Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Matthew Mollica on January 05, 2003, 07:46:47 PM
-
For the first time in a long while, this weekend saw me play a match play event at my home club. The event was a welcome change from usual par, stableford or stroke competitions.
I couldn’t help but look at the course in a different perspective during the morning. I recalled all the older golf books I’ve read, which speak of the predominant form of the game being match play, rather than medal, in times past.
I’m sure that courses were designed in decades past, with match play, and ‘shot-swinging holes’ more at the forefront of architects’ minds, and that this approach led to more enjoyable courses.
Has the predominance of stroke play adversely affected today’s course architecture ?
Matthew
-
Matthew:
Man, we've been all over this subject, I think, on some other threads recently.
It's not stroke play predominance exactly that may have a "stroke play" influence and a negative influence on golf architecture in modern time-- it's more of just a "stroke play mentality". Most play today is still vastly a majority of match play.
So then why would a "stroke play mentality" be effecting the game, affecting players' thinking and maybe creeping into architecture too as a negative influence?
A very large reason! The handicapping procedure!
Handicapping, unfortunately, even in match play uses as a posting procedure of a single round gross score--which is the stroke play format.
The best way to break that mentality, cetainly in match play, is to set up an easy posting procedure on the computer to post hole by hole because that is the match play format!
If that happened I think the "stroke play mentality" and the negative influence you speak of would begin to diminish and hopefully its effect on architecture too.
-
How many people in the US carry handicaps? Not many. I'd guess 10-15% of rounds played here are posted (and that's probably generous) Everyone else plays gross score, and no change to the handicapping procedure will change that. Even those of us who do post our scores report our gross score if someone asks what we shot. If I shot a 79 that includes a quad I say "I shot 79", not "I shot an adjusted 77." If I post hole by hole I still have my scorecard, and I still know that gross score is all that counts when I'm playing for myself.
The average golfer takes his cue from the pros. Witness how things filter from the pro tours down to average golfers, stuff like waggling for people who couldn't even swing an axe, let alone a golf club. People taking their glove off to putt who are doing well when they take under 40 putts in a round, etc. We just hope stuff like Sergio's OC regripping don't result in success lest we start seeing that pitiful display on our local tracks! Change the pro tours to Stableford scoring, and the herd would eventually follow.
-
Sorry TEPaul to be regurgitating old topics,
I am relatively new to GCA, and although I've scanned lots of archives, I've not seen threads which have discussed this topic.
If you could point me in the right area, I'd be most appreciative.
Matthew
-
I think MatthewM is on to something here. Look at all the old photos, there was no designing for fairness (fairway tee to green)and it seems that the majority had a penal rugged look about them.(At least those in dunesland) In match play, if you hit into an inextricable spot, you try a miracle shot and/or pick up and move on. With stroke play it's hard to do that because thats how you measure yourself against the course, itself. With the CCFAD, most likely you're not intamatley familiar with the course and the triple bogey or other can come up and bite you frequently.
I believe it's the commercialism in TommyN's, Desmond Muirhead article, pointed out that is responsible for both.
-
DougS;
You think only 10-15% of the rounds here are posted? Would you also mean by that that only 10-15% of the golfers here have handicaps? Would you also mean by that that app. 85-90% of golfers here play stroke play exclusively?
I really don't think so. And if that is true I really don't think those 85-90% who are playing stroke play without any handicap to their name are going to have much effect on golf architecture because they are playing stroke play without a handicap to their name. Why or even how would they have any effect on architecture? Who would even hear their concerns about "fairness" or the "stroke play mentality" if in fact they have any concerns?
I would think that app. 85-90% of golfers probably play match play at some point and for that reason a good deal of them probably have a handicap of some kind. The general way for anyone to determine what shots to allocate is off a handicap.
I admit that the USGA et al has a lot of work to do to try to offer ease in handicap establishment to the entire sector of public player in America but even as ineffecient as they are in that regard I'm fairly certain that a lot more American golfers than 10-15% have a handicap of some kind. And to have a handicap generally you have to post scores.
-
Really I doubt that even 10% of all rounds are posted... And, even in a match play game (which is normal for many of us), we may not be as prudent as we would if we weren't conscious of our gross score to post. If your partner has hit two in the water - you still want to make birdie and may play aggressively.
I think the biggest negative influence on course design is the same as in many disciplines - simple lack of commitment to detail and craftsmanship. There is an economy to "design by formula" or "standardization" which has gripped all design disciplines. Look how much more ordinary so many homes are today than they were early in the century.
-
Stroke play has probably more of an influence on course set up these days than course design. Take Merion for example. That course (at least this summer when I last played it) was set up for match play not medal play. If your are a relatively weak golfer and trying to post a true score, you will struggle at best and probably not be able to do so. You will also hold up play looking for balls in waste high fescue. Fortunately, Merion is private and members are in most every group. If the course were public set up in that condition, it would take six hours to play and most players would not be able to post a true score.
Personally I loved the set up but the two guests I had with me really struggled. The one is a 7 handicap and shot maybe 95 and the other is a 14 and had no chance to post an actual score. It just wore him out. When you start to realize that your ball is lost or unplayable everytime you miss a fairway, the pressure builds quickly. But back in 1930, most golfers just picked up and moved on to the next hole.
Mark
-
Guys - Don't worry so much about who has handicaps and how many cards are going in and so on.
What I'm driving at is the predominant influences on architects of yesteryear, as opposed to those affecting the designers of today.
To put it in simple terms - one might say that architects at the start of the 1900's and in the following three or four decades, thought that match play would get played lots. I'm proposing that they built courses accordingly. Short par fours, more holes with many ways to the pin, and greater variety of scores able to be posted on holes.
I'm certain that designers of today build 440yd par fours, thinking that this will be a good finish to a stroke play tournament, and that it will be a demanding way to finish a championship. I argue thsat this mindset was absent at the start of the 1900's.
Holes such as the straight, tree-lined 400yd corridor, would have been built less frequently, if architects thought that more match play would have been conducted on their course, because a hole such as this sees little joy during a match play round.
Think of the skeleton of the holes. Holes which provide good theatre for match play, with heroic options, and different strategic approaches, would have been far more prevalent in years past, if my argument holds up.
I believe most in this forum enjoy such holes, and would state that holes of this kind make the great courses what they are.
This is what I want your thoughts on. Sorry if I've confused you.
Matthew
P.S. Tom - which past threads are you referring to ??
-
MathewM,
I would agree with AClayman,
Stroke play accelerated the implementation of "more fair" features and designs.
No matter what one scored, you could only lose one hole at match play, but the idea that one could take a 10 on a hole, and "ruin" their round, contributed to the neutering of features and designs in the name of fairness.
But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
-
I think stroke play has definitely influenced golf design.
A. Holes deemed quirky or unfair are not built on courses where someone someday may want to play a tournament. Can you imagine Rees Jones putting some quirk into a hole when he "doctors" a course.
B. Holes where there is something fun to be had, but may result in triple bogeys are not built often. A quote from Fazio to a builder one day, "we don't want controvesy here."
C. The conception that to "test a golfer" we need to tighten fairways to "identify the straightest hitters" is prevalent.
D. Finally I find the need to test a golfer"s mettle, his ability to handle misfortune, or to judge a prudent path is overlooked in today's designs.
And finally Tom Paul, I doubt that 10% of all rounds at public courses are posted. Less than 25% at privates.
-
Matthew:
Basically the things you mentioned and the questions you asked in the last post are the very things that this site talks about and discusses almost every day and has from the very beginning of Golfclubatlas.
Almost all of us would like to see the things you mentioned but the reasons why they aren't happening as much as they did before WW2, for instance, are all basically the influences of the "Modern Age" of architecture that began after WW2 and carries on today.
What you're asking is an immense subject. Check out some of the archives and you should see plenty of titles that specifically discuss and answer some of the things you're asking.
-
Lynn Shackelford,
At a club I'm familiar with, they greatly reduced, and may have stopped non-posters.
When golfers tee off, the starter records the foursome along with their time out and time in, as does the proshop/caddymaster. If you don't return a score that day, you're first asked about it, if the answer is deemed unsatisfactory, and most are, your playing partners are consulted, and usually, the lowest round you've shot that year, or par is posted for you.
It's not a perfect system, but it seems to have worked well for this club.
-
I've argued the danger of too much medal play many times on this forum. I think golf is seriously damaged by everyone's desire to have a number at the end of the round. Golfers' are slaves to their final score and will only be free when they eliminate score and play for the beauty of the game.
Medal play has been one of the big contributors to the ruination of golf and golf architecture. Medal play doesn't have a concept of fairness. Any sort of inequality will equal out over the holes being played. Medal play has only one result, and people get upset if the 13 they score in some unfair hole ruins all the work they did for the other 17.
Patrick_Mucci writes:
At a club I'm familiar with, they greatly reduced, and may have stopped non-posters.
I bet they don't accept the legitimate excuse that I was playing a match and therefore didn't keep a score. The USGA, in their infinite wisdom, are very confused on this point. They claim you should post all scores but in Rule 33-1:
Certain special rules governing stroke play are so substantially different from those governing match play that combining the two forms of play is not practicable and is not permitted. The results of matches played and the scores returned in these circumstances shall not be accepted.
So USGA, do we pay attention to the rules committee or the handicap committee?
Dan King
"Golf is the only game in which a precise knowledge of the rules can earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship."
--Patrick Campbell
-
Dan King,
The problem may be human nature.
Many clubs hold tournaments with either trophies, plaques, prizes or money going to the winners.
Playing at scratch isn't equitable, and handicaps must be used.
And, golfers have been known to do funny things to manipulate their handicap.
If you don't adopt a system, and administer it universally and consistently, how would you develop a reliable handicap for all of the members ?
Not an easy or popular task.
