Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Josh Tarble on January 14, 2016, 03:00:20 PM
-
I have been pondering for a while which came first, the chicken or the egg?
What I mean in architectural and golf terms is, have technological advances been driven by making courses longer and harder or have courses been made longer and harder because of technological advances?
-
Is this a slam against 19th cebtury golf course architecture?
-
Josh - I think if Adam Clayman still posted here regularly he would say that "the Ego came first". The preening, self-important, fragile, dominant, unstable, rapacious, self-serving human "ego" that is the one constant and cohesive force in the ever fluid architecture-and-technology dialectic.
-
I would say unequivocally technology pushed courses to elongate.
-
I'd agree with that, mostly technology - the ball first, shafts second, and the move to lightweight metal 'woods' third.
-
I would say unequivocally technology pushed courses to elongate.
So when Pine Valley was opened in 1913, there was no one standing on the 5th tee saying "man I wish it were easier to hit this stupid wood driver farther!"?
-
Or when the 1927 US Open was played at Oakmont, no one was saying "Wow this game is so ridiculously hard. Out of the best professionals in the game, only 2 broke par. There has to be some way to make it easier to play"?
-
Josh,
The object of playing a sport professionally is to win; this is never more true than in golf where there is no guaranteed income. Hitting the ball farther makes it easier to score lower simply because you have a statistically better chance of hitting it closer to the hole from further in. This adds up to a better chance of winning or cashing a check. I doubt technological changes were introduced to make the game easier for the masses, although everyone would like a better chance to win the cash in their Sunday fourball and therefore adopt these changes. Courses are only lengthened when the golf on them is perceived to be too easy.
-
You are correct Pete. Just like the seat belt was invented at the Indianapolis 500 for safety in competition, these advancements trickle down to the general masses. But did they have to go faster to need a seat belt, or did they need a seat belt to go faster?
-
I doubt technological changes were introduced to make the game easier for the masses....
Sure they were. The two most significant technological advances in the game were the introduction of the guttie ball around mid-century 1800s, and then the Haskell ball around the turn of the century some 50 years later. Both balls made it much easier for players to hit and control the flight of the ball -- the guttie because it was simply a more consistently formed ball than the featheries it replaced, and could be "grooved" to make it fly straighter, and the Haskell because of its revolutionary wound core.
The guttie literally brought golf to the masses -- it's the single most important development in terms of a technological leap in the history of golf. It was both better and cheaper than the feathery, and could be mass-produced -- the Model T of the game.
-
There is more historic rhetoric describing the need to elongate courses to keep pace with the gutty, the Haskell, etc than there is the need to improve equipment to keep pace with ever-elongating courses. They do, in fact, leapfrog one another but equipment enhancements have been the principal drivers. Advance kudos to the GCA researcher who can find the article that represents the "mitochondrial eve".
-
Josh,
Back in the first decade of the 20th century there was the "Dreadnought", a very large wooden headed driver w/a whippy shaft.
A generation before that, in the Gutty days, there was a driver called the "Bap", which got its name because it was as big as a type of scone that Scots ate at breakfast.
Walter Travis used a driver that, if I remember correctly, was nearly 50" in length.
Crump even got in the game with a huge headed driver named "Bolivar":
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1600/24027005926_9555949f5c_o.jpg)
A decade later Bobby Jones couldn't resist trying out a "Mammoth" driver, which one sportswriter dubbed "Big Bertha".
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5737/22490684517_13e985a0b8_o.jpg)
They didn't use these clubs because courses were too long.
-
Or when the 1927 US Open was played at Oakmont, no one was saying "Wow this game is so ridiculously hard. Out of the best professionals in the game, only 2 broke par. There has to be some way to make it easier to play"?
Josh,
No doubt people always thought that.
Ex. Sarazen SW, later the Sandy Andy,even the move to lofted fairway woods-amazingly only popularized by Ray Floyd at '76 masters.or Nicklaus 1986 Masters putter.
