Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: John Kirk on May 01, 2005, 11:05:29 PM
-
I believe the most exciting shots in golf are the ones we wait the longest time to ascertain the result. This applies to both long and short shots, sometimes in different ways:
Everyone enjoys and admires a powerful drive. It flies for a long time, and in many cases, rolls for several seconds before coming to rest. But if the drive is clearly in good shape, the anticipation of result is diminished, and the attention turns to the next play.
The same holds for approach shots. A high shot in the direction of the flagstick or green is interesting as it flies, and all eyes await the final result. But balls that immediately come to rest on a soft green are somewhat of a visual disappointment.
A drive or approach shot that disappears from sight holds our attention for a long time, as we anticipate the result for the entire walk until sighting the ball. That's why I would make the case for the occasional blind shot off the tee. Even a poor shot on any hole which disappears from sight evokes plenty of apprehension, or excitement, until the result is determined.
If the wind is blowing, then airborne shots are more interesting to follow, as we anticipate the wind's effect on the shot.
But shots along the ground are subject to more variation, and are of great interest. To me, the most exciting shot to watch in golf is a putt or short shot that takes a very long time to arrive at the hole. Nothing is better than a putt that rolls for 10 seconds and goes in. That's why most here like fast greens with sloped surfaces. And we like undulating chipping areas with firm turf, so we can see our shots roll out for a long time.
This also can explain why I don't like my ball to fly OB, or in a water hazard. It's gone; the fun ends abruptly.
I thought this weekend about trying to develop my own little unified theory about golf course design, based on my belief that the excitement in golf is the anticipation of watching your ball come to rest, and the longer, the better. Of course, there are some limitations. Tapping a 3 footer downhill, and watching it trickle for 10 seconds 40 feet long would be exciting, but in a very aggravating way. Some finesse is involved to make the game exciting, yet playable in a reasonable amount of time with appropriate difficulty. That's where the artistry lies.
Is the course attractive? Important. Does the course offer me different playing options, and encourage me to hit different shots? Really important. But the greatest joy occurs between the stroke and the result, and the longer it takes, the better.
-
John:
A well-postulated, unified theory.
One corollary is that "firm and fast" is always superior according to this theory.
-
That's a very original and insightful idea! As much fun as it is to watch a perfectly struck drive splitting the fairway fly, I do tend to turn away from them before they are even at their apex if I know its going to be in a good lie in the short grass when it ends up, either due to soft or level fairways.
I might argue that an approach that covers the flag and sticks within a foot or two does elicit a lingering look after it has stopped, whether hit by myself or by others, but maybe that's just because they are not particularly common, at least for me (Tiger probably lets Steve watch 'em for him) Perhaps your point does still play into it because sometimes you'll see a ball that looks like it is 6" away end up being 12 feet away as you walk towards it and it slowly and depressingly leaves tap in range and moves past short putt and into medium range territory! :-\
This is another point in favored of the rippled fairways look, because you gotta watch it land and bounce to make sure it stays on line, and even after it settles you sometimes suffer the same perspective problems that make those 12 footers look like tap ins, so you aren't quite sure how far you have left or what sort of stance you'll be playing from until you get pretty close to it. Much more exciting than dropping drives down on the little colored 100 and 150 yard sticks some courses plant next to the yardage markers in the center of the fairway to make club selection easier on cartpath-only courses. Kind of takes the anticipation out of it if I already know the club I'm using for my approach before I've picked up my tee!!!
-
Excellent post. Personally, I couldn't agree more. The fact that we live in a world of increasing "instant gratification" probably induces us to want everything "right in front of us" and to happen sooner rather than later. Max Behr did a short but excellent article on the benefits of blindness in golf architecture as a functional way of preventing increasing "instant gratification" as well as forcing golfers to trust their swings and their senses when hitting shots unaided by total visibility.
The ball running along the ground in various directions and sometimes taking it's sweet time about it is a wonderful thing indeed and too little seen today. If that massively breaking, slow rolling chip of Tiger Woods on the 16h hole of the Masters is not the best evidence of that I can't imagine what could be!
-
Very unique way of looking at it.
To further illustrate Tom D's theory, with F&F conditions, even a seemingly beautiful drive can bound into trouble, so you would be less likely to just bend down and grab your tee.
-
John:
I enjoyed reading your theory, and I immediately thought of one of the most remarkable shots of my humble golfing life: a little 30-yard chip to the 8th hole at Sand Hills. The hole was on the left side, and the ball -- seemingly struck too firmly -- rolled onto the green front left, then began a remarkable, nearly 360-degree journey to the back of the left half of the green and then returned again to the middle of the left half, coming to rest a few feet from the hole. I was in awe of what the ball's roll had revealed regarding the character of the ground. A mundane chip had been transformed into a shot of a lifetime. I wish I knew how long I watched the ball travel; regardless, I'm still watching that shot now.
-
John,
What a great idea. And I think you're completely correct.
I was playing yesterday and had a 60 degree wedge shot that I needed to play from the fringe on the upper portion of a green complex to the lower portion (French Creek #3). The total time of the shot from the time the ball was struck until it stopped must've been about 5 seconds. And the ball was only in the air for about 1.5 seconds. It was doing an AGNC #16-type roundabout.