-
Patrick_Mucci writes:
If you don't adopt a system, and administer it universally and consistently, how would you develop a reliable handicap for all of the members?
If I ruled the world -- what a wonderful world it would be -- I'd do away with the whole idea of the more numbers the better. Admit it, Dean Knuth was wrong. More doesn't mean better. It just means far too many numbers for anyone to keep an eye on.
I'd accept that there will be sandbaggers, and not make a system trying to eliminate what can't be eliminated.
But I'd make it less profitable to be a sandbagger. I'd outlaw big prizes for tournaments. Amateurs should be playing for love of the game, not prizes. I'd make acceptance of large prizes the end of golfers amateur status.
I'd have occasional medal play tournaments, played according to the rules of golf, to establish handicaps. I wouldn't accept scores played not according to the rules of golf.
These medal tournaments would be some of the more prestigious tournaments of the year, also so it wouldn't make sense to sandbag these to win less prestigious tournaments.
I would restore power to the handicap chairperson, taking it away from GHIN. I'd also make handicap calculations open to bidding, and get the USGA out of the business of handicapping.
If I end up not ruling the world, and the idea is to just improve the current, terrible system, I'd institute real peer review by using the Internet.
Dan King
"Nature has left this tincture in the blood.
That all men would be tyrants if they could."
--Daniel Defoe
-
Matthew,
When I look at my Donald Ross book the diagrams of the holes look like what is being built today in terms of overhead layout. Ross wrote about how the average golfer would benefit from shorter holes due to added sets of tees. If you were playing match play, why would you need shorter holes?
Robert Hunter wrote in The Links, "Even Par, once so perfect and so formidable, is now so battered and beaten at times that one wonders if his tenure of office is not soon to be terminated." He was complaining about how the increased distance of the ball was affecting golf holes. If match play was all they cared about back then, what difference would it make if the ball flew 200 yards or 220, since everyone would have the same opportunity for increased distance. Even then they were defending par. The Links was printed in 1926.
There was stroke and match play back in the earlier part of the century. And it looks like much of the architecture of the early-mid 1900's had the same sort of layout as what we see being built in the modern era, whatever that is. Maybe there are not a lot of Pine Valleys being built these days because of the penal nature of that course, but if you think match play golfers complain less about difficult holes than stroke play golfers, you might be kidding yourselves. I doubt that there were a lot of Pine Valleys being built in 1920 either.
Is it at all possible that some here on this formidable website are rewriting history in their own preferred image?
-
Dan:
You said (or quoted the USGA);
"Certain special rules governing stroke play are so substantially different from those governing match play that combining the two forms of play is not practicable and is not permitted. The results of matches played and the scores returned in these circumstances shall not be accepted."
Actually combining the two formats of match play and stroke play within a single round is not the same thing as posting a score (gross or adjusted gross) from match play for handicap purposes.
-
Dan,
Medal play does have a concept of fairness. You, as the golfer, make a choice to enter into a system of scoring that awards the golfer that scores better over 18 holes, in some cases 72 holes, or whatever. You know the rules going in. If you shoot a 13 on one hole, you can expect that to hurt you in the tournament if others are scoring 5's. What is unfair about that? Are golfers being drugged and pulled into these stroke play matches or onto the golf course for solitary rounds where they are forced to keep score? If you don't want to be involved in handicapping your game, skip it. You are free and it is fair.
Some people think that medal play is a fairer way to find the most consistently best golfer because in match play you can actually win a match and shoot a higher score. I can see making a case either way depending on what you prefer. But I don't see one being fair and one unfair.
-
Maybe the best way to look at stroke play is the way Max Behr looked at it. It isn't golf!
-
TEPaul,
You could look at golf that way. But for a lot of people, including many of the architects of many of the great golf courses around the world, golf is bigger than just match play. Why not embrace all the fun possibilities of the game? At any rate, whatever you choose for yourself, I hope it is fun for you.
-
TEPaul writes:
Actually combining the two formats of match play and stroke play within a single round is not the same thing as posting a score (gross or adjusted gross) for handicap purposes.
So you'd play by match or medal play rules? I assume match, and then use the handicap guidelines for deciding what you would have scored? All this in the name of getting as many numbers as possible, regardless if they are legit or not? I know when I play a match, there are numerous times I don't hole out, which means I just guess what I would have made. Why not just stay home and also guess what I would have scored?
All this guessing, and confusion of the rules is resulting in a lot of people having no clue what it means to play by the Rules of Golf. I bet more than most golfers aren't aware of the significant differences between match and medal play rules.
The USGA should be promoting, not disparaging the Rules of Golf. This will be much easier on them when they get out of the lucrative handicapping business.
Dan King
"I miss the putt -- it's normal. I don't kill anybody so I forget about it."
--Costantino Rocca (on the missed 3-foot putt on the 17th hole of his singles match against Davis Love at the 1993 Ryder Cup)
-
C.B. Macdonald writes:
Medal play does have a concept of fairness.
I almost never respond to anonymous posts, but who knows, maybe you are the ghost of Mr. Macdonald, though you seem to have changed your tune since you passed.
You misunderstood me. I agree with what you used to believe (see below quote) that the concept of fairness or equity doesn't belong in golf. One of the greater tests in golf is accepting the unfairness inherent in the game, a test that has gone the way of the niblick.
But because medal play has become so popular, architects are attempting to build fairness into their designs. No longer can you have hazards impossible to get out of, places that cost more than a stroke, blind shots, poor lies in fairways, or holes that can easily result in wild swings in the score. Architects have moved away from hazards as a defense and moved toward length. Length is fair, hazards aren't.
Some people think that medal play is a fairer way to find the most consistently best golfer because in match play you can actually win a match and shoot a higher score.
Seems unfair doesn't it?
Dan King
"So many people preach equity in golf. Nothing is so foreign to the truth. Does any human being receive what he conceives as equity in his life? He has got to take the bitter with the sweet, and as he forges through all the intricacies and inequalities which life presents, he proves his metal. In golf the cardinal rules are arbitrary and not founded on eternal justice. Equity has nothing to do with the game itself. If founded on eternal justice the game would be deadly dull to watch and play."
--Charles Blair Macdonald
-
Dan,
You are confused about what I am saying about fairness. I am not concerned about the fairness of the ball bouncing or the evenness of wind or anything else along those lines. Play the ball as it lies. I believe however that any system, such a stroke play, the rules of which are presented to the golfer before hand, is fair. Unlucky bounces are part of that system, so nobody should squawk. Unlucky bounces occur also in match play for the record. No squawking there either.
C.B. MacDonald was well aware of Colonel Bogey when he wrote Scotland's Gift. In that book he takes great pains to discuss the ideal golf course. He says many things, not all of which might be easily argued as consistent, but one gets the picture. Here are a few of the things he wrote:
"Let the first shot be played in relation to the second shot in accordance with the run of the ground and the wind. Holes so designed that the player can, if he so wish, take risks commensurate to the gravity of the situation--playing as it were, 'to the score.'
"It is absolutely essential that the turf should be very fine so the ball will run perfectly true."
"Further I believe the course would be improved by opening the fair green to one side or the other, giving the short or timid players an opportunity to play around the hazard if so desired, but, of course, properly penalized by loss of distance for so playing."
These sorts of comments seem fair enough to me.
Donald Ross also wrote about changes he made to Number Two so that golf would be "a pleasure" instead of a "penance" for the average golfer. Maybe the olden, goldies shouldn't be given such a pass on this thread? Or maybe we shouldn't rewrite history.
-
MatthewM,
Speaking only of MacKenzie's designs, the most notable difference I notice between his and modern designs is that MacKenzie in designing for Match Play, always had the strongest, most interesting holes in the 15, 16, 17 possition and often a fairly nondescript 18th hole. This is true with Royal Melbourne, Pasatiempo, Cypress Point, Meadow Club, and even that one he designed with Bobby Jones. Most matches finish prior to the 18th of course. Now, architects either by desire or direction most often attempt to have a spectacular finishing hole. Is this bad? Only if you have a membership that plays most rounds in match play as they do at my course.
nels
-
MatthewM,
Alister MacKenzie wrote often that Match Play was the only golf that he considered when he designed his courses. Consequently MacKenzie usually had his most interesting, and challenging holes in the 15, 16 and 17 possitions, with often a fairly average 18th. This of course was because most matches finish before the 18th hole is reached. This is true of Cypress Point Club, Pasatiempo, Royal Melbourne, Meadow Club, and even that one he designed with the help of Bobby Jones. Modern architects, especially when designing a possible television venue strive to finish with a spectacular finishing hole, that the stroke play champion would have to survive. Is this bad? Most rounds, at least my rounds, have some sort of a match, so I guess when I play on those courses with my friends, it is. You can always allow the bets to be pressed on the 18th, which basically lets you play a wonderful one hole match.
Pat, TEPaul, you guy's really give strokes?
-
Matthew M
Don't bother trying to use the crack GCA search engine to find previous threads. For one, you could spend the rest of your life using that "tool" and still come up empty-handed. For another, anything that was ever said on any of those threads has already been said here, by largely the same people. Finally, each of those threads fizzled out fairly early when it was obvious that nobody could make any convincing argument that there were in fact such things as "match play" or "medal play" golf courses, or even golf holes which "favored" one or the other forms of golf. If you look at this "issue" in any depth, with any objectivity, you will find that golf holes are golf holes and have interest and quality irrespective of what form of golf is played over them.
Finally, there is a long-standing belief on this board that golfers "used to play match play almost exclusively" in the "golden age" and that "golfers in the UK and Ireland predominantly play match play." All of the evidence that I have ever seen tells me that statements such as these are complete myths, based on some sort of starry-eyed nostalgia or selective memory loss and not on any real attempt to find out the "facts."
