[TEPaul]

I wonder how fundamental and consequently essential competition is to golf. I mean competition of any kind.

Writers such as Geoff Shackelford appear to be trying to look back into the history of golf and its architecture to discover what may be done to remake golf (and its architecture) into more of a feeling of freedom--a recreation of just fun and interest across ground and through the elements with balls and impliments. To discover how possible it may be to move golf closer to what may be considered a "sport" in nature VS a man-made rules and convention riddled "game".

In this way golf could be looked at more in the context of hunting or fishing or some other pastime that basically juxtaposes man with some impliments against nature itself without the need for such defined competitive conventions or maybe even without competition--(as does hunting and fishing).

I'm looking closely at that thought too--but sadly it appears that golf may have been almost totally reliant on competition of one kind or another from the very beginning---and so competition itself may have always been at the heart and soul of golf.

The real reason I ask is because any kind of man to man competition is going to eventually require that man create a whole laundry list of rules and conventions--dos and don'ts, if you will, so that the "game" can be contested more logically, understandably, equitably etc.

And eventually that laundry list of rules and conventions have to filter very much into architecture too. There's no question that happened and continues to increase every day and every year.

So is golf completely reliant on competition and its ever increasing rules and conventions and definitions?

I know a lot of golfers and I'm sorry to say the vast, vast majority would probably not even go to a golf course if some kind of competition was not involved.

But there are others, far fewer in number, such as myself, who frankly prefer to play the game solitarily--just me and the course--or at least if with someone without any competition at all.

But I'm afraid without the aspect of competition golf would be nowhere--perhaps even residing uniquely back in Scotland where it started?

I'm sure you see what I'm asking---competition needs a good degree of definition--that logically becomes instinctual, and some think that's constricted architecture too much. Is there any way to break architecture away from that somehow?

[A_Clay_Man]

Thought provoking post. I guess the answer lies within the individual. Those fortunate enough to golf for reasons other than competition are so few and far between(except on this site) that there would be no market. Which would've translated into fewer courses built, less of an arms race for manufacturers and perhaps the game would look significantly different than it does today.

But even those who golf for pleasure without a traditional competition, one of the major draws has to be the competition with the land and the mind.  (you did say all forms of competition)

I think I'm more confused now, I think I'll keep thinking on this one.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

I couldn't disagree with you and Geoff more.

One always competes against the golf course and sometimes against an opponent, and it is those challenges that are the essence and lure of the game.

The primary object in golf is to get the ball from the tee, into the hole in the fewest strokes, not to have fun, recreation, etc., etc..  Those may be by-products of the game, but they are not the objective of the game.

There is nothing wrong with having rules or structure in a game.  Rules create order and acceptable parameters, in society and in games such as golf.

But, you're right about one thing, the rules applying to implements and the play of the game do affect the architecture.   Imagine how the architecture would have changed if you were allowed to throw the ball 8 times per round.  Imagine if you were allowed to hit your opponent with 4 shots per round or until he conceded, whichever came first.
Imagine if greens were protected by fences, dogs, and machine gun towers.

Like you, I too enjoy solitude occassionally.  I like to practice or play late in the afternoon by myself.  And while a holed out shot is its own reward, there's something special about the look on your opponent's face, and the thought of what's going through his mind, right after that shot, be he friend or foe.

I would suggest that you return to bed, take a nap, wake up, and delete this thread, then take two aspirin and call me in the morning  

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
Smack a rock with a stick and its a sporting endeavor.
Smack a rock with a stick and count how many times it took to get it to a prescribed location and it's a game.

It seems to me that all our games come from sport that we have a natural mechanical affinity for and have been able to adapt into an acceptable form of play with rules to abide and outcomes to determine.
Because we have these sporting abilities, the "chickens", we come up with lots of games to enjoy them, the "eggs".
There is no need to compete against yourself or the course to enjoy the sporting element of golf but it requires some form of competition if you want to attract a large number of like minded people into groups that pursue the sport .




  
 

[Rich_M]

Interesting question....which begs another one...Does golf have to fulfill the same need for all golfers?  Can one golfer play for a variety of different reasons at different times?

I have always enjoyed the evening nine holes, by myself, with no one on the course and I also enjoy competing on the golf course.  Golf can be a very peaceful and introspective experience and it can also stoke the competive fires and give you that adrenalin rush.  