Most fun shot of the day, and it was only a 30 foot shot.
-
Hear hear. Concur with all the above and would add that it is the unexpected, the unpredictable that is the excitement in golf. Watching the high ball land within feet of it's expected landing area and then stay there is so rote.
To take it a step farther, Why is it that those who revel in having the ball stop within inches of the pin, on a regular basis, get so upset when they end-up with a ball in a just horrible predicament? It's preposterous to me to expect all the right bounces all the time.
In the words of the mosquito hunting Monty Pyton sketch, " Where's the sport in that?
-
Nothing is better than a putt that rolls for 10 seconds and goes in. That's why most here like fast greens with sloped surfaces.
But wouldn't the putt take even longer if the greens were maintained at a slower speed?
-
Nothing is better than a putt that rolls for 10 seconds and goes in. That's why most here like fast greens with sloped surfaces.
But wouldn't the putt take even longer if the greens were maintained at a slower speed?
??? ??? ??? ??? ???
-
This is exactly why so many of us dislike too many blind shots on a golf course; we are unable to appreciate the passage of time leading up to the result. However, it also explains why the occasional blind shot well-struck is so exciting; we REALLY have to wait a long time to see an outcome that we suspect will be very good!
-
This is a really cool way of describing courses which are fast and firm AND have interesting humps and hollows. However, if you want to call it THE key, you are eliminating most if not all of the "top 100" courses in the USA. Do we need to be so harsh, or can we find a place in our hearts for the Cypress Points and Pine Valleys of the world?
-
Mr. Kirk,
Would it not follow that the only true test of golf course design is in the playing of said course?
-
Working my way up the list...
I certainly had firm and fast in mind when I wrote this.
A shot that covers the flag satisfies the theory, but the excitement is during the walk to the green I often find myself zig zagging to the green on those shots, trying to see how close it really is.
Shots 5-10 yards offline are less interesting, because you generally know how far away it is. A shot 15 feet right of the hole is a 15 footer if pin high, and a 22 footer if it's 5 yards short or long. The player generally knows whether they have hit the ball the right distance. Similarly, a shot 20 yards short leaves about a 20 yard shot, unless it's considerably off line.
With respect to blind shots, I generally prefer to see what I am doing around the green. For this reason, I don't want to play a steady diet of elevated greens (see Patrick Mucci's "Are Elevated Greens Superior?" thread). However, elevated greens test two very important skills, judging uphill shots and trusting your swing. Sometimes the anticipating of results is so great that I can't finish the swing smoothly, making a variety of errors. If successfully executed, then I'm anxiously walking up to see how my shot finished, or if I'm really interested, I'll run up there and watch it finish.
According to my theory, I like large green complexes, though not necessarily all large greens. My ideal course is difficult enough so my approaches miss the greens regularly, so I am faced with a wide variety of challenges.
Good bounces and unfortunate bounces are about equally exciting. In either case, both the player and his partners let out an "Ohhhhhh! Did you see that?". Both pretty exciting. I've grown to enjoy this part of golf immensely. My home course, Pumpkin Ridge, has very few unpredictable bounces.
Fast greens allow for longer duration putts. Let's take putts with equal initial velocity on a slow green and a fast one. The fast green offers less resistance to the ball, and the ball rolls longer in distance and time. I'm trying to explain this soemhow...trust me, fast greens make for longer putts timewise.
Thanks for responding.
-
Rich -
Why would Pine Valley be eliminated? I was under the impression that the green contours created many such shots, and that it is generally kept firm and fast.
-
George
I've always thought that PV's challenges were in hitting your drive to position A on relatively flat fairways, and getting your line and length right on your approach to relatively small greens. If there is more movement out there than I have surmised form others' accounts (I am a virgin :'() then I am wrong, and very, very sorry.....
Cheers
Rich
-
For me, wind is a key ingredient to this anticipation. I agree that it goes without saying that firm conditions are required to maximize the 'time' of a shot, and when you have both, on a links course for example, you're in for a real treat.
One of the purest pleasures of the game for me is seeing a ball travel along the ground for an extended period only to stop close to the intended target.
-
I have not played either Cypress Point or Pine Valley. My architecture education is incomplete to say the least. Based on remarks here, sounds like Pine Valley is moderately firm, but Cypress is quite soft year round. Both courses look stunningly beautiful, and both offer good playing options. Cypress has wind to contend with. PV is coveted for its great green complexes, among other things.
But I regularly tell people I can't imagine that golf at Pebble Beach is as exciting as playing in Bandon, because of the firm turf. Let's imagine you've hit a nice iron down into the landing area on #4 Bandon Dunes. You've got 150 yards downhill, and the wind is crossing at 15-20 miles per hour. From experience I know it's only a little pitching wedge, and I start it out about 5-10 yards right of the green. Bounce, bounce, bounce, roll. That's exciting to me.
By the way, Rich, I have played Dornoch once or twice. It was a "Eureka!" moment in my golf life. What a place.
The Masters is consistently one of the best tournaments each year, because we ge these wonderful shots that take forever to come to rest. I expect Pinehurst (haven't played there either) to deliver another great US Open this year.