Nels
By your 18th hole standard, there are a helluva lot of "bad match play" courses, including Merion, Carnoustie, NGLA, Dornoch, Birkdale, TPC Sawgrass, etc. Reversing the "standard," TOC, Olympic, Cypress, Ballybunion, etc. must be "bad stroke play" courses. Am I missing something?
Dan
Thanks for supporting my campaign to replace the USGA handicapping system with the UK one, which you describe elegantly in you're "if I ruled the world" post.
-
Rich - thanks for your answer.
nels -
I understand what you mean, but I surely doesn't hurt to have a great 18th as well. Why not have 18 great holes ?
Also, I think your description of the 18th at several of those courses, (Royal Melb in particular) as fairly ordinary, is a bit harsh.
Lynn S, you said -
I think stroke play has definitely influenced golf design.
A. Holes deemed quirky or unfair are not built on courses where someone someday may want to play a tournament. Can you imagine Rees Jones putting some quirk into a hole when he "doctors" a course.
B. Holes where there is something fun to be had, but may result in triple bogeys are not built often. A quote from Fazio to a builder one day, "we don't want controvesy here."
C. The conception that to "test a golfer" we need to tighten fairways to "identify the straightest hitters" is prevalent.
D. Finally I find the need to test a golfer"s mettle, his ability to handle misfortune, or to judge a prudent path is overlooked in today's designs.
Thank you for a great reply. This was the kind of thing I was looking for.
Pat Mucci - thank you also. Your succinct answer was also really appreciated. You typed - Stroke play accelerated the implementation of "more fair" features and designs.
No matter what one scored, you could only lose one hole at match play, but the idea that one could take a 10 on a hole, and "ruin" their round, contributed to the neutering of features and designs in the name of fairness.
Mark Fine - your comments on course setup re: rough and so on, using Merion as an example, was an excellent point, which I hadn't considered in my posting. Thanks !
Matthew
-
Rich,
Starry-eyed. Well said. Basically what I was getting at. Only it sounds like you have had this particular discussion a time or two and have already heard all the "facts".
Matthew,
The best thing regarding this subject (and all others in which the "Golden" architects are compared in some way to the "modern" architects) is to be careful about broad generalizations and exaggeration. Try to find examples of where golf architecture has taken a turn and then see if those examples are isolated cases or if they really do represent a real difference between that work found in "older golf books" and that work found in today's world. And be careful not to jump to any conclusions. I used to think that the Golden guys would have turned up their noses at moving soil and changing the lay of the land. But on occasion, if the budget was there, some of them did just that. MacDonald at Lido is a good example. It made me realize that people of all eras have often taken advantage of whatever opportunities are afforded them. I think if there were shot swinging holes back then, there are shot swinging holes today. But that is just my opinion. Take it for what it is worth.
-
Just as starry-eyed is Rich's (and now Dan's) advocation of the UK handicap system, which has many faults as well and would never work here in the US, outside of small private clubs where everyone knows each other and they play regular stroke play events. But Rich knows this, and Dan does as well! I sure as hell wish people actually would play in these stroke play events, and we had enough of them to give a meaningful sample to arrive at the handicaps we'll use for the 99% of the rest of our golf... it's just not gonna happen here and these fellows know it!
That being said, I wouldn't mind living in a world Dan King ruled... I wish all this would happen...
Given that's never going to, we live with the realities we face...
TH
-
Tom IV
Repeat after me:
The Pope of Slope is not Infallible.
The Pope of Slope is not Infallible.
The Pope of Slope is not Infallible.
Now, don't you feel better?
Promote tournament golf for the little people and the little people will come. Trust me.
Rihc
BTW, anybody who would wish to be ruled by Dan King needs an appointment with the good doctor Katz. Stat!
-
I didn't say I wished it. I said I wouldn't MIND living in said world. ;)
And also, the pope of slope is most definitely not infallible - never said he was.
He just came up with a damn good system, one that helps us a lot here in the US. No system is ever going to be perfect. But it works here pretty damn well...
But no hassles - we certainly have beaten this to death already!
TH
-
Dan King says:
"TEPaul writes:
'Actually combining the two formats of match play and stroke play within a single round is not the same thing as posting a score (gross or adjusted gross) for handicap purposes.'
So you'd play by match or medal play rules? I assume match, and then use the handicap guidelines for deciding what you would have scored? All this in the name of getting as many numbers as possible, regardless if they are legit or not? I know when I play a match, there are numerous times I don't hole out, which means I just guess what I would have made. Why not just stay home and also guess what I would have scored?
All this guessing, and confusion of the rules is resulting in a lot of people having no clue what it means to play by the Rules of Golf. I bet more than most golfers aren't aware of the significant differences between match and medal play rules.
The USGA should be promoting, not disparaging the Rules of Golf. This will be much easier on them when they get out of the lucrative handicapping business."
Dan:
You ask; “So you’d play by match or medal play rules?”
I’m surprised you of all people don’t know the answer to that. Or maybe you’re just asking a rhetorical question to indicate, again, how little you like the USGA’s Rules of Golf and related handicapping procedures.
But the answer is quite simple. You play by the rules of golf and it’s not recommended that you play match play and stroke play simultaneously. Why do they recommend that? Because there are various rules in the Rules of Golf that are different between the match play format and the stroke play format.
If you’re playing the stroke play format the handicap posting procedures are fairly obvious as are the stroke play rules of golf. If you’re playing match play you post your score after following the handicap posting procedures for match play golf that involves using the handicap procedure for adjusting hole scores which is found in the USGA’s handicap manual under section 4 which is called “Adjusting hole scores”. In both formats for handicap posting you’re expected to apply ESC (if need be) to create an “adjusted gross score” (AGS).
Of course there’s a certain degree of guesswork involved in the “adjusted hole score” procedure but it’s clearly spelled out in the procedure. It’s not an exact science and probably doesn’t need to be particularly with the supporting “peer review” process. To say something, as you did like, “Why not just stay home and also guess what I would have scored?” is basically a stupid remark, in my opinion.
Maybe most golfers aren’t aware of the differences in the rules between match play and stroke play and maybe even less are aware of the handicap posting procedures but nevertheless it’s all clearly there for any golfer to avail themselves of and it certainly isn’t rocket science to understand. Some people feel that golfers have a certain responsibility to play by the rules of golf and also to post scores by the proper procedure but clearly there may be plenty of others that don’t feel that way. You might be part of the latter group. So what? No one’s telling you not to play golf if you don’t feel like playing by the rules of golf or handicapping. The whole thing is really just there for the convenience of golfers everywhere (in the USGA’s purview) to play by uniform rules and procedures should they choose to want to do that.
And you go on to say; “The USGA should be promoting, not disparaging the Rules of Golf.” Why do you say that? The USGA is promoting the USGA’s Rules of Golf. Maybe you think they should be promoting what Dan King thinks the rules of golf should be or some set of rules from 1850 but that’s not going to happen.
And you end by saying; “The USGA should be promoting, not disparaging the Rules of Golf. This will be much easier on them when they get out of the lucrative handicapping business.”
I would suggest you have no idea whether or not the handicapping business is lucrative to the USGA. Their own books and accounting show the USGA’s GHIN system to be basically a break even entity for the USGA now after a number of years of costing them money. Essentially the GHIN system was conceived and is run by the USGA as a way of allowing the regional golf associations to offer a unified handicapping service provider and to provide the regional associations with an income from it to continue to operate as effective regional associations. I believe the GHIN system has done that well.
But on this issue you and I might have some agreement. It’s been my recommendation that the USGA look into subsidizing the entire GHIN system and pass that cost savings on to the regional associations so that they might pass that savings along to the clubs and the golfers and offer a good handicap service providing system for less.
This kind of recommendation would probably cost the USGA about $6 million a year but I feel they can afford it now and I think it should be considered one of their responsibilities to do so. In my opinion it would also solve their perceived problems of “anti trust”. A good lawyer could make a very good case that the USGA is not in the business of business if they aren’t charging anything for their product (the GHIN system)!
-
Tom Huckaby writes:
Just as starry-eyed is Rich's (and now Dan's) advocation of the UK handicap system, which has many faults as well and would never work here in the US, outside of small private clubs where everyone knows each other and they play regular stroke play events.
And the current system does work?
Why would it never work? Your argument is that American golfers don't play in regular tournaments like UK golfers. But the USGA handicap says they should. You are suppose to participate in official club events to maintain your handicap. This is how they currently work peer review.
Members of a golf club must have a reasonable and regular opportunity to play golf with each other. They must be able to return scores personally, and these scores must be available for review by fellow club members.
Click here for USGA definition of a golf club (http://www.usga.org/handicap/establish/index.html)
The golfers that don't play in tournaments are suppose to be weeded out. But they aren't. The handicap committees are weak, the golfers get to post scores in all the machines all over the country, and they get mailed a handicap card. The regional associations continue to make money off the 4.5 million golfers with a USGA handicap.
The USGA isn't about to remove people who don't play by the rules. Do that, and fees are drastically reduced.
I just looked up my handicap on GHIN. There is not a single T score on my card, and it goes back to 9/19/01. Has anyone contacted me about this? When I renewed with my club this year did anyone say anything? Has my handicap chairman gotten a notice from a computer program saying there should be concern here?
Looks like in this small anecdotal case, peer review is failing miserably. Wonder if others are maintaining handicaps without playing in periodic events?
My solution has trivial little differences from the current system. I just don't believe more is better. I don't believe all these golfers guessing what their score would be serves a purpose. I don't believe all these golfers earning handicaps without a clue about the Rules of Golf is in the best interest of American golf.
Play in club tournaments, medal play according to the Rules of Golf, or go and get a Yahoo handicap. Save USGA handicaps for those willing to play by rules. Make the USGA handicap something that matters, that it is somehow more meaningful than a Yahoo handicap.
TEPaul writes:
how little you like the USGA’s Rules of Golf and related handicapping procedures.