That goes to the heart of what makes golf so unique and fascinating.  

[TEPaul]

Behr felt it would not be a good thing for architecture or golf if Nature lost it's part in the balance in golf and in architecture due to the ever increasing inclination of man to control everything--eventually even including Nature itself.

Golf is, of course, two things--a golfer himself making his golf strokes across some form of golfing environment (hopefully as natural a one as possible) in his contest with that environment and also the competition of how what he does that way compares to others doing the same.

So, as far as that duality is concerned it certainly seems that the element of man to man competition was and is essential and probably getting more so.

And also it would seem to be true that as Behr feared, nature (or even what any golfer perceives to be natural) has continued to lose its part of that balance. The golfer probably doesn't perceive nature to have much of a part in this equation anymore, much less now (in a balanced fashion) compared to the other side of the competitive equation--man competing against man (the "game" compared to the "sport" of man competing against nature).

Now, probably somewhat like back then in the 1920s when he wrote these things, I don't believe golfers necessarily disagreed with him as much as most of them had no idea what he was even alluding to about the necessity of Nature in the equation or balance of golf. And today that seems to be even more apparent.

About these things he seems to have concluded;

".....and the psychological tendency is to make further inroads upon nature's side of the balance, for once the human mind succeeds in overcoming natural hazards in life it never remains satisfied until it has devised a means to do away with them altogether.

I do not mean to imply that it is possible to return to those halcyon days of golf, or that it is even desirable; but what I do wish to emphasize is that unless we keep before us a true perspective of golf, a viewing of it always from its natural side, it will eventually degenerate to a known quantity, a true game, and will become robbed of those elements of mystery and uncertainty which make every round a voyage of discovery.

The fate of golf would seem to lie in the hands of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club and the United States Golf Association. Can we expect that they will protect and reverence that spirit of golf?"
Max Behr, 1922

To me, the importance of much of what Behr wrote is not so much a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with many of the things he said but more to simply understand somehow why he said them. When one begins to understand that many fascinating things about golf and about architecture too begin to occur.

Many today discount him, probably as they did back then, probably because he's hard to read and so obviously hard to understand too. But ultimately it might not matter because in the final analysis;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."

[TEPaul]

Pat said:

"I couldn't disagree with you and Geoff more."

Well that doesn't surprise me at all. Geoff hasn't said a word yet and you're disagreeing with him. I said he might be interested in looking back into the history of architecture, perhaps to some of Max Behr's articles regarding the freedom of expression of the golfer in a strategic sense and possibly how competitive golf may effect that and you automatically disagree with that. That doesn't surprise me at all.

All I did is ask a few questions on this thread and you're disagreeing? Disagreeing with questions now are you Pat? Not surprising at all since I can't remember the last time you gave me a straight answer to a simple question. Ask you a question about how essential competition is to golf and I wouldn't be surprised if you came back with how wrong I am about added tee length on a famous golf course like ANGC--a question I never even remotely asked!

But on a serious note, the primary reason for this thread was simply to see where people stood on this question of competiton. For once it's clear as a bell where you stand on this subject. To a guy like Max Behr you'd be the absolute pinnacle of the "game" mind that attempts to over-control everything and put nature in a serious back seat in golf and its architecture!

To you it doesn't matter at all what it looks like as long as you think it plays OK. And you know it's true that's exactly how you feel about golf architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

Writers such as Geoff Shackelford appear to be trying to look back into the history of golf and its architecture to discover what may be done to remake golf (and its architecture) into more of a feeling of freedom--a recreation of just fun and interest across ground and through the elements with balls and impliments. To discover how possible it may be to move golf closer to what may be considered a "sport" in nature VS a man-made rules and convention riddled "game".

When you write voluminous posts your recollection of what you've written may diminish with each paragraph.

I was only responding to what you alleged.

You can't tell me what someone is doing, and then when I disagree, tell me that that person hasn't posted.
You, were speaking for them.
Perhaps you should refrain from doing so.

Behr was not the absolute authority on golf.
He may have offered an opinion but that doesn't make it gospel.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I say that Shackelford may be looking back into golf's history to discover potential ways of making golf more fun and interesting with an eye to more freedom of expression in the strategies in architecture and you automatically disagree with that?