Mr. Keller,
I think you're right. How can you tell if it's fun to play, unless you play it? There are certainly visual and tactile signals, but nothing replaces playing the shots.
-
Fast greens allow for longer duration putts. Let's take putts with equal initial velocity on a slow green and a fast one. The fast green offers less resistance to the ball, and the ball rolls longer in distance and time. I'm trying to explain this soemhow...trust me, fast greens make for longer putts timewise.
I think the key to your statement is how fast putts slow down on slower greens. If you have 30 foot putts on different speed greens, you may have to charge one and trickle the other.
Rich -
I haven't had the pleasure, either. You may be right about the fairways, but I would think the greens compensate more than adequately. I recall more than a few hole descriptions from Tom P, Jamie, etc., where they described a somewhat circuitous approach to the hole.
I remember turning on The Golf Channel late one night and seeing a black and white golf course. They were on a par 3 green, and the contours were so bold that I immediately thought, that has to be PV. Sure enough, it was the Nelson v. Littler WWOG episode from back in the 50s. I strongly encourage everyone to watch it if it's on, or go buy the tape.
-
John,
Great post. I agree with your thinking and I'm impressed with the fact that you were able to pin down that aspect of golf, I never would have been able to come up with your idea.
Bethpage Black #13.
After a solid drive I had about 240 to the green.
There is a very well designed bunker on #13 that can be confusing to someone who hasn't played the course enough times to remember that there is about 20 yards between this cross bunker and the green - it looks like a greenside bunker, but it isn't.
I figured I needed to fly the ball about 215 or so to clear the bunker and figured it was worth a shot. I hit a solid rescue club that I followed every inch of the way . . .I just couldn't tell if it had enough to clear the bunker. It turns out that the shot did clear the bunker and wound up on the green . . .
I hit that shot about 3 years ago. And it is one of the most memorable of my life . . . and until I read this post I'm not sure that I understood why. It wasn't because I hit the green in two, but now that I think about it, it is probably because I haven't hit many 240 yard shots that I had to watch for every second in order to figure out whether I was in good or bad shape . . .
Great post!
-Ted
-
Ted
I think you have just merged John's time issue with that of the heroic carry. We can all hit a great shot down the middle, and bend over to pick up the tee. But who remembers that? Whereas the full shot, taking on a hazard at the edge of our capability (accuracy or length) engages us for some time - much more memorable, even when we fail.
Ditto for the firm and fast, and undulating greens. Our greens get very fast (up to 13 feet, but not through choice) in August (our winter) through minimal growth, but somehow run true. I still recall the downhill 30 foot putt last year that took forever to get to the hole, but I thought was in with 20 feet to go. Oh, the delirious joy from watching the oppositions' pain for such an extended period. :) Makes me look forward to the middle of winter coming soon.
-
Nice find, Sean! I was the one who brought this up recently, because I've been thinking about it ever since and I become ever more convinced of its infallibility.
I'd have to say this thread of John's was the most thought provoking thing I've ever read on RSG, so right now I'd nominate it for "post of the millenium" on RSG. Even though I only joined in fall 2002, so if something more insightful was written before that, please point me at it :)
-
John & Doug:
I don't remember ever seeing this post, though I am now fortunate to have stumbled across it, but without question, John's original post is certainly an engaging statement and one of the more thought provoking written here. Hopefully, all those lurking and interested in architecture will gain from this. It truly says a lot for the experience, the game and the subtle, but very satisfying enjoyment we can all extract from watching this little white ball roll across the landscape.
Thanks for this profound thought John K.
-
This post is brilliant! It brings all of us to the heart of the game - when we play, we want our emotions to be engaged. We are discovering that it is the course and its design, and the way that design engages our emotions, that we love.
When a ball is in the air, lands and sticks like a dart in a dartboard, we don't have the same attachment to the course (either physical or psychological) that we do when the ball is running along the ground. When conditions are firm and fast and we can play shots on the ground, the very course itself (credit the architect) literally becomes an ingredient of our game, our success and our emotions. In trying to find the slopes and angles that will help us to get the ball close to the hole, we also discover that we are either as clever as the architect or not. And watching the ball follow the course we set it on, keeps us participating intellectually and emotionally even after the stroke has been made.
I believe like many of you that it is the creativitiy that is required and the serendipity that results from playing courses that have fairways and greens with what we call "character", that makes some courses great and truly "fun" to play.
-
I don't know if I can find an exception for Cypress Point within this theory, but I believe Pine Valley fits it well.
The truth about Pine Valley is that you don't REALLY know the result of your last shot until you get up to your ball and see what the lie is. You can slice into a bunker and be okay, or you can miss a green by two feet and have absolutely no play.
This is also true of St. Andrews ... often you can't see exactly where your drive has gone and even then you may have to be standing over it before you understand how your last shot has really affected your next one.
I know that's not what John was talking about with his original statement but I think he will find it's true of other courses he enjoys, too.
-
John Kirk,
Firm and fast is often a function of geography and weather patterns, rather than maintainance, hence those conditions may not be obtainable for all clubs.