When did I ever say I didn't like the USGA Rules of Golf. I've said I don't always play by them and I think there are more enjoyable ways to play golf, but I still think they serve a valuable purpose for running a tournament. I do question some of the rules, but just like questioning my country, it doesn't mean I love it any less.
Of course there’s a certain degree of guesswork involved in the 'adjusted hole score' procedure but it’s clearly spelled out in the procedure. It’s not an exact science and probably doesn't need to be particularly with the supporting 'peer review' process.
What peer review process is that? Lets' say you want to peer review your buddy you played golf with last weekend. You go to www.ghin.com, and look him up. Oops it takes a month to get the score from the box at the course to the database. Who knows why it takes that long? Guess they must use Pony Express. So a month later, you decide to look him up. GHIN doesn't do anything as simple as tell you what course the person played, they tell you date and course rating/slope. There's some useful information. I just have to remember for a month this information, along with what score my buddy posted, and then compare. Yeah, like that is ever going to happen.
What would be so terrible about doing away with the Pony Express system and use a system that updates the numbers immediately, or at least within 24 hours? If you want peer review, why not go toward active peer review rather than the current passive method?
Why is quanity, despite the fact that many scores are guessed, better than quality?
The USGA is promoting the USGA’s Rules of Golf.
Many golfers are clueless on the Rules of Golf because the USGA puts no pressure on them to ever learn the rules. You can play this mixture of medal and match play, ignore almost all rules and still post as many scores as you want. What if they required you to play by the Rules of Golf to post, wouldn't that result in people making the effort to learn? Those that didn't want to learn would get a Yahoo handicap. A USGA handicap would become something to work towards.
I would suggest you have no idea whether or not the handicapping business is lucrative to the USGA.
It is lucrative to the regional associations. Wonder why the USGA is so worried about maintaining the 4.5 million USGA handicap participants, follow the money.
Dan King
"Where large sums of money are concerned, it is advisable to trust nobody."
--Agatha Christie
-
Dan: I've battled this way too much already with Goodale during your school-enforced absence in the last year. I don't have the energy to cover it again. Let's just say the system we have works just fine for the vast majority of people, most of whom never play in tournaments ever and who want a handicap with which to compete against their friends in what Rich would call "bounce rounds". They also want something to use if and when they do play events that require such... scrambles/best ball/other types of outings. So many never do stroke play tournaments....
But that's enough. I'll do my best to disagree and leave it alone, as I don't have the energy to fight this again.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby writes:
They also want something to use if and when they do play events that require such... scrambles/best ball/other types of outings. So many never do stroke play tournaments....
And these people are important to the USGA because...?
What would be so terrible, beyond the buckets of money the regional associations get, if the number dropped from 4.5 million golfers, to just those that are willing to play by the rules? When you are constantly changing a system to make it more lax so it doesn't put any strain on your members, you are making the system more and more meaningless.
Let those that just want a handicap get a Yahoo handicap or any of the other large number of handicap services willing to calculate handicaps for a fee. The USGA should be above all that. The USGA should be promoting the game, not making it into something that will appeal to the largest number of people.
What would be so terrible about making the USGA handicap card something of value?
Dan King
"Golf is a nice game, but that's all. It's never going to be an exciting game to watch on TV. It's not a circus and never will be one. The audience for golf is not going to change significantly. It's always going to be people who play it, understand it, and love it."
--Jack Nicklaus
-
These people are important because they play the game and they want to have an "official" handicap, given many events they are either required to do (for work or other purposes) or want to do, require an "official" handicap, and the yahoo one is not accepted for such. If the yahoo one becomes accepted, then I agree with you, down with the USGA version. But I truly don't care if the USGA does this or not, as you seem to... I have no dog in that fight, as they say.
The USGA card DOES mean something, Dan.
TH
-
Tom Huckaby writes:
These people are important because they play the game and they want to have an "official" handicap, given many events they are either required to do (for work or other purposes) or want to do, require an "official" handicap, and the yahoo one is not accepted for such.
I didn't ask why it is important to these people to have a handicap, I asked why is it important to the USGA that they have one of theirs?
The USGA motto is "For the good of the game" All these people getting handicaps without understanding the rules, is the game advanced in anyway? The USGA often state they want people to learn the rules. Here they have this wonderful opportunity with the carrot of handicapping, and instead they do their best to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
If the yahoo one becomes accepted, then I agree with you, down with the USGA version.
You're misunderstanding. I never said down with the USGA version. Make the USGA version mean something. Make it more valuable, not less.
The USGA card DOES mean something, Dan.
What is that?
Does it somehow mean this is a valid handicap, based on tournament play, knowledge of the Rules of Golf, peer review? Or does it mean the person is able to pay their fee every year and knows how to enter scores into a computer at the course?
Dan King
"I used to play golf with a guy who cheated so badly that he once had a hole in one and wrote down zero on his scorecard."
--Bob Bruce
-
Interesting how you are missing my intent, Dan. I'm not sure who's fault this is, but I'll accept that it's mine, for now. Let's try again.
1. "Tom Huckaby writes:
These people are important because they play the game and they want to have an "official" handicap, given many events they are either required to do (for work or other purposes) or want to do, require an "official" handicap, and the yahoo one is not accepted for such.
I didn't ask why it is important to these people to have a handicap, I asked why is it important to the USGA that they have one of theirs?"
I have no freakin' idea, nor do I care. As I said before I have no dog in that fight. All that truly is important (to me anyway) is the bottom line, which is that for the events so many people do, "official" handicaps are required. At this point in time, "official" means USGA/GHIN authorized. Nearly all golfers who care enough to get a handicap at all would want the "official" version, also, whatever that is.
2. "If the yahoo one becomes accepted, then I agree with you, down with the USGA version.
You're misunderstanding. I never said down with the USGA version. Make the USGA version mean something. Make it more valuable, not less."
Fair enough, understood. I don't see the worth of having two separate handicap systems, but you do, so more power to you.
3. "The USGA card DOES mean something, Dan.
What is that?
Does it somehow mean this is a valid handicap, based on tournament play, knowledge of the Rules of Golf, peer review? Or does it mean the person is able to pay their fee every year and knows how to enter scores into a computer at the course?"
All it means is that as of this writing, it is an "official" handicap. Ask yourself how many people who play the game actually have a USGA handicap, and then perhaps re-think this. It does mean a LOT, as it is today.
TH
-
Points of fact:
1. I love Huckaby...who doesn't
2. Huck rates for Golf Digest
3. Golf Digest raters must have a handicap no more than 3.
4. Just practice and play him straight up cause he is always a gracious winner despite his 5 handicap in friendly games.
5. When a system prostitutes even the loveliest of men it should be purged from a civilized society.
-
JakaB:
I appreciate the sentiments, well... #1 anyway. Just do understand that the rules for GD raters are that you have a 3 handicap at one point...When I submitted my application to GD I was 3.4 index and that was accepted - they ask for a copy of your handicap card. My index generally ranges from 3.0 to 5.5 or so, depending on how the putts fall, as it does for most people. PLEASE REST ASSURED I HAVE NEVER TAKEN MORE STROKES THAN I AM ALLOWED TO AND NEVER, EVER WILL.
No prostitution here, and if I didn't know you a bit and like you from our shared times together, I would really resent the implication. As it is, I am taking it for what it's worth.
TH
ps - you need to play with me more often... oh man do I lose way way way more often than I win.
-
Dan King:
After this, on this subject, I'll certainly have no more to say to you. All you are, as far as I'm concerned, is one big massive complainer--almost totally negative.
Most everything you said in your last post to me is just garbage, in my book--a whinner's litany! It appears you really don't have much idea how the US Handicap System works, nor the GHIN System, nor "peer review". "Pony Express"!? How much more of a ridiculous remark can you make?
Earn the "Right" to have a handicap, the way you suggest?! This is a game, a sport for Chrissakes, not something run by an overbearing government or police state!
I just can't imagine what your problem is exactly. Of course the USGA can continue to improve the things they do and the things they offer and they continue to do that and try to do that.
I can't count the people I know, have always known in golf who seem to get along just fine in golf with the way things are, and the way things have been in golf through the USGA, the regional associations and down through the clubs and other entities.
And you don't think the regional golf associations should earn money to try to stay afloat and be the effective regional associations they are?
I've been serving on one for years now, and I've done it all for nothing. Do you expect me to pay my own money to do that so my association can stay afloat?
I can't believe some of the continually negative things you constantly say. It's ridiculous to me! Why do you even bother with this game at all?
-
Mr. Schmidt: as a great man once said:
YOU'LL GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT!
But if you can live with yourself taking two from poor lil ole weakstick me, than that's ok.. I'll take my richly deserved whuppin' and some fine stilton cheese with my whine. ;)
TH
-
Tom H,
I am so misunderstood....for one thing no 5 or 6 handicap ever takes more strokes than they should...but they just might give too few...sorry.
Seriously...you are everything I would want to be if I wasn't so used to being who I am....and even a person who I have no doubt is honest to a fault...never intentionally harms anyone emotionally or physically....prostitutes themselves by the very nature of the handicap system. Play winter rules, take putts, enjoy a round with friend or family...its all good...but its not in the context with whatever use you may find for your handicap that day. A fudge here and a fudge there be it to lower or raise a handicap because of the circumstance of a given day....differs little from the use of a vagina by a prostitute or housewife. It all stinks the same regardless of the angle you do the smelling.
-
JakaB - ok, fair enough, that strangely makes sense to me. I know with great personal knowledge how handicap fudging goes, and it's exactly as you say. BUT... rest assured, I also know that the only one that gets hurt by this as me, which became painfully clear to my pocketbook many years ago as my index just wasn't enough to match my opponents... Oh yes, I did fall trap at one time to the artificially low handicap.