That is just mindbendingly amazing--it's ridiculous to me? What do you play golf for anyway? Do you just play for this statement of yours-----?

"there's something special about the look on your opponent's face, and the thought of what's going through his mind, right after that shot, be he friend or foe."

Well then to each his own--and as I say;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there's room in it for everyone".

That statement is getting truer and truer!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

In this way golf could be looked at more in the context of hunting or fishing or some other pastime that basically juxtaposes man with some impliments against nature itself without the need for such defined competitive conventions or maybe even without competition--(as does hunting and fishing).

I can only base my response to you, on what you've written, and the above paragraph coupled with the one before it, lead me to disagree with you and Geoff.  If you want to amend what you've written, that's okay with me.

The game requires one to tee off from a predetermined spot and get the ball into a predetermined hole in as few strokes as possible, over a defined field of play, AND, in theory, to accomplish this over 18 consecutive holes in as little time as possible.  It's not a day in the country bonding with and becoming one with nature.  But, that is a novel excuse for slow play.  

[DJames]

TEPaul:

I'm obviously missing the point of your post.

I compete with myself in golf -- me and the course whether I play a solitary game or if I play with others.  Sure, I may have side bets with buddies, but, to me, that's secondary.

"...And eventually that laundry list of rules and conventions have to filter very much into architecture too..."

I regard the rules of golf as a framework for consistency in the measurement of my competition with the course.  Rules also provide a consistent framework for discussion with others.

Non-competitive fishing discussions generally include an understanding of the bait used, etc., which also provide a framework for discussion.

I don't see competition as a bad thing.  Sure folks can become compulsive about anything and ultimately ruin whatever fun they once had golfing, but that's more of an individual quirk rather a flaw of competition.

Competition over the years maintains interest and brings new folks to the game which helps to create opportunities for more courses -- the designs of which we can argue about.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

I think competition is a huge part of the game, and it's something that architects should take into consideration.

However, I believe there is a different mindset between medal and match play competitions, and that's where the rub lies....

Under match-play, a particularly penal feature such as a bunker where one must often play out sideways (or suffer the ignominous likely result of multiple attempts should one try to play towards the hole) seems reasonable and even desirable, because it serves to heighten the level of excitement and drama of the match.

That same bunker under a medal play competition is often deemed "unfair".  Witness the rationale for the attempted recent changes to the Road Hole bunker...is there a clearer example of the ultimately neutering effect of stroke play competition on our architectural features?

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Mike (east coast lefty)
I think you are bringing Tom P.'s post back to what Max Behr was talking about.  Behr was not moaning about competition hurting golf in his 1922 article.  He was simply saying that now that we are building courses inland, and that the wonderful sand dunes and winds will be less significant, let us keep nature as a meaningful influence and important part of golf when playing.  You are right, for match play competition, it is okay, even better, to have nature control things rather than "the instruments of golf."
It seems today it doesn't matter where the pros are each week, it simply comes down to how they are playing to determine the winner.  I think in today's medal play format, fairness and the instruments of golf prevail over nature.  This is why everyone enjoyed the British Open last year, nature had a bigger part in the outcome.

[ForkaB]

Lynn

Please escuse me, but wasn't last year'sBritish Open played in a stroke play format?

TE Paul

I actually understand what Behr was trying to say in the piece you excerpted, and actually empathise with him a bit!  He is nevertheless mostly, "away with the fairies" on this particular crusade.  As Pat and others have said, the answer to your initial question is an unequivocal "Yes."  As the Scots would be wont to say, if they ever happened to be exposed to such ideas:

"Nae competition, nae gowf."

[DMoriarty]

To discover how possible it may be to move golf closer to what may be considered a "sport" in nature VS a man-made rules and convention riddled "game".

I would imagine that the first golf competition began when the second shepherd found a suitable rock and stick.  That being said, today's version of "competition" in golf is worth further study, as competition may be taking a serious toll on the game.  One might start by taking a look at how competition (at least competition at the highest levels) has changed throughout the years.  I am sure some better versed in the history of the game will correct me if I am wrong, but, perhaps naively, I imagine that in times past "sport" in golf was more of a verb and less of a noun.  The difference between "sport" and "a sport" is probably pretty complicated, but I'll bet we might understand the difference by examining how seriously "competitors" from different eras took/take themselves.  