One of the best walks in golf is from the lower fairway on the 3rd hole at NGLA, up to the crest of the "Alps" hill overlooking the green. When you reach the crest you eagerly scan the green to see what fate the golf gods have in store for you.
Some don't like the blind and random nature of the hole.
I love it
NGLA is full of those experiences, which you crave.
But, there are those who don't like NGLA due to the blind and random nature of play.
There are those who don't like "chance" influencing their ball.
At most clubs that I'm familiar with, there's been an ongoing effort to eliminate blindness and randomness from those golf clubs.
I think one of the problems with your preference in play is the medal play mentality.
I think your desires are better served by match play golf.
-
Patrick,
Would you agree that club memberships and greens committees are the primary reason for a lack of firm and fast golf courses on the east coast, usa? Geography, weather and maintenance all certainly play a part and I'm not interested in arguing over proportions, I'd rather support an effort whose mission is the education of the people that feel green and lush is the only way.
When you refer to a "medal play mentality", would 'fairness' be the key element argued by those opposed to these characteristics John Kirk talks about?
-
I forgot this thread but I obviously saw it as I posted on it about a year ago.
The time between shot and result that John Kirk described so well as the KEY does come in two totally opposite forms---that which is blind and that which the golfer can see all of.
I feel almost all golfers will just fall in love with the latter if they are given it and that's precisely why so many of us have advocated firm and fast conditions for so long both on the green and "through the green". What John Kirk described in detail is what many of us have described in a general phrase like "turning the lights up full" on architecture. The "Light" rheostat is the degree to which a course can acheive firm and fast conditions.
In other words, the joy of watching a ball bounce and roll and skitter across the ground for 50 or more yards is more than five times more exciting to me than watching it roll ten yards. The joy of playing five or ten times more break on a complex or big swinging putt on fast greens is about five to ten times more enjoyable and gratifying to me than the same putt you don't need to do that on. To me most of it is just watching it move across the ground in such a non-straigtht-line fashion not to mention the time it takes because of the speed even if it is straight-line.
I wish I could say I think the return of blindness as a wonderful delayed reaction between shot and result could again enjoy the same popularity that I think visible delayed reaction between shot and result can.
As much as I personally love blindness in architecture and golf, and as much as it once was "prized" in architeture (19th century) I'm afraid it never will enjoy a return in popularity. I think most of the reason it won't is because unfortunately this awful formulaic expectation that most everything in golf and architecture should be visible is just going to be too hard to break. This phrase of praise of architecture that "everything is right in front of you" pretty much makes my skin crawl. I suspect it may be primarily driven by the ultra increased need for "instant gratification" in our modern world.
But this is such a wonderful thread by John Kirk I think I will take the time to post in its entirety Max Behr's article ("Blindness") on the beauties of blindness in golf and architecture.
It should blow you away how well and how totally he delved into the soul of that subject.
-
Patrick,
Would you agree that club memberships and greens committees are the primary reason for a lack of firm and fast golf courses on the east coast, usa?
NO, I wouldn't say primary, but I would say, " a significant factor"
One only has to look at the conditions at Pine Valley last year when they lost their greens and had to close play.
I don't believe that PV enjoys F&F on a constant or even on a consistent basis.
But, that doesn't mean that they don't want to have F&F conditions.
First, the culture of the club has to understand and endorse F&F, secondly, Mother Nature HAS to co-operate in order to achieve F&F.[/color]
It's difficult to maintain firm and fast conditions in July and August, the prime golfing months in the northeast.[/b][/color]
Geography, weather and maintenance all certainly play a part and I'm not interested in arguing over proportions, I'd rather support an effort whose mission is the education of the people that feel green and lush is the only way.
While I agree 100 % with that, we're in the great minority.
TV reinforces on a weekly basis, LUSH GREEN conditions.
Members who return home from wintering or vacationing in Florida also contribute to the "Lush Green" syndrome.
I've always felt that the "Great" courses hold the key, in a trickle down perspective.
If great Clubs, X, Y and Z have dry, fast and firm conditions, that mentality spreads faster and better than a lone individual standiing up at a board or green committee meeting as a proponent of dry, F&F conditions.
Don't forget that water is also a great agent for camoflaging a golf courses ills.[/color]
When you refer to a "medal play mentality", would 'fairness' be the key element argued by those opposed to these characteristics John Kirk talks about ?
I think you can incorporate "fairness" within within the medal play mentality.
"Fairness" has a tendency to be more noticeable in medal play rounds then it does in match play rounds because one horrific break can result in a scoring abberation, whereas in match play, a golfer can lose but one hole at a time, irrespective of the score on that hole.
If your opponent birdies a hole, it doesn't matter if you made a par or a quintuple bogie, the result is the same.
But, in medal play, that horrific break, that quintuple bogie manifests itself with far more dire results[/color]
-
TEPaul,
Remember, every shot makes either the golfer or their opponent happy.
The joy you speak of comes when the shot is exeucted by the golfer as the architect intended, when the features are used to their maximum effectiveness.
Conversely, the golfer who ignores the features or the golfer that fails to execute the required shot will be horrified as he watches his shot hurdling toward a dire fate, to the joy of his opponent.