That's why for as long as I can remember, quite a few years now, I really try only to post those rounds played by the rules... And if the rules are fudged, I allow for it....
So ok, I understand this better and I do appreciate the clarification. I guess I am prostituted by the system, the way it works.
Let's just make one thing clear though: I sure as heck did not artificially jigger my handicap to get low enough to become a GD rater. Damn, if I was going to do that, I definitely could have gotten lower than 3.4, which seems to be technically over the limit!
Not sure if you implied this or not. I don't think so. I'm just in the mood for full disclosure. ;)
TH
ps: I fully acknowledge I am not following the strict USGA dicta re this. But what I am following is personal integrity - I post what is fair. If too many liberties are taken, the round doesn't get posted at all. That happens a lot... just do the nature of how I play the game (95% non-competitively, just enjoying the round, barely keeping score and then only if someone wants to have a friendly game.)
-
You NEED to do another great line whilst standing next to me....
How do you judge yourself against other golfers?
By height.
I swear they make Ty look 3 feet taller than Smails when he says that.... ;D
Now as for their being a better way... well, the greater Tom (Mr. Paul) has long advocated hole by hole posting and I'd agree that would be a big improvement. He can explain why far better than I... It does make a lot of sense to me, though. Beyond that, I don't see throwing out the baby with the bathwater as helping. For those who want to steal, they'll always be able to. You hit it perfectly with integrity being the key... There really is no way to stop those who wish to sandbag, even in the UK system (as Rich and I have battled over before and DON'T need to again)...
Handicaps can be whatever one wants them to be. For my money, the idea of an official handicap, at least making those who want to bag go to some trouble to do so, and giving those of us who are honest some "weight" behind us, makes sense. How this gets done... well... to me having the USGA do it seems logical, but I bet Dan King could sway me. I don't know. Whoever does it, however it gets done, it does have worth.
TH
-
Dave:
If I referred to a police state in golf I only did that because I feel that's about the type of thing that a guy like Dan King seems to think golf needs.
I could not disagree with that more. Golf doesn't need a police state, it doesn't need the USGA to act like a police force!
The USGA is there to serve us--the golfers of America! It's not there to have us serve it! If there's a lack of integrity amongst some American golfers then look to American golfers, not the USGA. The USGA has given us the mechanisms to use to play this game with integrity and all that needs to happen is for us to do that. There's nothing more they can do or should do. That responsibility is ours!
If the USGA as an association, America's ruling body of amateur golf and the rules of golf and handicapping et al is all that bad in the opinion of someone like Dan King, then he should make every effort to start another association he believes in and administer it how he sees fit.
The one we've had and have may not be perfect, there're always things that need improving but it works just fine in my opinion, and in the opinion of most everyone I've known in golf all these years.
But maybe someone like Dan King or someone who thinks the way he appears to should just start another one. I certainly know I won't be joining it or playing by its rules, its dictates and its administration and I doubt anyone else I've known in golf will either.
-
Dave: LOVED the setup - obviously! ;D
I also kinda like your idea and I'd guess that's not far from what Dan King would want. The problems with it, as I see things, are:
1. That's a lot of work for the handicap chairmen and committee... I know, I am on such for my club and we have a hard enough time doing it as is.
2. That's a very small percentage of clubs that could make this happen... you're talking active management, people who know each other really well, etc... It works when these things are in place, but how many could make this happen?
3. Two levels of handicaps just seems problematic. I know what you're saying, screw my issues 1 and 2, those who can make it happen deserve to have a "gold" handicap... But if that's the case, is this the only one that's official for regional / other non-club events that require handicaps? That would make it really tough on the vast majority of golfers, and really ALL public course players....
It's an admirable thought and does make some sense. I just don't see it working, not in practicality, not for far too many people - like me, for instance!
TH
-
TEPaul writes:
After this, on this subject, I'll certainly have no more to say to you. All you are, as far as I'm concerned, is one big massive complainer--almost totally negative.
Cool, that means I'll get the last word.
Most everything you said in your last post to me is just garbage, in my book--a whinner's litany!
Wow. Pull the claws back in Tom.
Let's review.
Patrick Mucci asked me what I would do to create a better handicap system. I responded with specific changes I would make. You corrected me on one point I made, I asked for clarification. You claim I disliked the Rules of Golf. Not sure if you were joking like when you called me un-American? When I respond with the problems I see with the USGA current system, a valid point when offering alternatives, you call me a whiner. Hey, you don't have to respond to everything. Instead of attacking the messenger, you are more than welcome to ignore the message if you have no valid response.
"Pony Express"!? How much more of a ridiculous remark can you make?
If you were responding, I'd love to hear you explain why it takes a month to update handicaps. Since you seem to know so much more than us peons, it could be information that might be worth sharing.
Earn the "Right" to have a handicap, the way you suggest?! This is a game, a sport for Chrissakes, not something run by an overbearing government or police state!
If you are still checking in, but not responding, please re-read what I wrote. Can a police state be entirely voluntary? Is having any criteria the same as forming a police state? Is the Northern California Golf Association currently a police state because they won't let me remain a member unless I pay dues?
If the USGA as an association, America's ruling body of amateur golf and the rules of golf and handicapping et al is all that bad in the opinion of someone like Dan King, then he should make every effort to start another association he believes in and administer it how he sees fit.
Is the idea you must love everything the USGA does or leave the organization anything like "America, love it or leave it (Unless there is a Democratic party President?)"
I love getting the last word.
Dan King
"I have always been a grumbler. I am designed for the part -- sagging face, weighty underlip, rumbling, resonant voice. Money couldn't buy a better grumbling outfit."
--J.B. Priestley
-
Dave:
Neither the USGA nor the regional associations are ever going to get into setting much more of an established criteria for peer review (which is local in that it's always been at the club level exclusively) than they always have.
In recent years there've been a few more procedural mechanisms offered by the USGA for "peer review" to use, like the "Knuth tournament procedure" in handicapping. But that's just for the clubs and their particular committee (handicap) to use if they want to. No regulatory body has ever told them they have to.
But other than that the USGA and the regional associations look at the whole thing as basically founded on a "culture", probably far more than most of us realize. In this sense most everything about golf is far more about personally understanding what the game's culture is about than anything else--and of course that's all underpinned by the idea of integrity throughout the game. The word "cheat" or "cheater" has never really been mentioned (in writing) by any regulatory body or it's rules and procedures.
It's up to golfers to police themselves--all the regulatory bodies have ever done is supply some mechanisms that CAN BE used for that purpose.
There's no reason to turn golf's regulatory bodies that administer some of the things about golf into something that has "laws". The rules and procedures of golf are only "procedures" to be followed if golfers choose to. And the reason for that is uniformity is looked at by the regulatory bodies as something that's offered for the convenience of the game and those that play it.
There really is no more nor should there be. It's interesting to look through C.B. MacDonald's book in this vein since he more than any American I can think of was responsible for both our regulatory body and creating its structure as well as our primary messanger of how to transport the "culture" of golf from Scotland to the United States.
As opinionated a man as MacDonald may have been he was actually for less regulation on the part of the American regulatory body, not more! He was also a very clever man and in an odd way he so much believed in the "culture" of golf almost sans regulation that it's almost touching to read and feel how he looked at the transition of the game from Scotland to America.
You can see he only HOPED it would catch on the way he believed it should be and was in Scotland. He didn't think some regulatory body should tell golfers what to do, he thought golfers should learn the lessons taught by the Scotish game which somehow was basically in a golfers bones, learned only from golfer to golfer. He could not even understand that it should be any other way although contradictorily it appeared he was pessimistic that teh "culture" would or even could translate well to this country.
And unbelievably he actually fought very hard as the USGA was organizing for them (the USGA) to do less not more in this way.
It's pretty fascinating really and only tells me even more that a lot of all this is not the regulatory bodies' responsibility--its the golfer's.
-
Tom H....I never met so many solid 5/6 handicaps until I came to GCA....you, Gib, Shivas, Duran on and on...I think in an Urban setting with so many college graduates it is easier and more necessary to float above scratch just a touch...Citydwellers also have more true scratch players to kick you ever aging asses than found down here on the farm. In the 34 years I have played golf I have never had a use for a handicap...when I was young my pro told me get good enough to enter championship flight and you can play....so I said I was and wrote the check...no big deal. This leads me to a life thought that I have been kicking around for a couple of months and don't really have an answer for....
Why do all of my friends play golf at the same level as me....have I spent my whole life hanging out with guys who golf their balls in the same way I do because I enjoy their company or because it makes the gambling more efficient...we just throw up balls and play teams however they land...and I like the guys I play with as much as anyone I might have known of lesser ability...just lucky I guess. I find this common among many of the groups I observe at the various places I play....and how is it all these friends just happen to play at the same level....could it be that the fragile nature of male friendship in the face of competition can not stand up against the failure of our handicapping system...could it be that all we really want is to be played straight up in all aspects of our life...in our jobs...in our relationships.....are handicaps just affirmitive action for the lazy...sure I get beat all the time playing straight up...but its not because I didn't ask for help...its simply because I didn't prepare hard enough for the event...I would rather be a fool than the harvester of pity.
-
"TEPaul writes:
After this, on this subject, I'll certainly have no more to say to you. All you are, as far as I'm concerned, is one big massive complainer--almost totally negative."
Cool, that means I'll get the last word.
"Most everything you said in your last post to me is just garbage, in my book--a whinner's litany!"
Wow. Pull the claws back in Tom.
Dan:
No way, you deserve it.
Dan King says:
"I love getting the last word."
I know you do--and I'm sure you will and I'm even sure you should--that's about all you're good for, in my book!
-
CBM,
I would think that the trend away from penal golf is related to the increase in the emphasis on medal play.
One only has to turn on their TV set every saturday and sunday to see the best players in the world playing medal play. Rare is the weekend when match play is televised.