But none of the advancements changed the game much (a slow steady yardage increase over the years, with years that the sample sample size or weather even caused the stats to move backwards)
WPeople dabbled with longer(44-45) drivers but the weight of the steel shaft and wood head made it unwieldy
The Titleits Professional of the mid 90's started it and the ProV1 pushed it over the edge.
For some silly reason I resisted it for a couple years (playing the Spalding Tour Edition-the good one not the spinny thing that Norman spun off every green)
Obviously the lightweight shafts allowing longer shafts combined with thinfaced and low spinning heads pushed the needle to where we are.
I must say it ALWAYS amazed me in the late 70's, early-mid 1980's that the most sought after clubs were 30 years old! and I always used to comment on how that made no sense.(I was always looking for a better driver!)
the response was that the best persimmon had been used years ago.
The original $500 drivers weren't Big Berthas, they were the vintage 1950 Macgregor drivers that occasionally became available!
I personally used a Wilson Staff lamintated driver for years (I still take it out-plays just like my three wood in launch and carry which makes sense as it's the same length)
a little bit like the responses I used to get when questioning why I never liked new courses that I played growing up. that "all the good land for golf had been used by the 1970's". ;) ;D
Some pretty incredible sites used since 1995!
-
I take a different view in that people generate change. When folks talk about technology changing the game its as if there is a disconnect and that somehow the manufacturer is the bad guy. People used the technology and people decided to alter and build courses to suit the new technology. Thats the excuse anyway. People being people, courses would have changed anyway. There is no way courses would have remained in some time warp that purists on this site seem to think exists. Either way...its people making changes...not technology. Technology is the instrument of change, not the decison-maker of change.
Its all a bit of waste of time to even talk about the past because there is no use crying over spilt milk. Now and the future are what is important. Its critical that people control knee jerk reactions in an attempt to recreate an idealized time in golf where 5 irons went so far blah blah blah...that ship has sailed...stop moaning. If fun rather than high level competition is the concenration point things will be just fine.
Ciao
-
Its all a bit of waste of time to even talk about the past because there is no use crying over spilt milk. Now and the future are what is important. Its critical that people control knee jerk reactions in an attempt to recreate an idealized time in golf where 5 irons went so far blah blah blah...that ship has sailed...stop moaning. If fun rather than high level competition is the concenration point things will be just fine.
Ciao
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
As far as wasting time, we're on a chat site about golf architecture.......
We agree about knee jerk reactions to courses, but that's simple human nature, and NO developer wants to spend big $$ on a course deemed unworthy of an event for elite players.
Make no mistake, dreamers build the great courses, even though that course may never host a Tour event.
We disagree that there may be a rollback or at least a holding of the line on technology.
In my case i see the scale of the ball causing the scale of the courses to grow.
Fortunately you have many classic old courses around you where you can enjoy the game-as do I.
I'd like to see more classic type courses built and monstrosities downsized.
Rather than changing human nature, which you suggest,
I say simply change the ball/equipment.
Every other sport does it.
You don't care for posts lamenting golf on a smaller scale, yet the hickory movement continues to grow.
(I know quite a few extour players who play it regularly)
You say we should do something rather than cry about it.
I am-every chance I get and it's on topic as it greatly influences architecture.
Many of the posters and lurkers on this site are quite influential in golf-never hurts for them to see that many share my view-in fact I get a lot of PMs from people that also share it, and email from lurkers who matter in the golf world.
Twenty-five years ago who would have thought the Open Doctor would be debunked and the controversial wacko ;) writing books and rating courses would be at the top of the architecture world-and MANY new worthwhile courses built and/or improved rather than a continuation of the AWFUL trend we were on.
I worry about the future of the game and its expense and attraction to people as it gets ever bigger.
I also enjoy watching elite players play classic courses.
You just simply want to enjoy the game on architecturally compelling golf courses-nothing wrong with that.
Thirty years ago one could do all three.