So John's premise works well, exceptionally well, in the context of competition, irrespective of whether it's match or medal play.
However, there are exceptions, or extra-competitive perspectives.
I recall one such, disturbing example.
I was playing in the Singles at NGLA.
I was standing on the 2nd tee waiting due to a back up.
The hole on the 1st green was cut in that impossible position, the back left bowl.
I watched in awe and horror as some idiot, playing the 1st hole hit this horrible looking shot that took all kinds of bounces and rolls and ended up about 3 feet from the hole.
The fellows I was playing with were shocked that an approach shot could actually get to, and stay in that bowl.
One fellow said, "that has to be the luckiest shot I've ever seen, that guy just picked up two shots on the field, what a lucky A**H***.
As the golfer came up onto the green, I turned to my fellow competitor and said, " I know that lucky A**H***, it's TEPaul.
So, sometimes joy, sorrow and disbelief extend beyond your immediate group, and perhaps, that's the appeal of TV.
-
"First, the culture of the club has to understand and endorse F&F,"
Patrick:
The culture of PVGC and the present administration does endorse firm and fast conditions. They've been topdressing their fairways to achieve that among other things.
-
Pat:
Regarding that approach to the 1st at NGLA story, you know that isn't true but frankly it could be. For some reason all the luck I've ever had in golf has been good luck. I don't recall ever having any bad luck. In retrospect I guess I've been very fortunate to have come to know so many people in golf and some of those I've always been most friendly with are "The Good Golf Gods". And one of the interesting by-products of that unusual friendship is it has always inordinately bothered most all of my opponents to the decided detriment of their own games. ;)
-
TEPaul,
I'm aware of that and effectively stated same in "green" paragraph 4.
But, as you know, you can't mess with Mother Nature.
-
Pat:
Regarding that approach to the 1st at NGLA story, you know that isn't true but frankly it could be. For some reason all the luck I've ever had in golf has been good luck. I don't recall ever having any bad luck. In retrospect I guess I've been very fortunate to have come to know so many people in golf and some of those I've always been most friendly with are "The Good Golf Gods". ;)
Are you denying that you hit your approach shots close to the hole when the pin was in the back left bowl at the NGLA Singles ?
And, you're right, it is lucky you met me, otherwise you'd still be wandering around the Denver Airport searching for your tickets.
And, that gorgeous flight atttendent wouldn't have fortuitously mistaken you for Bill Coore
She was the best looking attendent I've seen in at least five years, and personable too. We bonded immediately when we found out we both loved dogs.
No, not you, the four legged kind.
She lives in NJ, not far from me.
And, I told her that the Sand Hills logo you were wearing stood for S*** Head. ;D[/color]
-
"But, as you know, you can't mess with Mother Nature."
Bullshit. I realize that you can't mess with Mother Nature and I don't think I've ever met anyone else who can mess with her but I've pretty much been messing with wives and mothers all my life and that very much includes Mother Nature.
The only thing I never liked is playing in the rain but obviously Mother Nature knows that because the sun follows me pretty much whenever and wherever I go to play golf.
But I know why you can't mess with Mother Nature. It's because Mother Nature has never liked "know it all" smart asses.
-
"Are you denying that you hit your approach shots close to the hole when the pin was in the back left bowl at the NGLA Singles?"
No I'm not denying that. The one great match I had when the pin was in that back left bowl, I recall hitting my approach shot into that back bowl twice (regular match and overtime) and within about one foot of the same place as earlier. How that ball of mine actually got there is no concern of mine, particularly since I wasn't able to see it from where I hit it from anyway. I let my opponents and other shocked observers worry about stuff like how it actually got there. ;)
You and that stewardess sure did trick me. I think I said to her it was just incredible that she thought I was Bill Coore and I actually know the guy. She said something like: "Right, more incredible than you know."
-
Not only is this a good theory on enjoyment in golf, to me it is a good argument for rolling back the ball. It has always bothered me some that I couldn't see the result of my shots. If the ball goes so far that I can't see it, how can I enjoy the time between the shot and the result. Maybe the theory says these are blind shots and I get more enjoyment out of them. :) Also, I don't get to see my ball go OB or in the water. My fun doesn't get cut short so quickly. :) Wait a minute! Maybe this is an argument for making the ball go further.
-
Nothing is better than a putt that rolls for 10 seconds and goes in. That's why most here like fast greens with sloped surfaces.
But wouldn't the putt take even longer if the greens were maintained at a slower speed?
First, it is very hard to get a putt to roll for 10 seconds. It has to be a very large green or it has to be trickling downhill. Second, on slow greens, it is impossible to strike a long putt hard enough to have it roll for 10 seconds and it is very difficult to get a put to trickle on a slow green.
-
TEPaul,
I think everyone in the field was aware of how impossible it was to get to the back left bowl.
As you drove in that imisplaced road, through those improperly located gates, you could see where the pin was.
We discussed two strategies.
# 1 Long hitters should probably go for the green with their
drives.
# 2 Approach shots might be better off if hit into the back
left greenside bunker, leaving the golfer with a better
chance of recovering from that bunker to the back left
bowl and getting his par, rather then attempt to putt
the ball from anywhere on that green.