TV influences developers who retain architects to build their vision or version of a golf course for them, be it resort, residential, municipal or private.
I don't see the bunkers of Steamshovel Banks, or the bunkers of NGLA, GCGC and PV systemically designed and constructed on new courses.
With respect to opening a green to one side, that usually allows for strategy, choices of play. Most greens aren't duplicates of # 6 at NGLA requiring an aerial assualt.
My limited view is that stroke play in combination with "fairness" have had an influence on golf course design in the last 30 years, especially away from penal golf.
Dan King,
It doesn't matter if the prize for winning is money, a trophy, your name on a plaque, or just being declared the winner, people will manipulate their handicap to accomplish same.
Having a structured system helps create equitable competitions, a level playing field. The reference to equity you quoted seems related to rub of the green, not cheating.
Without a clearly defined, structured system chaos would reign and one of the elements that makes golf such a great game, the opportunity for two people of differing abilities to compete on an equal footing would be lost, and golf would become like tennis, elitist, where only those of equal abilities would agree to play with one another in order to have an enjoyable game or competition.
The handicap system allows two people who don't know each other, with differing abilities, to compete favorably, while at the same time competing with the golf course.
The handicap system seems to have served millions of golfers more than adequately for some time, and until someone comes up with a better system, this is the one I'm committed to.
-
TEPaul writes:
I know you do--and I'm sure you will and I'm even sure you should
Word.
Dan King
Hamlet: "Words, words, words."
--William Shakespeare
-
Pat,
Can you outline for me how all golf courses were designed in the past and how all golf courses are designed today so that we can have an accurate comparison? I am sure that outside of several courses scattered across the country such as the Sand Hills, there are not a lot of Pine Valleys out there where if you miss the fairway, you are in deep sand/grass/whatever. But I doubt that there were a lot of Pine Valleys built in yesteryear either. But rather than making broad statements about courses of past and present, can you or anyone else actually make thorough comparisons of the eras? Can you even define the eras? Where is the cutoff? It is easy to say that courses today are not as penal, but Donald Ross built a lot of courses that judging by his book don't look particularly different from today's courses to me. Maybe Ross is this side of the cutoff?
Why did Donald Ross want Number Two to be more a pleasure than a penance? Why are the courses of today by and large more penal when it comes to normal rough? Now that wall to wall irrigation is becoming more common, growing thick rough is not that difficult. That seems more penal to me, especially for the average golfer. MacKenzie didn't, it seems, even like rough all that much. That seems less penal. How about green speeds? For the average golfer, fast greens can lead to more three putts or worse. That seems more penal for the average golfer. Would a course like Harbor Town be considered penal with all the trees limiting wayward shots?
My example of opening a green on one side was meant to show that an older architect seemed interested in providing some fairness to the average golfer--not just difficulty designed to provide drama for a match play event.
I think we it all then and we have it all now.
-
CBM,
Ross's comments should be examined in the context of his era.
I would imagine that penal design was the design that he grew up with, the design that was pervasive in the golfing world of his day. As golf's popularity in America grew, and knowing that Pinehurst was a RESORT golf course, I can understand the desire to move from penal to pleasurable.
It's even possible that Mr. Tufts had a conversation or two with him, on that subject.
Looking at many old photos, from many golf courses, it appears that the features, especially the bunkers have been softened over time. Not that a particular issue makes a general statement, but even the Redan photos that Dan King posted give evidence to that movement, as do the photos of the bunkers at GCGC.
With respect to roughs and irrigation, there is a picture of the 4th hole at Baltusrol from one of the early Opens.
The grass behind the green is knee deep.
At clubs that I'm familiar with, the constant complaints are the roughs, and the need to lower them and thin them, especially around the green. I think the growth of women's golf, and couples golf have had a major influence on softening features and conditions. If you don't see this over the last 50 years or so, you and I just have a major difference of opinion on this issue.
My single and limited observations are that features have been either removed or softened over the last 50 years in an attempt to make the courses easier for a broader band of golfers, mostly in the name of fairness. One only has to look at almost every COUNTRY CLUB or RESIDENTIAL GOLF CLUB to see these changes, and the current designs.
PENAL GOLF is dead in America, or at best hiding in a few remote locations, and strangely enough, those seem to be the courses we love the most. But, as many say, like New York City, they're nice places to visit, but most wouldn't want to live there. As a steady diet, they're overwhelming to most golfers.
But, that's just my opinion.
-
In my opinion, the posts of C.B. MacDonald on this thread (even if he is an anonymous poster) are some of the best and most fundamentally thoughtful of any posts posted on Golfclubatlas!
He asks some really important questions of the sort of "party line" general opinion and stance of Golfclubatlas's basic stance. He asks them in a very reasonable way too (probably unlike me sometimes).
If we, or any one of us, are going to be true to the accurate analysis of golf and golf architecture, particularly in a comparative way of historically compared to today his fundamental questions are ones we all should start to consider more carefully, more thoughtfully and more accurately.
-
C.B. Macdonald:
Tried to email you at your email address on your posts but it was a "no go". I guess you really are anonymous. That's too bad!
-
Pat,
You have rightfully used the words "limited" and "imagined" in your last posts. It is easy to say that courses have been softened and then to dismiss the fact that most courses today have rough when architects like MacKenzie spoke out against rough. I don't know whether or not you think Ross belongs in the penal camp or not. His words suggest one thing in his book. A quick look through the courses listed on this website from World War II onward shows most with hazards to rival those of the Golden Age. I suppose one could dismiss those as exceptions, and you may and probably will choose to do that. But take a look at the work of one of the most influential modern designers, Pete Dye, and then the work of those who worked for him and then "imagine" the effect he has had on designers of this day, since his courses often show up on tv. And then for your own enlightenment take a look at all the modern designers listed just on this website alone that produce golf holes with plenty of penalty, more I would venture to say than even Donald Ross or George Thomas at times. Rustic Canyon or Wild Horse would be good to study, at least from the photos. There are many others too.
The argument being made on this thread that courses today are less penal has about as much definition as the criteria for Tradition on the GD ranking thread. I think Rich Goodale got it right above. But I don't think we will agree on this. Such is golf.
-
If you ask me this discussion going on (the degree of penality of yesteryear's course vs today's) within a slightly different thread topic (stroke play's negative influence on design) is a great topic. This discussion should be separated from this thread and really developed.
It's probably an enormous subject and a really fascinating one and I'd be willing to bet that the whole thing is basically an evolutionary process that may not have any real rhyme or reason.
Some things and some features about architecture back in the 1920s were more penal than those same things and same features today and vice versa. These things happen, sometimes for the oddest and most unusual reasons. I just couldn't agree more with C.B. MacDonald (the poster) that you just can't generalize about these things as we too often tend to do.
It would be just great to look at these things individually and specifically, not always generally. That to me is the only real way to see what it all means.
-
Pat,
Can you outline for me how all golf courses were designed in the past and how all golf courses are designed today so that we can have an accurate comparison? I am sure that outside of several courses scattered across the country such as the Sand Hills, there are not a lot of Pine Valleys out there where if you miss the fairway, you are in deep sand/grass/whatever [...]
More than several. A lot of the GCA readership seems to live in well developed areas on the coasts, where land is so expensive that devoting 300-400 acres for a course is unthinkable today, unless the excess is all for residential lots. In the areas of the country where houses don't start at a half million for a one bedroom hovel, there are plenty of courses to be found that are carved out of forest, desert, swampland, etc. Is it less penal to miss the fairway and see your ball disappear into a forest where its a guaranteed lost ball, or into some not quite water hazard muck of a swamp?
One can argue whether such a course constitutes good design or not, but the results seen on my scorecards versus my handicap show me such courses certainly qualify as penal. I won't argue that many golfers find such courses "unfair", and I will even agree at times, though often it is because of other issues than being "too penal".
-
JakaB - that is an enlightening post, thanks. We've touched on this before as you've ribbed me about why I care so much about handicaps and don't just play straight up. Well...
Believe me, I'd love to. But my experience seems to be the polar opposite of yours... I grew up playing competitive golf, starting tournaments at age 11, and doing nothing but through age 19. During that time, hell yes, handicaps were only used to get me into events or flights within events. I never took nor gave strokes, didn't see the point. I lost WAY more than I won, but I didn't care, that's the way the game was played.
Then at a certain point the whole competitive golf thing got quite tiresome for me, and when I realized golf was becoming work rather than play, I gave it up. Actually quit playing the game completely for a little while, if you can believe it.
Then in college I discovered a) beer and b) a great group of friends who all loved the game, but none of whom were under 15 hdcp. skill. Playing the game with them, for nothing but fun, in extremely low pressure matches if we even bothered to keep score at all... well... the joy of the game came back. These are the vast majority of my golf partners to this day. Even in the clubs I belong to, the low 'cappers are few and far between... I tell ya, if I could magically transform my friends into 5 of less 'cappers and keep the same spirit, that would be golf heaven to me. Our matches always do have that "taint" of the many strokes I give them... when I lose, I have an excuse, when I win, it's expected. Same thing in reverse for them. It's not perfect, but no, I'm not looking for new golf friends.
Thus handicaps are necessary for me. I wish they weren't.
But I also believe my situation is quite commonplace.
Handicaps surely are a crutch... but if they allow people to have more fun with the game, I can't see what the problem is.
TH
ps to Dave - no can do tonight, I am on kid duty. But I'll try to locate you anyway....
-
TEPaul,
I wholeheartedly agree about generalizing here. And as much as I love architecture from the golden era, I don't think we do ourselves any favors by broadly dismissing modern courses. From the looks of the photos of the Sand Hills and Pine Barrens, there's plenty of "modern" trouble underfoot.
Doug,
I have no problem with "More than several". I was trying not to exaggerate something that covers in part a grey area--that grey area being where "penal" falls/is scattered along/within the continuum of golf course architecture. But a quick review of courses profiled on this website alone reveals, as you say, more than several.
