[Peter Pallotta]

I was reading a long article from way back in 1906. It said that "Thinking Golf" was all the rage in America, and that club committees were busy having their courses altered so as to  better exemplify this new ethos. (It mentions Walton Heath as a wonderful example of Thinking Golf). I'd never come across that term before, but while the term is fairly clunky, it seems to describe pretty well what they were talking about, i.e. the idea that hazards should be placed/arranged so that players could think and play their way around them instead of being forced to go over them.  Interestingly, the article notes that the great amateurs of the day were more enamoured of the Thinking Golf idea than the professionals were, one of whom (I think it was Taylor, or it may have been Braid) thought it 'unfair' that a worse player was not necessarily penalized for being unable to get over a hazard that the better player could.

As I say, I'd never come across that term, though what it describes sounds a little like the more common division used to describe two types of golf course architecture, i.e. strategic vs penal; but I'm not sure that it's an exact parallel to/synonym for that. Anyhoo, just found myself wondering what the effect on golf course archicture might've been and how things may have develped differently if the "Thinking Golf" term/concept had survived instead of being supplanted by the strategic-penal divide.

Peter     

[RSLivingston_III]

I would bet that "thinking golf" and strategic are the same thing. It would be interesting to know who first used "strategic" to describe design.

[Adam Clayman]

Not to sidetrack, but one of the words I'm stuck on these days is freedom. Thinking golf sounds like it requires freedom to choose, to think ones way around.

I wonder if dear ol' Max ever used the term thinking golf?

[Peter Pallotta]

Ralph, Adam -

no track here to sidetrack. Yes, the "thinking golf" ethos probably is synonymous with what would later be called strategic design, but there were a couple of things in the article that gave me pause - e.g. the promotion of the use of rough throughout, and the sense that in thnking golf golfers wouldn't be provided with another way to par a hole, but that they'd be given a means/route to always find a way to bogie it.  Maybe just the same thing in different words, but I still found it interesting that this specific term was used once and then wasn't ever again.

Adam - you introduced me to the idea of freedom golf soon after I got here, and helped me understand what you meant by that. But I'm starting to think that "freedom golf" is sui generis, its own category -- and one that doesn't necessarily 'align with' any other style or ethos of golf course architecture. I'm starting to think that an architect really has to have 'freedom' foremost in his mind if he's to come close to achieving it at all

Peter

[paul cowley]

 I think that most of the early golf venues were designed similar to obstacle courses....with one route that everyone had to take, and your measure was the time [or strokes ] that it took one to complete it .

No options.

Then the idea of allowing alternate ways to negotiate the course came into being....which offered a choice....hence the thinking part. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Paul

I follow your comment but isn’t your opinion slightly compromised by the widening of the Old Course in the 19th Century, thus allowing more options. In my mind this gives the player freedom of choice and forces him to think his game, certainly to the flag.

As for an obstacle course, I don’t believe that to be the case as predominately the natural contours of the land were incorporated into the design. Bunkers were retrofitted, which to me suggests that the designers intended the golfer to plan his approach to the pin – perhaps ‘Thinking Golf’ although I have never heard that phrase before. Having said that I was taught that your Tee shot is taken after you initially plan your route to the pin. Adjustments to be made subject to the quality of ones shot and resting position of the ball. I was encouraged to use the rough and all parts of the course in my game if I felt confident enough.

Planning and thinking my shots has always been part of my game, but this is done on the course as I approach my ball. Through this thought process I calculate distance, select my club and plan my shot (I do not use any artificial measuring aid or marker, preferring to be responsible for my own performance), like many, many other golfers worldwide. Thinking Golf is in real terms nothing new but as mentioned before I have never heard it called that.

Not intending to score points or prove an argument but for the purpose of this post and a serious comment, playing golf as I have just described is how I would define Thinking Golf. But should using outside information (including all forms of distance & yardage aids) disqualify you from playing ‘Thinking Golf’. I expect if the requirement is for the Golfer alone to think then plan his route/shot, then it would certainly not be part of that concept. I believe this proves the importance of the Walking Game as the carts facilitates the need for these artificial aids. Carting allows no time to understand the course or its GCA features, no time to absorb the complexity of the surroundings but just enough time to use your range finder, taking the shot, prior to walking back to your cart. So logically, I expect I could say that carts users do not play ‘Thinking Golf’ and those using distance aids have also fallen at the last hurdle proving unwilling to carry the thought process through to its final conclusion. Or is that just me trying to take the moral high ground?   

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Do you have a cite for the article?

The idea of "strategic golf" didn't spring fully formed one day into the heads of golf designers. The modern notion developed over time. Your article would seem to be one step (among many) along that road.

What's equally interesting is that the concept - like any other concept - developed not just by way of fleshing out an affirmative definition, but also by way of opposition to other design ideas.

That is to say, an important step in figuring out what strategic design WAS, was to figure out what it WASN'T. And that's why people like Taylor (and later Crane) and others are still so relevant.

Bob     

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob

It's from the November 18 1906 edition of The Sun, out of the great city of New York NY.

I don't have the pdf and selecting the "text" just gets a garble of letters, so no easy way to share it.

I found it on the Library of Congress, Digitial Archives, Historic Newspapers. With the way you're approaching this, I think you might find it an interesting and edifying read.

Here's a snippet from later in the article:

"All   agree   that   rough   grass   is   fine  as a continuous side  hazard.   Side bunkers are indorsed, the   best   so   placed   that   they will not be affected by the wind. James  Braid indorses side   bunkers   at   150   to   180  yards from the   tee.  Side   hazards and   hazards   in and across   the   fairway   to   the   hole   are   agreed on as   the   most   severe   tests   of   skill.  Colt regards pot   bunkers   as   preferable   to  all  but natural ones..."