I shall miss that bowl.
It sure is fun to stand on the 2nd tee and watch approaches to that green.
That flight attendant was the type you'd like to take home to meet your mother, provided that you could trust your brothers. You can throw in your dad too. She was awesome.
-
I'm sad to see that back left bowl go too. Obviously it wasn't original--Karl Olsen did it but it was wonderful. I always thought hitting an approach in there was a piece of cake. All you have to do is land the ball right about 6/16th of the way into the green and on the left 1/3 of that two foot wide spine and let it just filter left and gently back in there. But guys who let strategies roll around in their heads like hitting the bunker as the best way to play the hole could never play it like I do though.
-
Well I finally got far enough to see that this is an old thread, and that Doug bumped it up to the top again. For that Doug, I thank you very much. The original post has to be one of the most interesting I have read on this site. There was a thread the last couple of days saying this website was like a think tank. I was sceptical about that until I read this thread. Since is was something completely original from all I had read about golf up until now, it convinced me there is some very good thinking going on here.
My hall of fame of GCA posters now contains two people.
2005 inductee - Tom Paul (even though he got quite nasty towards me recently)
2006 inductee John Kirk
At the top of next year's ballot.
Tom Doak
Ian Andrew
-
Thanks for bringing this thread back to the top. In two plus years I've made one significant contribution, and used the other 400 posts to offer opinions about golf courses.
Garland, I'm also in Portland, by the way.
10 seconds is a very long time for a putt to roll out. I've probably made five or ten putts in my career that rolled that long. I'd guess Tiger's chip on #16 at the Masters last year was in motion 10-15 seconds, making it a highlight film type play.
Patrick, I look forward to playing NGLA someday, perhaps as early as this June. As previously discussed, blind shots offer a different and long lasting anticipation. In addition, blind shots require the golfer to use landmarks to aim and faith to execute the shot. These days I consider blind shots to be part of a complete examination of one's skills.
As Tom D. pointed out, firm and fast isn't mandatory, but helpful. Slope achieves part of the goal. Add Pine Valley to my wish list.
Thanks again, guys.
-
I really don't think 10 seconds is all that long for a putt to roll out. On a downhill slope, it isn't unusual at all, though those putts rarely go in. I had one putt on my home course's 14th last summer of about 20 feet which I hit hard enough to move the ball perhaps 1/2" if it was on level ground and it trickled down for what must have been at least 20 seconds. I watched it for 5 or 6 seconds after hitting it, then walked up to it to urge it on, then walked down behind the hole to start telling it which direction to move. Ended up about 3" to the right of the hole.
The guys I was playing with, who were playing the course for the first time, were astounded I was able to judge the speed of that speed so well. I didn't have the heart to tell them it was dumb luck it stopped there and didn't trickle another 10 seconds to the bottom of the green, so I pleaded local knowledge :)
Lots more fun than hitting that putt on a stimp 6 green that I have to pound and is done rolling in two seconds flat!
-
That's what I figured for a 10 second putt. It almost has to be a trickler. I bladed my approach to our most severely sloped green today, ended up on the back with the pin near the front. I stroked the putt and walked to the bottom of the green where I stood over it as it trickled to a stop 14 seconds later.
Dave Pelz holed a 100 plus foot putt on the Open telecast last summer. It is about the only nontrickler that I think would approach 10 seconds.
-
Corollary: Blind shots only exhibit this property the second time around. On our GCA outing to the north course at the Reserve Vineyards yesterday, I hit my blind approach to the 13th green where Peter Pittock told me to hit it. Since it was a short wedge shot, I had very little time to experience the travels of the ball. Since I did not know the hole, I had no excitement waiting to determine the result. Turns out it was the best approach of the group and resulted in birdie.
-
I have a favorite article by Geoff S about blind shots ,that I keep posted on my wall ,that contains a Max Behr quote,
” Should the golfer, in all cases, become immediately aware of what his fate is? Is golf to be robbed of all illusion? Is the walk between shots to be, only, either a tragic or dull affair? Does not the very essence of a sport lie in that suspense between the commencement of an action and the knowledge of its result? Is it not the suspense in hunting, shooting, fishing and in all sports sublimates the mind and heart into a region of no knowledge, a region where for a moment we are permitted to dream impossible things and become heroes?”
-
Scott R.
Thanks for posting the Behr quote...I suspect this is a partial from the total discussion that Tom Paul was referring to and was going to post, but never did.
I still find myself enjoying the imaginative thoughts behind the original post by John Kirk...it really does get to the heart of the game. Thanks again John K.
-
A corollary to John's unified theory is the long wait hopefully vaidates your decision making and vision. My responses to an earlier thread about your greatest shots were mostly in tune with John's eureka.
When athletes are in 'the zone' some say they see everything in slow-motion. Watching a shot for a long time brings the essence of the same emotion.
Garland,
My directions at 13 were to help avoid an 'other', but great execution on the two shots.
-
Interesting idea about the "slo mo" thing Peter, but if golf shots move in slow motion when one is 'in the zone' I guess I've never been in the zone in a round of golf, EVER! When I've been in the zone my mind is very calm, I can't remember what I was thinking about before or during a swing, and didn't really feel much incentive to pay attention to my ball during its flight because I knew it would go where I desired.