-
JakaB:
That's a pretty cool post of yours--pretty honest.
Sure golfers probably tend to gravitate towards others of similar abilities if they play regularly. Why? Just because, as you seem to be saying, it's a lot easier to understand! And in your case, it seems it's easier for you to deal with psychologically.
But you seem to be saying two different things. You say you've gravitated to a group of regulars (and you also observe that others do the same) that're of similar ability to you but then you say you get beaten by them all the time-more than you think you should or more than the law of averages would tell you that you should. If you get beaten by them a lot more than 75% (if you're basically playing three other guys regularly, for instance) than you're not of similar ability to someone or all of them.
But I don't know why you then call the handicap system a failure. The handicap system isn't the failure--you are--at least you are in your own eyes and in your own mind and maybe in the tally at the end of the year. When you look in the mirror (psychologically) instead of seeing the reality of yourself you see the handicap system for some reason!
Is the handicap system some form of affirmative action? Of course it is--it's always been that and that's the original concept of it!
I don't really like affirmative action in life other than sports/golf (handicapping). I think some people are going to be consigned to digging ditches in life and should be because that's all they're capable of doing and that's the way it should be.
But in a game, a sport, such as golf, inherent differing abilities can be "equalized" quite well for the enjoyment of all (provided of course that some or all of those differing abilities don't have psychological problems about the "equalizing" system, as you appear to have).
In life, if the chairman of General Motors felt for some reason that he'd like to spent the weekend at a real expensive resort hanging out with the ditch digger and the feeling was mutual the chairman just might figure out some way of "equalizing" things for the ditch digger who likely couldn't afford it.
That's about what the handicap system provides for all of us in the game of golf if we want to use it and have a good time, a nice more equitable game together given our differing abilities.
-
C.B.Macdonald:
I'm the one agreeing with you regarding generalizations. You're the one who made that point.
Making generalizations about architecture on this site is very common, always has been, and unfortunately it's done sometimes to make points about architecture that probably aren't true and never have been.
For a better and more accurate undestanding about architecture it's better to be more specific in one's analyses. Facts crop up, however, that some just don't want to acknowledge, so they stick to generalizing.
-
TEPaul,
I am agreeing with you agreeing with me on generalizations. :D
You seem like a very reasonable fellow. :)
-
CBM,
Dr Mac, may have spoken out against rough, but Travis strongly supported difficult/penal rough along side his wide fairways.
Pete Dye's early work was penal and he was generally criticized for it by the average golfer and the pros. He may have been the only designer in the 60's 70's and 80's to embrace penal elements in design.
In the late 60's, when playing against Pete in the North-South Amateur, we spoke at length about penal designs,
Harbour Town, the use of sleepers and mounds, Crooked Stick and other issues. Later, during the Mid-80's, at Crooked Stick during the Mid-Amateur I spoke to him about penal designs, the fact that PGA Tour pros were hitting fewer and fewer long irons, green quadrants and/or tiers, Old Marsh etc., etc..
I would consider Pete the exception rather than the rule.
I think you can make generalizations on this issue.
If you look at ALL of the golf courses built from 1960 to current date, the overwhelming majority are far from penal.
If you want to further break this down into categories like
RESORT and RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY courses, the number of PENAL courses designed for this use is almost non-existant.
If you want to add PUBLIC courses and COUNTRY CLUB courses, I think you'll find the same overwhelming ratio of Penal to benign courses.
If you also want to look at the work done to all of the golf courses that underwent revisions/renovations/modernizations, from 1950 to 1990, again, the overwhelming majority have been softened, not hardened.
I submit that the trend in new designs from 1960 to 1990 and renovation work from 1950 to 1990 have clearly been away from penal design, to a softening of features, especially bunkers.
You may feel otherwise, but I don't see it, and we'll just have to continue to disgree.
P.S. If TEPaul agrees with you, you know you must be wrong ;D
-
Pat,
You wrote that penal golf in America is dead with some exceptions but then just sort of make general statements about things. I don't know if you want to dismiss Ross and Pete Dye as exceptions to what you said above, but if so, they are huge exceptions. So I will in fact have to continue to disagree. If penal golf is dead today, then it was dead in yesteryear, since I don't see any big differences when I look at courses today from yesterday. I read architects from yesteryear saying the same things about new golf balls as they say today. I read some calling for wider fairways in yesteryear and then see narrowness all over the place today. I look at photos of golden age courses and then photos of today and see plenty of hazards of penal quality. Pete Dye is a good example of someone who has sent out a generation of designers not afraid to throw up a few obstacles here and there to the golfer. Arizona is littered with courses covered in waste areas. The environmental restrictions on amount of irrigated turf alone make for penal conditions in that state. So I don't see it the way you do. I see it the way Doug sees it.
There were some penal courses in yesteryear and some not so penal courses. The same is true today.
Stroke play cannot be the "ruination of golf architecture" as Dan King says unless something is actually ruined. I look at the courses listed on this website alone and I don't see what is ruined myself. Either something is ruined and dead or it is not, right? Sort of dead doesn't make sense, right?
Man: Doctor, what can you tell me about my son?
Doctor: Well, your son is dead with the exceptions of the times he is up walking around and talking on the phone. Otherwise, he's dead. We don't really count those exceptions.
Maybe you meant to say the penal golf is terminally ill? But then I ask, is Rustic Canyon terminally ill?
At any rate, as you say, we will continue to disagree on the subject of penal golf being dead. And as for whether or not modern designers are different than the golden guys, Rich Goodale said it better than I can. Fair enough?
-
C.B. Macdonald:
Still a fascinating thread but I'm too tired to respond to anything except to ask you where Rich Goodale said anything better than you did?
-
TEPaul,
See post #26, January 7th at 3:38 am (yikes! that's too late or too early to be writing about golf. At that time, just typing must be PENAL).
-
CBM,
Is Rustic Canyon the norm, or the exception.
If it's the norm, why the fuss ?
For every Rustic Canyon there are dozens of Woodfields.
The number of new penal courses are minimal when compared with the total number of new courses designed each year.
To only cite Pete Dye, one architect in the last 50 years, who was/is known for penal architecture would seem to prove my point.
More importantly, in the last 50 years I haven't seen any golf club, country club, resort course or residential community course go through a renovation/modernization and ask the architect to make the course more penal for every level of golfer. Invariably the courses are softened.
If you go back to 1920-1930 and view the percentage of golf courses deemed to be penal amongst all of the golf courses in existance at those times, and perform the same exercise today, I think you'll see that the percentage of penal golf courses has been greatly reduced.
I think one could therefore conclude that the trend is away from penal golf.
Do you know of any COUNTRY CLUBS with mixed play, RESORT CLUBS, or RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CLUBS designed in the last 20-40 years that are PENAL ? How about the last
10 years ?
As in the "Princess Bride" Penal Golf is "Mostly Dead"
-
Pat,
One club off the top of my head is East Hampton, by Coore and Crenshaw. One nine very tight with huge hazards and lots of trees. Another nine with some width but still lots of bunkering and native grass. That golf course was built in the last ten years. But won't you just dismiss that as an exception? Won't you just dismiss any course I mention in either camp as exceptions?
You reduce my example of Pete Dye down to just Pete Dye even though I mentioned those who came after/along with him. That is sort of disingenuous on your part, don't you think? You are also ignoring my question about where the penal/not penal cutoff is in the timeline. And what about Ross? Is he or is he not an exception? Who was the first architect to "ruin" golf architecture?
Without specific criteria for your position, we end up right where Rich Goodale said we would. How would you respond to the points Rich made on the 7th at 3:38am?
You have made lots of statements, but I don't think it gets us anywhere to make general statements without proof. My point is simple: There were penal and not so penal courses back then and there are penal and not so penal courses today.
-
C.B. Macdonald,
Is there any sort of reason you are hiding behind Mr. Macdonald's name? You've written a lot of things lately, some that I love to respond to, but I try not to ever respond to people posting anonymously. There are people here using a variety of pseudonym for a variety of reason who I have gotten to know, but it took a while.
Obviously, on the Internet, nobody knows if you are a dog: You have no way of knowing if I am Dan King just like I have no way of knowing you are C.B. Macdonald. So it ends up being a judgment thing. But if I get in a debate with someone, I'd like some idea there is someone on the other end. To put in a fake email address and use a pseudonym seriously delays that trust issue.
There are numerous reasons to want to stay anonymous on such a group, some ethical, some not so. It would help to know that you are using Mr. Macdonald for an ethical reason.
Dan King
"No Groucho is not my real name. I'm breaking it in for a friend."
--Julius (Groucho) Marx
-
Dan,
Just using it because I was looking through his book at the time I stumbled upon this thread. I thought some of what I was reading was relavent. I mentioned some of it.
What would be the unethical reason for advocating a position that golf architecture is not ruined? Is this site here in hopes of studying golf architecture? I am just a guy who likes to celebrate golf across the board and I really wanted Matthew to read something here that did not too readily dismiss modern architecture. Honestly, if I didn't feel that there is penal and not so penal golf in both eras (however you define those) I wouldn't bother. I used to blindly think that the golden age guys were all minimalists and would not doing anything that did not strictly further their art. But I think I was naive. I have looked through/read a lot of the older books and the newer books. There are architects today who are just as much concerned for the strategy and art of golf holes and there were architects in the past who built what they could with more or less strategy and art depending on a lot of things-- budget, time constraints, artistic inspiration, etc.