Despite being a Republican (hard to admit at the moment) I feel like I'm Obama threatening to take your guns away. You can keep them, it's the elite I'm seeking to disarm (yikes maybe I'm becoming a Democrat-but given our current choices not sure it matters)
-
Jeff
The hickory movement is a great example of people getting on with their enjoyment of the game rather than moaning about USGA irresponsibilty, roll this back and that forward blah blah blah. Just get on with makes the game fun rather than crying over something that already done. I have no time for people who actually contibute to the problem they complain about...its the height of arrogance to assume the problem as they see it someone elses fault while swinging a flash new driver at a Pro V1 [/size][/font] ::)
If you think any type of roll back that could possibly ever occur is going to make clubs downsize their courses...I have swamp land in FLA for sale. ;D Get your hickories more pften because that is a dream :D
Ciao
-
Jeff
The hickory movement is a great example of people getting on with their enjoyment of the game rather than moaning about USGA irresponsibilty, roll this back and that forward blah blah blah. Just get on with makes the game fun rather than crying over something that already done. I have no time for people who actually contibute to the problem they complain about...its the height of arrogance to assume the problem as they see it someone elses fault while swinging a flash new driver at a Pro V1 ::)
If you think any type of roll back that could possibly ever occur is going to make clubs downsize their courses...I have swamp land in FLA for sale. ;D Get your hickories more pften because that is a dream :D
Ciao
Sean
I'm quite the contradiction.
I think anchoring should be legal because it's an innovation of technique and it has never been a stated reason for altering a course or green. Additionally it keeps many in the game who had found a way to keep enjoying it..
I've never anchored yet I'm all for it.
I often use my wooden driver for fun/comparison but haven't played a hickory round.
I also still compete against the flatbellies, thirty years younger so yes I use modern equipment when I compete against them.
.....and I argue against it.
As far as courses downsizing because of a rollback, that's a simple one.Classic courses do nothing save abanadon a few new tees and newer courses can abandon one-two tees per hole ;D ;D
WE'll have to disagree that that's hypocritical-(unless Nicklaus,Norman, Player,Tiger etc. are hypocrites as well for using the equipment while promoting better equipment regulation/rollback)
-
Great post Sean. So simple, but people like to seek out authoritarian change.
I read about 80% of this thread and I've yet to hear the elephant in the room, MAINTENANCE. Dumbed down maintenance
-
I definitely feel better now :) ;) ;)
-
It's really just pride and envy that make us all want our course to be the longest and our swing to be the most powerful. The deadly sins came first. Long courses and hot drivers are just a symptom of human nature.
-
I just posted in the -30 thread about technological evolution and now see it being discussed here...
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,62423.msg1485511.html#msg1485511
-
In my lifetime (53 years)
MacGregor was king as a kid. We had some members that were very good players, one guy found a left handed deep faced macGregor driver and found 10 yards with it. Lost the club championship finals 3 or 4 times.
Our club champ, found a Toney Penna and tried the new fangled graphite shaft and though struggling a bit with a hook, caught back up with the lefty distance wise.
At about this time, Nicklaus was hitting 1 irons in to orbit and rewriting record books.
Ray Floyd put a five wood to great use in the Masters, finally able to consistently hit high shots into the Augusta greens that favored Nicklaus and his trajectory.
Massacre at Winged Foot, Pebble, Augusta and many others got longer and harder, and made a vertical game a huge advantage. Nicklaus, Miller, and others helped usher in the reverse "C" that allowed higher launch angles with the super high spin equipment of the day.
Along cam KArsten and the Ping Rail irons which many good players put in their bag in the long irons to hit it higher. Originally considered a game improvement club for the avg golfer, good players took advantage in the leap of technology.
Augusta and the USGA did everything they could to "protect par" with hard fast greens, and players adjusted. Players made the adjustments and hit it higher. Ping and others responded making clubs that launched higher, and then the Pro Traj and 384 Titleists arrived!
Courses got longer, rough higher, greens mowers got thinner bedknives, floating decks and the arms race from all sides led us to where we are.
Great players led to toughening of courses and set ups, players made adjustments with equipment and swings, (wash/rinse/repeat).
Great players with increasingly consistent equipment learned to FLY the ball specific distances and moved the game in to the air (I think Nicklaus said "no hazards in the sky"?). The cycle continues.