I've certainly enjoyed the slo mo time thing in things as diverse as swinging at a baseball, tripping over a root and doing a full (unintentional) somersault when running full speed downhill in an apple orchard after the last day of school in 6th grade, and when hitting a telephone pole in my car once. Its adrenaline related, and it is pretty short lived -- not even long enough for the hang time on a full drive. To me, the zone is almost the opposite of the adrenaline-induced slow motion movement of time.
Both are really cool though, every golfer would love to enter the zone at will, but given a choice I'd take being able to slow down time subjectively for myself at will instead of just when I'm super pumped up or scared that I'm about to feel serious pain. With slo mo time on your side you could bat 1.000 and kick Jackie Chan's ass or at least avoid having one's ass kicked ;)
-
A great thread, this -- one that I never saw before today ... as I'm sure is the case with many good threads.
I wish the Discussion Group had an editor who would somehow mark the really good threads, so that it didn't take daily vigilance not to miss them.
-
It is about the only nontrickler that I think would approach 10 seconds.
Try Rocca's bullet through the Valley of Sin! More supporting evidence than firm+fast=fun.
-
Congratulations are in order to John with the inclusion of his essay "A Theory of Time" in the latest issue (Jan/Feb) of Links magazine. It starts on Page 107.
Tom Doak says the "...thesis about what makes a golf course fun is one of the most interesting thoughts I've heard on the subject in recent years."
Also in Links -
Will Sean Arble be conflicted with Doak's article on Pennard? The Confidential Guide is updated for Australia.
-
I am wondering if John read The Spirit of St. Andrews, and if so, how much did that influence him?
-
I'm very pleased The Kirk Theory is receiving the recognition it deserves.
-
I am wondering if John read The Spirit of St. Andrews, and if so, how much did that influence him?
I have not read The Spirit of St. Andrews, but I guess I should to round out my education.
Thanks to all (including Jerry Kluger from another thread) for your recognition and support.
-
I have sometimes described Scotland links course as the home of the 15 second golf shot.
Not putts but when I watched a solidly struck three iron tee shotplayed about 15 ft off the ground to stay under the wind at number one or two at cruden bay roll out over humps and into troughs and from the left side of the fairway to the right i swear it was 15 seconds of anticipation and every bit as good or better than a rope hit at the flag.
I have since played these shots to greens as well ( Glascow Gales this year number 12 or 13 ) and the satisfaction of seeing one of these laid nearly dead to the hole is unrepeatable elsewhere. great call Capt Kirk
-
Is Links Magazine worth subscribing to?
I just started a subscription so can't tell you yet, but I think George Peper has a monthly column -- I really enjoyed his recent book about moving to St Andrews -- and the most recent issue has an article by GCAer John Kirk, so I will read it to see writing on golf architecture, some from the "user's" perspective.
I wasn't impressed when it seemed to be mostly designed to flog high end residential golf. Look forward to seeing what it's like these days.
-
John one of the best posts on GCA.com that I have read yet.
-
Great post, John. I'd never thought about it in quite this way, but I think that you are right. I've had one hole-in-one: The ball disappeared some ten seconds after landing on the putting surface (the green was rock hard and the shot was downwind; I had to use an extreme slope on the front left of the green to funnel the ball to the middle right hole location). The result was thrilling to be sure, but the real pleasure was watching that ball travel.
Interestingly enough, John's theory might conflict with an idea proposed in the wonderful book "Why Golf?" In that book, the author suggests that one reason that golf is addicting is that humans naturally enjoy controlling inanimate objects, and that golf lets human exercise this instinct allowing them to propel a tiny ball with a stick in a very precise manner. But, once a ball hits the ground and runs, the golfer is very much at the discretion of the rub of the green.
Why then do we love seeing the ball run out? Is "Why Golf?" only partly right? Do golfers, in addition to enjoying controlling the ball, also love being at the mercy of the elements and luck?
Or, is it that the golfer convinces himself that, when the ball bounces and rolls just right, it is as a result of the perfect shot, and not of luck? Such a golfer will clearly get more thrill from a shot that takes a long time to come to rest after hitting the ground, because a positive result is so much more difficult to achieve in the "firm and fast" conditions.
-
I am wondering if John read The Spirit of St. Andrews, and if so, how much did that influence him?
I have not read The Spirit of St. Andrews, but I guess I should to round out my education.
Thanks to all (including Jerry Kluger from another thread) for your recognition and support.
I am currently reading The Spirit of St. Andrews, and before seeing this tread come back up I am thinking this guy (the author) sounds like John Kirk when he talks about width of the playing corridor, and about watching the ball roll out.
-
Today I was thinking about the TPC at Sawgrass and being there for the first couple of tournaments played on it. One thing I was struck by was how there was so much crowd reaction because the ball moved on the greens a lot after the approach had landed ... the plateaus for the hole locations were relatively small, and frequently players would try to play to them by hedging to the side where a slope in the green would feed the ball down to another position. Anyway, there was a lot more gallery noise because of all the slopes in the greens and because the crowd, being unfamiliar with it all, was excited to see where the ball would wind up.