Matthew started this thread saying (asking?) that it seems like modern golf course architects are less concerned for shot swinging holes. But I don't really see any actual evidence of that. Nor do I see golf architecture as "ruined". You and I disagree on that point. And you are welcome to your opinion. (I may not vote for you for king of the world, but you are welcome to your opinion. :) )
It just doesn't seem right to broadly generalize about aspects of the game in a negative way without some exact methodolgy for determining judgements. Pat himself isn't willing to do that on the Tradition thread. He continues to ask for a methodoloy to be explained. I actually prefer the way he is approaching that thread over the way he is approaching this thread. Broad subjective generalizations don't do a lot for me. I just wanted Matthew to read some of that stuff too. That is why I tried to add a few quotes from the old guys to show that their thoughts varied too. Like I said, Rich put it best above.
At any rate, I am off to something else more productive. I think this is all speculation and Matthew can take and leave what he likes as best it suits him. Fair enough?
-
C.B. MacDonald:
Would you mind emailing me? You can do that off one of my posts or in the internal email on this site. Thanks
-
CBM,
I've never seen Easthampton, so I'll accept your categorization that it's penal.
I'm forced to call Easthampton an exception because its form doesn't appear in appreciable numbers throughout the golfing universe. It is rare, not common.
In the golfing universe of 1920-1930, penal courses and penal features were more common than rare.
Pete Dye was known for his penal designs, but perhaps he benefited from timing, when developers asked him to design very HARD golf courses like TPC and PGA west.
It's not that the cadre of designers who worked for and were influenced by Pete can't design a penal golf course, it's just that developers aren't requesting it, the market's no longer there. New penal golf courses are "Mostly Dead".
I can't tell you the time line or the architect responsible for the demise of penal architecture in America. Those with the time and research resources could probably establish a time line, and the roots of a cultural or philosophical change away from penal design, manifested through a number of architects, or a generation of new ones.
I don't think one cataclysmic event or architect eliminated penal design, I think it may have just been evolutionary.
I've attempted to answer your questions, but, you've avoided answering mine, which are material to my position.
Name just 10 penal golf courses designed and built between 1950 and 1990, a forty (40) year period, in each of the following categories.
Resort
Residential Community
Country Club - Mixed
Would you agree that you could name an overwhelming number of non-penal courses in those same categories within the same time frame ?
Let me know if you feel that the vast majority of courses renovated (worked on) since 1950 have been hardened or softened for their members.
Let me also know if you feel that the percentage of Penal courses in existance today is equivalent to the percentage in existance in 1920-1930.
I think that one can prudently conclude that the design and use of penal architecture, penal features doesn't exist today, as it did at several points in the past.
But, that's just my opinion, and we just disagree.
-
C.B. Macdonald writes:
What would be the unethical reason for advocating a position that golf architecture is not ruined?
I can't think of a single one.
Please re-read my above post and notice I wasn't talking about your opinion, but rather your use of a pseudonym.
Dan King
"If we had no fault of our own, we would not take so much pleasure in noticing those of others."
--Duc de la Rochefoucauld
-
Dan (and TomP)
Why are you unwilling to respect CB's privacy? I assume that he'll let you know who he is if he wants to. And Dan, what is unethical about anonymity? If CB turned out to be Charles Manson or Tom Fazio or Bill Clinton or even Lyndon Larouche (if he is still alive), would that make one damned bit of difference to the meaning of the words that he writes adn the opinions he expresses? I think not.
-
Rich:
Jeeesus Christ, you're getting a bit weird about this. I'm not disrespecting anyone's privacy. I don't care about anonymity at all. I don't care who C.B. Macdonald really is. I just want to talk to him by email and maybe discuss a few things that he said that aren't that apropos to this thread. If he wants to call himself Mickey Mouse or Minnie in an email that's OK with me.
-
Rich Goodale,
Perhaps the answer to your question lies in the following example.
If an anonymous poster advocated tax relief on dividends and a reduction in capital gains, and that anonymous poster happened to be George W, you would have a broadened perspective of their views. Likewise, if an anonymous poster took a position that Mr Lay was really behind every effort to smear President Clinton, that he did nothing wrong, and that poster presented a passionate case, I think you would also look at their presentation in a different light if the poster happened to be James Carville.
Since this thread has been rather mild, with various posters putting forth their thoughts, one would have to believe that an anonymous poster is posting as such, amongst other reasons, because their identity may reveal more about their position, or it may taint their position, or they may not want to publicly oppose a position espoused by another individual.
I think anonymous posts create an unlevel playing field, and generally cultivate irresponsibility, But that's just my opinion.
-
Pat and Dan,
I guess I don't see how I might stand to benefit from using C.B. MacDonald's moniker to basically ask for a more balanced study of golf architecture, but it apparently bothers you. I did not mean for it to be an issue. I assure you, I am not a stock holder in "GOLF IS A GREAT GAME, EVEN TODAY, LLC".
At any rate, there is one problem with posting anonymously and that is that it gives you a way to deflect attention away from the concepts being discussed. I would rather you just focus on what C.B. MacDonald and Donald Ross and Pete Dye have to say about architecture, since it is they and others like them that you are judging. So I will stop posting.
Pat, I will not spend the time it would take to fulfill your categories of penal courses. I am sure if I did that you would call them all exceptions and probably then tell me that I had the wrong definition of what a penal golf course is. And you would no doubt want me to list at least 14 courses from 1972-1974 that are New Age courses that have bermuda fairways and sand greens and chocolate drops for hazards...It would not be worth my time. Plus, as I have said a couple of times, this website lists courses by architect and country and feature interviews that will show you many, many penal golf holes, if you but just look. (Yes, Pat, I know, THOSE courses don't count. Got it.)
The truth is you don't even need my posts here in this thread. Doug and Rich both said it all basically in two rather short posts.
Here's hoping that Matthew and others like him read as much as they can about golf architecture and in the end come away LOVING the game of golf and not discouraged by it. Fair enough?
I am on to more productive things. And this time I mean it! :)
-
Pat
Thanks for the reply.
I personally think that the "playing field" on GCA is biased strongly against anonymous posters, since many "regulars" disparage them for choosing to post anonymously and tend to not respond to their ideas with the same degree of passion and care as they do to the ideas of "regulars." This is a pity, since many good ideas and good potential "members" of the "treehouse" get lost in the shuffle.
I also don't really agree with (or even understand, quite frankly) your examples from the political world. To me, at least, it's the message that is important, not the messenger.
Of course, as Tom Paul says, I may be weird.......
-
Rich:
I'm right with you on this. I only said you were a bit weird because you said asking C.B to email me was an invasion of his privacy. I can't see how asking if he would email me invades his privacy since he can always say no dice and leave the site as he's apparenly gonna do. That's OK too.
That's the only reason I said you were a bit weird. But on second thought, allow me to amend that. You are a bit weird anyway--everyone knows that. The question is are you weirder than me or not. You're definitely not as weird as Pat, though, and everyone knows that too. Either am I!
I agree with you about the message. Let's say James Carville posts anonymously and says a bunch of things that Pat agrees with. But Pat doesn't of course know it's James. Then Pat finds out it was James afterall. What's Pat gonna do then, disagree with the anonymous post's message since it's James?
Probably!
-
Rich Goodale writes:
Why are you unwilling to respect CB's privacy?
I'm not.
Some people post anonymously so they can hit and run, not taking responsibility for their posts. This week he might be C.B. Macdonald, next week he might be George Thomas. I'm not saying C.B. shouldn't post anonymously, just that if he does there are some people here, including me, who are going to be reluctant to respond to his posts.
If Macdonald wants to post anonymously, I'm not going to do anything to try and stop him. I was just letting him know that there are repercussions when posting under someone else's name.
(http://www.cartoonbank.com/assets/product_images/22230_hi.gif)
Dan King
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet"
--William Shakespeare (Or possibly someone writing using a nom de plume, or was Willie a front? -- from Romeo and Juliet)
-
Dan
"Why Not?"
"Because!"
I think I've heard that one before.....
BTW--great self-deprecating irony in your Shakespeare quote and in the fact that you did respond to old CB!
Keep on studyin'
Rich
-
CBM,
You've asked questions but are careful to avoid answering them.
Rather than trying to avoid a response by predicting what Pat Mucci's response will be, why don't you just answer the questions honestly, like he answered your questions.
When you're anonymous it's easier to hit and run, and not be accountable.
-
Dan King:
Everybody knows William Shakespeare was the Duke of Norfolk. That's why anonymous posting on here has never bothered me--I know who they all are anyway!
-
C.B.Mac,
I think I speak for many on this board, in thanking you for your effort, and thoughts in your posts. Although the idea of Charles’ ghost moving in our midst is appealing, it’s very obvious that more than a few wish you used your real name….
As you rightly pointed out, I asked (more like stated) if shot swinging holes, or different styles of golf holes, were designed more frequently in times past, and if so, was the difference due to different forms of the game and their prevalence in different eras… I purposefully put a contentious flavor to my post, as it seems such messages elicit the biggest number of replies, and often the best replies. It has been great to follow the twists and turns this discussion has taken.
You are right in that there was an assumption made in my statement. I think that we tend to assume a reasonable amount in the discussions on GCA, on some posts anyway.
I agree with you in that there is penal and not so penal golf in both eras (however defined). I didn’t think that there would be as much opposition / resistance to a well-worded, and well-thought out defense of such a position, as you've presented.
You said – “I used to blindly think that the golden age guys were all minimalists and would not do anything that did not strictly further their art. But I think I was naive. I have looked through / read a lot of the older books and the newer books. There are architects today who are just as much concerned for the strategy and art of golf holes and there were architects in the past…”
I see a lot of my own thoughts in that comment, and have enjoyed reading your posts, as they have been thought provoking, and anchored in fact – a hard thing to do. They have changed the way I think. Relax - I have never harboured bad thoughts about current day architecture. I just hope there is space in the profession for me one day.
I agree with Pat’s philosophy in part, and much of what you say – much more than I thought I would at the start ! You’ve added a lot to how I perceive this issue. Hope you keep posting, under any name if need be.
Thanks
Matthew