Does it make any sense to take our direction from a bunch of guys who devote their lives not to the game of golf, but to their ability to perfectly and repeatedly hit a ball with a club?  Ironic, but it might be the tour pro who has the most in common with the first lone shepherd who started hitting a rock with a stick.  

[Rick Shefchik]

TE Paul:

I think I get it. And I think there's something to this curiosity about non-competitive golf. What if we just went out to the open spaces with a club and a ball and tried to hit cool shots -- like kids throwing rocks at tin cans or birds -- until we didn't feel like doing it anymore and went home, rather than going home after holing out 18 times? What if we decided to hit a ball from here to there (wherever there was, be it 400 yards away or 4 miles away), and if we lost the ball, we just put another one down and kept hitting till we got "there," without counting how many times we hit it?

Lousy sport, you say? Probably. It would never catch on in any large numbers? I suppose that's right. But it could be that golf as we actually play it is somewhere in the middle of a developmental arc between Frisbee and bowling.

In Frisbee, the idea used to be to put on a pair of cut-off jeans, tie a bandana around your dog's neck and go out to the park with a pal and toss around the ol' plastic disc. No point to it, really, except to make cool throws. Only now there's an abomination called "disc golf." It's still immeasurably cruder than really golf, but it has its "courses," its "holes" and its tournaments. A good, drunken afternoon on the quad spoiled, if you ask me -- but they didn't ask me.

On the other end, there's bowling. I don't know the history of bowling, but I'd have to assume it started outside with somebody setting up some sticks or rocks for pins, and then rolling a semi-round rock along the bumpy ground in an effort to see how many of the pins he or she could knock down.

Now bowling is refined to within an inch of its life, with polished hardwood lanes and machine-calibrated balls and automatic pin spotting machines and electronic scoring, etc. We tend to think that golf could never become THAT routine, with all the bad bounces and imperfections removed until all that mattered was technique, but isn't that the direction we're headed, and isn't competition the reason?

You've given us something interesting to think about, Tom. I don't know what the answer is, but I for one don't disagree with the question.

[tonyt]

Much of my golf is played without a pencil. And that twilight evening nine or the get up early 18 and home well before lunch is divine. Often alone.

I don't get involved in the weekly grind of Members club competition, like I did as a junior. But my buddies and I do have golf weekends away either for our own little tourney (awesome fun), or a Ryder Cup style six on six 54 hole event (the ultimate in exciting competitiveness).

I think that if the competitions or outlets to compete were taken away, there would be less meaning to my soul-massaging games of just sheer fun and solitude. So I love golf being all things to me, at various different times.

[ForkaB]

We need to define "competition."  Some here seem to feel that this refers only to the PGA Tour (tm) while others, me included, believe that even if you are just trying to make a clean strike on a ball in an open field with no "hole" in sight or mind you are "competing" with at least yourself.  Others seem to feel that there is a fundamentally significant difference in competing against other individuals for a score (stroke play) vs. competing against one individual for a result (match play).  I and others do not, at least in the context of this discussion.

Behr seems to be advocating a "summer of love" sort of golf whereby the only rule is that there are no rules, and in Mao's words, we should "let a thousand flowers bloom."   He is much closer to Michael Murphy than a pint of Murphy's in the clubhouse after a Saturday medal at Ballyliffin.

I like playing both sorts of golf, but I am also practical and wonder how many people really have the opportunity to express the "freedom" that Behr advocates?  It might catch our fancy, for example, to stand on the first tee at Merion (East) and suddenly decide to play the course backwards.  Notwithstanding that the new "1st" would be a great and nearly impossible hole, the human costs of numerous diners choking on their turtle soup would make this a very impracticable concept.  At least IMHO.

Without a "hole" and "The rules" there is no "golf" and nothing but trivial competition.  Perhaps Behr was thinking of "kolven" or "ring-ting-allevio" when he made his provocative but wild-eyed statements.........

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich
When someone is ..."just trying to make a clean strike on a ball in an open field with no "hole" in sight or mind.." you suggest that ..."you are "competing" with at least yourself".
I guess this could be seen as self competition but it can also be seen as just practicing the "sporting" aspects of the game or as a competency check. It is the most effective way to play the "game", relieve yourself of the pressures associated with results, focus on the process and let the outcome speak for itself.
I agree there is no fundamental difference between competition under differing formats. The differences you say have been expressed refer to the "mindset" of playing the different formats, not to the definition of competition.
They also refer to golfer's being more accepting of nature and hazardous areas (Mike's bunker example) when the format is match play where one hole is not an end-all, be-all to the game.