All of which fits John's theory rather well, in terms of how much a gallery will enjoy tournament golf. Off the top of my head, the two courses on the US Tour which are the most exciting for galleries are the TPC and Augusta National.
P.S. I'm glad I could help extend John's theory outside of this small circle of enthusiasts.
-
Toms right.
Also a big reason the PGA tour isn't as exiting as tthe European tour is the ball runs in Europe but in the US "Resort courses" it just sticks.
Sadly all the best players are deflecting to the PGA TOUR as they have the big $$$.
-
Bumpioca for Ben.
Here's one that I enjoyed.
-
Augustine Golf Club in Stafford, VA (top 100 PYCP back in late 90's) had a hole where you would experience this. #2 was a monster par four with a lake along the entire left side and a high fescue hillside / forest on the right. If you hit the fairway, the next shot was a long iron or hybrid to the green. Everyone avoided the lake on the left so most would launch it to the front right side of the green at the toe of a slope. You would hit the ball and it would vanish over the mounding in front of the green. Sometimes, after a considerable wait, the ball would suddenly reappear and roll across the green toward the pin. It was great. Very good thread!!
-
Roger:
Very true -- unfortunately, I often experienced that with my third shot (having had to take a drop b/c of the water), which took some fun out of it. ;)
Cool thread and theory.
-
It just occurred to me how this applies to ponds vs. streams.
I have for a long time said that I much prefer streams to ponds on golf courses, because I can accidentally miss a stream. I.e., I hit at a stream by accident and it manages not to go in the stream.
John's theory explains this better. Often times if you hit a ball at a pond, you know almost instantly your ball is going to a watery grave. However, if you hit your ball at a stream you wait until the ball lands outside the stream, then you wait some more while the ball runs out to see if it takes the slope into the stream, and finally when it comes to rest safely, you feel a sense of elation!
-
John I also love the post. It is the 2nd half of that feeling for me. The first half is imagining the shot and setting it up in my head. Then to watch it unfold is pure joy.
-
John I also love the post. It is the 2nd half of that feeling for me. The first half is imagining the shot and setting it up in my head. Then to watch it unfold is pure joy.
Especially with the ground balls I have seen you hit...Its on the ground for a long time
;)
Hope you are well, Tiger.
-
It just occurred to me how this applies to ponds vs. streams.
I have for a long time said that I much prefer streams to ponds on golf courses, because I can accidentally miss a stream. I.e., I hit at a stream by accident and it manages not to go in the stream.
John's theory explains this better. Often times if you hit a ball at a pond, you know almost instantly your ball is going to a watery grave. However, if you hit your ball at a stream you wait until the ball lands outside the stream, then you wait some more while the ball runs out to see if it takes the slope into the stream, and finally when it comes to rest safely, you feel a sense of elation!
Garland:
One of the funniest things I've seen on a golf course was my former intern James Duncan [who now works for Bill Coore] trying to drive across the creek on the sixth at Stonewall. The water there is actually about two feet wide, but it twists and turns, and James' drive was toward the line of the creek and managed to splash right in the middle of that two-foot-wide water course. :) It reminded me of Rocky the Flying Squirrel high diving into a barrel of water.
-
Kudos to John! You know you have put forth a thoughtful post when it is re-visited in 5 separate years - we have posts from '05 '06 '07 '09 and now '10. What happened in 2008???
I enjoy re-reading this one every time it pops up.
-
It just occurred to me how this applies to ponds vs. streams.
I have for a long time said that I much prefer streams to ponds on golf courses, because I can accidentally miss a stream. I.e., I hit at a stream by accident and it manages not to go in the stream.
John's theory explains this better. Often times if you hit a ball at a pond, you know almost instantly your ball is going to a watery grave. However, if you hit your ball at a stream you wait until the ball lands outside the stream, then you wait some more while the ball runs out to see if it takes the slope into the stream, and finally when it comes to rest safely, you feel a sense of elation!
Garland:
One of the funniest things I've seen on a golf course was my former intern James Duncan [who now works for Bill Coore] trying to drive across the creek on the sixth at Stonewall. The water there is actually about two feet wide, but it twists and turns, and James' drive was toward the line of the creek and managed to splash right in the middle of that two-foot-wide water course. :) It reminded me of Rocky the Flying Squirrel high diving into a barrel of water.
With that accuracy for dunking it, he ought to collect a few holes-in-one in his lifetime. ;)
-
With the 16th at Sagebrush in mind this thread needs to reemerge. Also was thinging of this at the par 3 15th at Royal Colwood when I pulled one left over the green and mused if it reappearing in the OB parking lot changed anything. A well placed bunker stopped it.
-
This thread may have been wrapped through Ran's mind when he penned this Golf Magazine article:
https://golf.com/travel/why-release-golf-ball-ground-beautiful-thing/
-
Thanks for reviving a really interesting thread. The premise of the OP brought to mind the joys of the old game of Mousetrap. The posts about blind shots reminded me of Battleship. The ones about courses like CP spoke Stratego.
There is a place for all of them in the pantheon of great venues.
Ira