matt:

Oh yes he is! And you may be able to as well if you'll only open your mind and take a few adventurous steps. It's actually more fun and more gratifying than remaining in architectural kindergarten and continuously rushing around the room and pushing about ten blocks around to see if you can line them up as to their relative size!  

[Matt_Ward]

Sorry Tom (aka Darth Vader) -- I sip only brewski not sherry like you blue blood boys!

By the way when I play with toys -- you know in kindergarten -- I much rather tinker with the ones where skill is the watchword -- you know -- why cheapen a game with such backward things as complete unpredictability and utter randomness.

Shivas:

Don't heed calls from the Dark Side -- once you give yourself you can never go back to being so utterly coherent and clear.

[TEPaul]

"Lou:
Don't fall prey to the luring sounds of the "DARK SIDE."

Matt Ward:

My God I hope you aren't referring to me when you made that post. I'm not the "DARK SIDE". That's inhabited by people like Rich Goodale!

I represent the "SIDE of LIGHT"!

Come and follow me, my friend, and I'll lead you to those sunlit uplands of architecture of the natural kind and introduce you to the realm Art, Nature and unpredicatability where fun things happen every minute and golfers come to learn that there are some things more important in golf than themselves and something much bigger than they are!

[Norbert P]

"...  why cheapen a game with such backward things as complete unpredictability and utter randomness?

 "Why ruin sport with such forward notions as complete predictability and utter deliberateness?"

 

[Dan Kelly]

Pavlov's dog would not be salivating if when he heard the bell he was kicked in the balls from time to time instead of just given a treat.

Are you sure about that? I'm not.

What a wonderful description of golf! Thanks, Lou. Deep in winter here, I'm salivating at the memories both of golf's little treats and of its nasty kicks.

Oh, and as to why more North Berwicks aren't built? My guess is: It has nothing whatsoever to do with "fairness" and consistency -- and everything to do with golf-course owners and developers who don't have the guts to risk rejection in the free market.

[Mike Hendren]

While we all here love North Berwick, why do you think that similar courses have not been built?  In my opinion, building courses which do not yield on a FAIRLY consistent basis the "expected" results given the level and quality of effort expended are sure to fail.  

Lou, not you too  There is nothing at all "unfair" about North Berwick's West Links - nothing!

Regards,

Mike

[Dan Kelly]

Man, oh, man, this is a banner day.  First DeVries says he might try my double punchbowl, then the illustrious TEP says I'm turning into him!  I better go buy a Lotto ticket, pronto!

Drive over to Ohio and get one. Everyone's winning over there!

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

I love that last line -- "... where fun things happen every minute and golfers come to learn that there are some things more important in golf than themselves and something much bigger than they are!"

That sounds great -- but guess what -- I'm already having fun playing the courses I'm playing now. You know the ones you often miss -- the ones with clarity. Got to keep up the vigilance against the Dark Side with Darth Paul and all his minions.

[TEPaul]

Lou Duran said;

"I wish that I could end-up in a foot deep foot print in a bunker and be pleased and challenged by the unfortunate situation."

Lou:

Please consider this very carefully. No one here ever said any golfer should be pleased to find his ball in a deep footprint in a bunker. And if they did they shouldn't have.

Even the purist of sportsmen golfers does and probably should curse the fates and his poor luck to find his ball in a deep footprint in a bunker or some other unpredicatable lie. But the point is he should never or would never take the next step and recommend it should be done away with altogether and that the playing fields of golf should be consistently standard somehow even to a continuing degree.

The reason why is he understands that Nature really is unpredictable and random and that the true playing field of the sport of golf is Nature and not a man-made and standardized creation such as a tennis court is supposed to be.

But as to finding his ball in a deep footprint and the challenge of extricating it---that is something the true sportsman golfer should and generally would look at with relish!

This is so similar to a little story I heard this summer and its so true. At a member/guest tournament at a significant golf course the august and worldly Sandy Tatum was asked to rise and say a few words.

Part of his story was about his relationship with Tom Watson and his point was what a refreshing breeze Watson is with his sportsman golfer attitude compared to many of the self-centered and self-concerned golfers Tatum has run across.