Maybe the game needs to be played under a ceiling so shaping the ball and using the ground is mandatory? :)
-
A question for the American members of the board; how did Baseball manage to bifurcate? Is it just a case of lower participation rates amongst adults so no one really cared? Club owners stepped in to avoid having to remodel ball parks?
I struggle as to why golf has such an issue with bifurcation, to an extent it already exists with the groove rule so why not everything else.
-
Equipment companies push the envelope in order to make more money selling equipment. It's hard to stop that, except for tougher regulations.
Golf architects and developers keep making courses longer because ... they let their egos get in the way, pure and simple. And because some architects are Tour pros who think every course needs to be 7,500 yards to challenge their peers [which is, again, ego at work].
I believe the insistence on longer courses is very much overstated. There are lots of developers who know they're not going to host a big tournament, because they don't want to put up the money. But their architects generally propose long golf courses anyway, because that's the standard set by the industry, and the architect wants to be a big name someday.
I am curious. How many architects on this board have routinely proposed 6600-yard courses, and what percentage of their clients insist on making it longer?
I've had a few clients ask if I couldn't make the course longer or increase par by a stroke [usually from 70 to 71, sometimes from 71 to 72]. But I've had a lot who didn't care much. Mike Keiser didn't care at first, although the USGA guys he was spending time with kept asking why Pacific Dunes couldn't be longer. [I kept it short, but promised to find more back tees if they ever wanted to play the U.S. Open there. ::) ] Julian Robertson did make me build Cape Kidnappers longer, because he wanted to host a big event; he used his home club [Shinnecock] as his example and how the USGA were making it longer.
It is really the golf industry which keeps pushing golf courses to be longer and longer. Golf architects just go along to get along.
-
Didn't I read on here that Housing developers loved longer courses as it gave them more prime real estate with views to sell?
When I read the RTJ biography, perhaps because I knew little about him, I was amazed how he was a one man pioneer for narrowing fairways, lengthening existing holes and protecting Par at all costs. Did the pro's really improve that much in the 1950's or did his Open Doctor work just become the new standard?
-
Just look at the Chicago Golf Club motto: Far & Sure. That says it all.
I believe Chicago Golf expropriated their motto from Royal Liverpool (Hoylake).
I also believe it was intended to be about hitting the ball solidly, not about the change from the featherie to the gutty. The motto precedes any other equipment changes [Haskell ball, steel shafts, etc.].
-
The egg.
-
The egg.
-1
-
The egg.
-1
Gee, that's even worse than being at level par (in the modified stableford scoring system).
I wonder if there were so many golfers shooting under par back when the Haskell
first arrived that architects felt compelled to lengthen their courses? Do you think so - do you think golfers back then (or when steel shafts arrived) were suddenly shooting lights out and making changes to golf courses inevitable? Me, I can't quite imagine that, no.
-
The egg.
-1
Gee, that's even worse than being at level par (in the modified stableford scoring system).
I wonder if there were so many golfers shooting under par back when the Haskell
first arrived that architects felt compelled to lengthen their courses? Do you think so - do you think golfers back then (or when steel shafts arrived) were suddenly shooting lights out and making changes to golf courses inevitable? Me, I can't quite imagine that, no.
Peter:
There were maybe a dozen courses of note in the United States when the Haskell ball came along in 1901-02. The Haskell ball first had its major influence on British courses, many of which I think the record would show were lengthened in response to the longer-distance improvements in the ball. Par had little to do with it, as most British golf was oriented toward match-play and not stroke play.
-
There were maybe a dozen courses of note in the United States when the Haskell ball came along in 1901-02.
Not sure what you mean by "of note" but of the thousand or so course in existence in the US by 1901-02, there were well more than a dozen that were highly regarded.
-
The egg.
-1
Gee, that's even worse than being at level par (in the modified stableford scoring system).
I wonder if there were so many golfers shooting under par back when the Haskell
first arrived that architects felt compelled to lengthen their courses? Do you think so - do you think golfers back then (or when steel shafts arrived) were suddenly shooting lights out and making changes to golf courses inevitable? Me, I can't quite imagine that, no.
Peter,
The same lame argument is trotted out today.
It's not low scores that are the problem with modern tech.