[paul cowley]

Melvyn....I am not so much addressing the links courses but the more design contrived courses that developed early on in the US [and I would assume in the UK on courses that were constructed outside of the linksland areas].

I agree the widening of TOC provided for much more strategic play options.

What I am suggesting is that the design thoughts on many of the early courses was to provide a one rout venue, similar to an obstacle course, or steeplechase layout, and that they really weren't looking for strategy and options....every one had to play the same course and the player who overcame these obstacles the best won...as that was the accepted mentality of what constituted the challenge of the generally penal game of the time.

 I think Peter is hitting on the shift in this mentality to a broader approach...varying strategies of play.

The Strategic Dawn....just an evolutionary event similar to when caveman first uses fire, caveman carries fire, caveman creates fire................etc.

[Sean_A]

Ralph, Adam -

no track here to sidetrack. Yes, the "thinking golf" ethos probably is synonymous with what would later be called strategic design, but there were a couple of things in the article that gave me pause - e.g. the promotion of the use of rough throughout, and the sense that in thnking golf golfers wouldn't be provided with another way to par a hole, but that they'd be given a means/route to always find a way to bogie it.  Maybe just the same thing in different words, but I still found it interesting that this specific term was used once and then wasn't ever again.

Adam - you introduced me to the idea of freedom golf soon after I got here, and helped me understand what you meant by that. But I'm starting to think that "freedom golf" is sui generis, its own category -- and one that doesn't necessarily 'align with' any other style or ethos of golf course architecture. I'm starting to think that an architect really has to have 'freedom' foremost in his mind if he's to come close to achieving it at all

Peter

Peter

I think the alternative route was a way for the scratch player to get an easy bogie and a decent shot at par with a good chip and a putt or a good wood getting home.  I spose decenty players to would have the same opportunity for hard par/easy bogie, but probably not so consistently.

So far as I know, rough has always been a very important part of golf course design.  However, I believe in the old days archies imagined 45 yard wide fairways rather than 25-35 yard fairways.  In this context rough can be seen as totally different than how we see it.

It is interesting that Braid has a reputation for penal bunkering.  Other than Carnoustie, I don't know of a Braid course which relies on this sort of design.  Certainly what I consider to be his best designs don't.  Perhaps Braid spoke in context of championship golf and had a clear division in his mind of when it was appropriate to use such a scheme.

Ciao

[Thomas MacWood]

I'm not sure if thinking golf is exactly synonymous with the strategic golf, it sounds like it is more the antithesis of the formulaic crosshazard scheme that he been so popular, where there was absoultely no thinking, just lay the hardzards down a regular intervals. Everyone was in agreement that idea had to go. As seen in the short exerpt there were a lot different thoughts on what was the best bunkering scheme; you also see that in Hutchinson's 'Golfgreens and Green-keeping' published in 1906. I reckon this article may have been infuenced by that book.

[BCrosby]

Tom Mac -

I don't think anyone is saying Peter's "Thinking Golf" is synonymous with the strategic design principles we all know and love. To be clear, it is not.

It is, however, part of the sorting out process that got us to those principles eventually. Hutchinson and others played an important role early on in that process.

All of which is part of the fascinating evolution of an idea.

Bob 

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - nice one there, the "Strategic Dawn".  Somewhere an ape-man threw a golf club high in the air, and when it had stopped twirling....

Sean - thanks, an important point to remember when I read about rough back then, i.e. the average fairway width

Bob - the evolution of an idea, but what do you think - was it an idea that was actually long in practice (at least somewhere) before it became consciously articulated, or was it a step by step practical process that literally happened on the ground? When did the theory and the practice become praxis?

Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter - Any answer would have a lot of moving parts, so if you don't mind I'll punt for the time being. By that I mean off the top of my head the answer is "Yes and no".

Bob

[TEPaul]

"The idea of "strategic golf" didn't spring fully formed one day into the heads of golf designers. The modern notion developed over time. Your article would seem to be one step (among many) along that road.
What's equally interesting is that the concept - like any other concept - developed not just by way of fleshing out an affirmative definition, but also by way of opposition to other design ideas.
That is to say, an important step in figuring out what strategic design WAS, was to figure out what it WASN'T."


Bob:

I think that was not just true of the process of figuring out what strategic design WAS and WASN'T but it was also true of the process of figuring out what golf course architecture WAS and WASN'T----eg before they figured out what it SHOULD BE (particularly INLAND) they needed a few decades of creating things they came to realize it SHOULDN'T BE---eg basically replicas of things like steeplechase courses (certainly the hazard features). Some of this can probably be explained by the fact that most of the features (hazard and obstacle features) of the early linksland courses were not exactly man-made anyway! 

I don't even think the process of TOC becoming more strategic was a result of the application of "strategic thinking" in golf architecture. At first it was merely a result of the process of figuring out how to make it less congested and less dangerous. That's why TOC was widened.

It may not have had much too do, if anything, with strategic thinking at first. It seemingly took the world a number of decades to figure out, and certainly with inland courses outside Scotland and the linksland, what that widening of TOC actually meant in the context of both "strategic thinking" AND "golf course architecture". 

I think it took golfers or just MAN, 2-3 DECADES, after the first emigration of golf outside Scotland or coastal areas like the Scottish linksland, to figure out WHAT the significance WAS of what those areas had naturally, AND that THAT had to basically be completely replicated by man-made construction ELSEWHERE around the world in all other areas that never HAD those kinds of NATURAL features and assets for golf that the linksland and coastal sites had. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()