Mike,
Allowing a drop outside a bunker with the same one stroke penalty used for all the other hazards might have a positive effect on lessening player's preoccupation with "fairness" of bunkers. The relief might only be for stroke play and would be equitable as there already exist many differences between the two formats.        
  

[ForkaB]

Jim (and Mike)

"Penal" bunkers can be just as effective in match play as stroke play.  The fact is that virtually anybody can get up and down from the Road Hole Bunker (not that they will, more than <5% of the time, but getting the ball out for a 5 or 6 is not that hard).  So, if you are one up and your opponent hits it in there and you are in the middle of the fairway playing your second shot, what do you do?  Hit it short right and then rely on yourself to hit the not always that easy pitch and run shot fairly close.  Go long left for the easier pitch back, but rquiring you to flirt with the Swilcan Burn?  Go for the green to try to close the deal immediately?  What if you are square?  Or one up?

Generalisations generally do not work......

Jim (and Tom P, and Maxie B) my dictionaries use the word "competitive" when describing the word "sport" and "amusement" when describing the word "game."  I think trying to parse any difference between the two words is trivial (and impossible) and really doesn't add anything to our understanding and/or enjoyment of our sport/game. (insert smiley face here).

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I really can't believe you. I find it almost impossible to comprehend how you could have written what you just did in post #17. You're supposed to be a relatively bright guy. That's not remotely close to anything Max Behr has said. Have you really read ANYTHING he's ever said on this subject?

The best I can do right now is ask you to go over to the thread on "scientific architecture" and read carefully post #18 and #20. I know it's a bit long and a lot to read, I'm sorry about that but it's the best I can do right now to reiterate what he said and how it might relate to this thread. If you don't want to read it--then you just don't--but if you want to have the slightest idea what any of this is about you're going to have to read it eventually. But it would certainly be a better idea if you'd just read what he wrote--because if you do you might get an idea of how all this ties together.

But again, he never remotely said anything like what you seem to assume he said on this thread about competition in golf.

I admit, the title of this thread and what is meant by "competition" does need to be defined better as you said. That's my fault for the way I phrased the title of this thread.

And I will define what I mean by that better but I just can't do that now as a lot of it is in posts #18 and #20 on the "scientific architecture" thread anyway. But of course, again, it's all definitely in his own articles.

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich;

If it's so relatively easy to make 5 from the Road Hole Bunker, then why were the Links governing board so concerned about ensuring that the professionals were not made "to look foolish" from there?

To answer your question, in a Match Play scenario, I would absolutely play short right if my opponent found the bunker, because I would be likely taking anything worse than 5 out of the equation.  

I would be simply playing risk assessment, figuring my opponent's odds of making 4 or 5 are considerably more dubious than my own, even with MY spastic chipping game.

[ForkaB]

Tom P

I was just channeling your thoughts on Behr.  Sorry if I misinterpreted what I assumed you said he said.  I'll tell my dealer to cut down the proportion of La Cumbre Sensemilla in my next order.

Mike

I said it was relatively easy to make a five OR SIX from the RHB.  The "or six" makes a big difference, tactically.  The pros look foolish because they feel (often rightly so) that they have to get a 4.  I also think that making 5 is not as iron clad as you might think from the right hand lay-up option.  If this were so, the Swedish team in the Dunhill 5-6 years ago wouldn't have all taken the long left option (to their distress) when they only really needed 5's to win the Cup.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
I said that there is no difference in the meaning of the word  competition between golf formats. Thank you for illustrating my point by showing that there are different approaches to competing within these two formats.

Try another dictionary.   Webster defines sport n. as "any activity or experience that gives enjoyment or recreation; pastime; diversion".  Sport v. is "to play or frolic".

[ForkaB]

Jim

As I'm sure you know (and I suspect that MaxB knew), the two words are virtually synonymous.  Trying to contrast the two is like trying to decide whether a 3-foot uphill putt on Pine Valley is different than a 3-foot uphill putt on Pebble Beach.  Behr may have had many capabilities, but semantics was not one of them.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()