You could give many amateurs 30 more yards and their scores wouldn't change because they are too naive/stubborn to improve their short games.
It's the sheer scale of the game that changes when new breakthrough distances are achieved via a tech breakthrough.
Make no mistake, the Haskell ball changed the scale of the game and courses were lengthened to accommodate it. I suppose some here would say the courses that adapted to stay relevant were wrongheaded to do so as many courses are doing today.How relevant would Shinny or Garden City be at 4500 yards today?
Again, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
-
Jeff - I'm not here (or on Jim's thread) so much disagreeing with you as I am suggesting that the solution to ever longer courses is more likely to be found in embracing (and helping the golfing collective/ establishment to embrace) a different notion of architectural relevancy. As long as low scores and longer tee shots (for whatever reasons, talent and/or technology) are seen as evidence that the architecture is failing/has failed, committee members at classic clubs and developers of new course are going to keep making their courses longer. I think we can certainly learn THAT from history too.
-
Jeff - I'm not here (or on Jim's thread) so much disagreeing with you as I am suggesting that the solution to ever longer courses is more likely to be found in embracing (and helping the golfing collective/ establishment to embrace) a different notion of architectural relevancy. As long as low scores and longer tee shots (for whatever reasons, talent and/or technology) are seen as evidence that the architecture is failing/has failed, committee members at classic clubs and developers of new course are going to keep making their courses longer. I think we can certainly learn THAT from history too.
When the implements improve dramatically, the architecture does fail, or at least change for many.
That is my point exactly. Human nature isn't going to change.
1.Players will always seek a legal advantage.
2.Courses will always expand to stay relevant.(those who say they shouldn't are rarely members of 4500 yard courses from 1898-mainly because they all closed if they didn't adapt)
The governing bodies can choose to mandate how much of #1 players can gain. They do it all the time. Anchoring, Grooves-They just happen to be misguided and fearful of manufacturers so they ignore the 800 gorilla-distance-the one factor that drives cost and time the most.
What really amazes me is when people state that the distance gains have leveled off and that there's not much left to gain. No doubt they said that in 1775, 1895, and 1940.
Tennis was the first to ruin itself with one swing rallies, golf is following suit.(well that and promoting it as "cool" ::) ::) ::) )
-
I think it's about the chicken eating the egg.
Designers like Mackenzie designed their courses with elasticity and with a few shots that were beyond the reach of nearly everyone. Manufacturers innovated I&B, which golfers saw could bring more shots within their reach. If it could be done, the courses were then elasticatedTM (and then new courses came online reflecting the new status quo).
It's just feeding eggs to chickens.
-
There were maybe a dozen courses of note in the United States when the Haskell ball came along in 1901-02.
Not sure what you mean by "of note" but of the thousand or so course in existence in the US by 1901-02, there were well more than a dozen that were highly regarded.
I'll give you....
Kebo Valley, Town and Country, St. Andrews, Shinnecock, Palmetto, Oakhurst (a stretch, if you ask me), Essex County, Chicago, TCC, Newport, Van Cortland, Glen View, Ekwanok, and Quoque (another stretch).
Others?
-
Mark - not coincidentally it was less than a year later that Dr MacKenzie created the first of his now-famous "omniverous bunkers".
I hope it's not uncharitable of me to point out that in past threads you mistakenly labelled them "carniverous".
Peter
-
I hope it's not uncharitable of me to point out that in past threads you mistakenly labelled them "carniverous".
Which, as I understand it, is the very type of bunker that Pete Dye was forbidden to use when he did the work at Whistling Straits for Herb Kohler.....
-
That's quite the memory, Peter.
Joe, have you had the breakfast at the American Club?
BTW I call my postulation the "Mother and Child Reunion." Now I need to find ways to disseminate it into the general populace. Perhaps a toe-tapping ditty.
-
There were maybe a dozen courses of note in the United States when the Haskell ball came along in 1901-02.
Not sure what you mean by "of note" but of the thousand or so course in existence in the US by 1901-02, there were well more than a dozen that were highly regarded.
I'll give you....