Tatum's little story about Watson involved balls in divots (an unpredicatable occurrence). Tatum's experience was that most golfers of Watson's caliber will find their ball in a divot and curse the golf course, the architect, the superintendent, the tournament committee but that Watson will come upon his ball in such a misfortune, examine it for a second without more expression than a frown and then pull a club at which point his eyes light up and he's apt to say;

"WATCH THIS!"

A better little story could not be found to define this basic thread about fair and unfair and the necessary aspect of unpredicatability which nature represents in golf and architecture!

[TEPaul]

"That sounds great -- but guess what -- I'm already having fun playing the courses I'm playing now. You know the ones you often miss -- the ones with clarity."

Matt:

Do not give it a thought. I expect a certain amount of resistance from you--that too is only natural. But you only think you're already having fun playing the courses you are now--you know--the ones you say have real clarity.

But if you follow my recommendations you will look at it all in a different light and those courses that you think are fun--those you speak of that have real clarity will eventually become a bit of a waste of time to you.

You will come to appreciate more those courses and that architecture that offer real mystery and the natural amount of unpredicatability that can actually play very different every day.

At that point you'll start to slow down and begin to enjoy yourself and architecture of less clarity more and the architecture of more clarity less and you'll stop running from here to there like a hyperactive little first grader who thinks the more ground he covers actually means something to him or anyone else.

Follow me to those sunlit uplands of true natural golf and architectural understanding and it won't be long before you say something to me like;

"My God, I wish I knew all this twenty years ago!"

And who knows, at that point you may even stop shuffling those little blocks around and concerning yourself with which is #1 or #7 or #10!

[TEPaul]

"TEP:  You just described the Seve Shot!"

I know. Seve's in his own world though. Seve's a sportsman golfer, a gamesman golfer, a gamemanship golfer, a tilter at windmills, heroic, imaginative, a real pain in the ass---Seve pretty much had it all.

For all I know Seve may think architecture should be consistent and predictable and of real clarity like Matt Ward does. But even if Seve did feel that way about a golf course most of the time his golf ball couldn't seem to find the golf course so Seve pretty much had to develop the attitude of the sportsman golfer who relished unpredictability or he never would've survived out there.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Thanks for sharing your wisdom from the dark side!

All kidding aside -- it's very E-Z for people to be stereotyped about the type of courses they enjoy. Somehow I believe people have taken (you included) what I have said and defined that as being Ward never wants to play any hole / course that doesn't provide 100% fairness or his completely predictable. That's rubbish.

I played Pennard in Wales this past summer and thoroughly enjoyed the course. It has more quirk than most and it's artfully routed on a splendid piece of real estate. You don't get any guarantees when you play it -- except for the fun element.

Tom -- I have played a wide array of courses -- unfortunately, many of them don't involve much, if any, discussion on GCA. The reality is a bit more involved than what you think. Do yourself a favor as the self-proclaimed wise old sage (don't hold your breath for me to make the kind of acknowledgement you stated in your post) -- there are plenty of courses that need to be played and seen -- and a fair number of the new ones -- that are often underplayed and underappreciated -- are extremely interesting and worthy of even more acclaim (see Black Mesa as just one example).

Too many people (hint / hint) simply get comfortable with what they know because they don't want to see anything else that might produce a far broader appreciation of what is indeed out there now -- not just from years ago.

I appreciate your comments but there's an old adage -- if you want respect you've got to give some in return. Besides, I can't help myself in resisting the pull of the dark side -- maybe it's you and your minions who need to see the light!

Repent -- repent -- repent ...

[CHrisB]

Lou Duran, in his best JakaB impression, said:

Pavlov's dog would not be salivating if when he heard the bell he was kicked in the balls from time to time instead of just given a treat.

Pavlov actually performed this experiment in his later years with his pet/subject wiener dog Salivador, and found that no matter how many kicks in the balls he received, damned if he still didn't salivate at the thought of receiving that treat. Must have been some treat!

So it is with the game of golf. No matter how much blunt trauma we receive to our proverbial "sack", we keep going after the treats that the game dangles (pardon the pun) in front of us. Sort of a "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

Incidentally, an unfortunate side effect of Pavlov's experiments is that whenever someone rang the doorbell, Salivador would crumple to the floor and become dehydrated due to excessive drooling. Embarrassing for Pavlov, to be sure, but in the end, what price science?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()