Kebo Valley, Town and Country, St. Andrews, Shinnecock, Palmetto, Oakhurst (a stretch, if you ask me), Essex County, Chicago, TCC, Newport, Van Cortland, Glen View, Ekwanok, and Quoque (another stretch).
Others?
You left off a few courses that had hosted the amateur by 1902 (Morris County, Onwentsia, Garden City and Atlantic City) and a few that would in subsequent years (Baltusrol, Nassau and Englewood).
There were also the courses that hosted the Women's Am (Meadow Brook, Ardsley and Philadelphia).
Let's not forget the US Open (Baltimore).
I wouldn't put in anything from most of California or the South, as they hadn't quite managed to grow grass greens yet, but there were courses of note in towns like Tacoma, Oakland, Kansas City, Lake Geneva and Colorado Springs, to cite a few examples. Just in a city like Chicago you have three additional candidates in Flossmoor, Midlothian and Westward Ho (the longest course in the country when it was built). There are many more the closer you get to the Atlantic, including noted courses in Detroit, Cleveland Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston and the entire Tri-State area (with a good many of the NY/NJ private clubs being much more highly regarded than Van Cortlandt). Pinehurst had already been extended to 18, and a course like Apawamis was tipping out at over 6,200 yards.
And these are just the 18 holers. There were a good number of recently built 9 holers that were given their fair share of praise. Some of those were built at distances that were surprising, including Cranford which measured over 3,400 yards or Skokie at almost 3,300 yards.
-
Interesting.
Not one of the perpetual "title whiners" came forward to complain about the title of this thread.
Hypocrites, whining little hypocrites.
-
"When the implements improve dramatically, the architecture does fail, or at least change for many (my italics)"
Jeff -
not to belabour this point too much longer, but what I have italicized seems to me the key point and difference between us.
A year ago Tom D started a thread asking what yardage/tees most of us play most of our golf from. If memory serves, the majority of us (maybe even the overwhelming majority) answered "about 6,500 yards".
Without getting into a numbers/historical argument, I think we can agree that there are hundreds and thousands of courses across America that are -- and have been for decades and decades -- 6,500 yards long, give or take.
That means that for most of us here (and only a fraction of us are using old equipment/persimmon), the great architecture past (and present) has not failed, and is in no danger of failing any time soon.
Yes, technology has developed much too quickly (for my tastes), and yes, some golfers hit the ball farther today than the golden age architects could've imagined, and yes, the tour pros can shoot remarkably low scores on just about any golf course in the world.
But my point is that all the harping for the last decade (from and amongst us purists) about the technology and about how far the ball goes and about the low scores being shot by tour pros has not done one bit of good -- either in helping to protect older golf courses from committee members eager to lengthen them or in lessening the pressure put on architects today by the developers to build 7500 yard courses.
Instead, the harping seems only to have confirmed in the minds of the golfing collective the notion that technology is making existing courses obsolete -- and that the distance the ball flies (for some) and the low scores that some can shoot is making the architecture irrelevant.
And so, since that harping approach does not seem to have worked, I've been suggesting that we try instead to do our part to help the golfing collective embrace a different notion of architectural relevancy -- one that keeps the focus not on the technology or the distance the ball flies but instead puts the focus on the vast majority of us who, still today, need no more than 6,500 yards to keep us happy and engaged.
Peter
-
Pietro
Si. A lot of time is spent contemplating how to make the Merion's of the world revalent...mainly for the sake of history, but also because the architecture is fantastic (in the case of Merion anyway). The interesting thing is TOC isn't relavant in terms of a scoring challenge for the Open, but very much remains so in terms of its stature in the game. We should think as to how that is accomplished and try to shoot for that type of admiration for the historic US courses. Perhaps the USGA should just let things go and play an untricked up Merion regardless of scores and put more emphasis into the architecture during broadcasts. Lets spend more time celebrating what we have rather than what was...then maybe folks will see the Merions as more than merely places to play the US Open and hang outs for the well connected. Or...just get sensible and bifurcate. I would be very willing to support either approach given the hounding the USGA from afar has accomplished a fat egg.
Ciao