News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Patrick_Mucci

Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game ?
« on: March 15, 2003, 04:20:05 PM »
Arthur Hills and Robert von Hagge are disciples of Dick Wilson who tutored under William Flynn.

Von Hagge told me that he believed in the aerial approach, having acquired that philosophy through Dick Wilson.  
Pine Tree certainly reflects that philosophy, as do other Wilson and Von Hagge courses

When others quoted Flynn's, "accuracy, carry, length" and I pieced it together with Von Hagges conversations with me,   it seemed logical to trace the modern aerial game back to Flynn's feet.

I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of TEPaul and Wayne Morrison, as well as other individuals familiar with Flynn's work, such as Mark Fine and Redanman, and Kelly Moran.

Have Flynn and his disciples been largely responsible for the modern aerial game in the U.S. ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2003, 06:10:23 PM »
Here are some of my general thoughts on Flynn.  Like with all architects, of course there are exceptions.  

•  On Trees:
o      Flynn liked trees and incorporated them into his design schemes.
o      He once stated that, “It is impossible to conceive that the “Canny Scots” would have denuded their courses of trees if there had been any there originally.  As a race, they are entirely too thrifty for any such waste as that”.  
o      He felt trees add beauty, form picturesque back grounds and delightful vistas.
o      Trees offer shade on a hot day and are of practical value in segregating the various holes.
o      Moreover, Flynn felt most sites have them and it is a costly operation to cut them down and remove them.

• On Variety:
o      Flynn was a master at routings.  He was always concerned about the sequence of holes and avoided having holes of similar length and character coming too closely together.  
o      He felt the most interesting layouts were those where the lengths and types of holes were broken up.

• On Greens:
o      Flynn believed strongly that greens should follow the natural ground contours and blend in with the terrain.
o      His greens might best be described as potato chips.  Every one has movement, but the contours are often subtle as they sweep off and around bunkers tapering down at the edges.  
o      Flynn despised blind greens.  He believed visibility of the green "from the approach area" is one of the most important considerations in the design of a golf course.  

• On Bunkers:
o      As with his greens, Flynn felt visibility of bunkers is important.  
o      While he incorporated many blind shots into his designs (often due to the terrain) rarely did he put bunkers in those blind areas.  
o      The look of most of Flynn’s bunkers can best be described as ordinary.  To him, placement was their most important aspect.  He did, however, believe that the best looking bunkers are those gouged out of faces or slopes, particularly when the slope faces the player.  
o      Unlike some architects of his time, his bunker style seemed relatively consistent between his courses.  Though there are examples, you don’t find too many of his bunkers that would be described as “artistic” or “works of art”.  
o      Flynn also believed that bunkers should all surface drain.  In flat areas, he would build them above the surface of the surrounding terrain.
o      One other key design philosophy of Flynn regarding bunkers was that he would often add and/or change the location of bunkers after the course had been opened for play for awhile.  He would monitor where golfers hit their shots and adjust his bunkering accordingly.  This is an important consideration for courses of his looking at restoration.
o      He believed bunkers should present problems (encourage thinking and strategy) and not just penalize.  
o      He felt hazards in general need not be numerous but must be well placed to arouse lively interest.

• On Tees:
o      Like most all of Flynn’s design features, he believed tees should blend in with their surrounds.  
o      There placement is very critical to the proper play of the golf hole and believed two to three tees per hole was important to accommodate all levels of play.  He usually called his tees, forward, intermediate and back.  

• On Fairways:
o      Flynn believed the ground should have a bearing on the outlining of the fairways.  He did not like straight lines as they rarely looked natural.
o      He believed there should be a premium on accuracy with “due consideration” for length.  
o      He advocated risk/reward and encouraged aggressive play in the placement of his hazards and in the width of his fairways.  
o      He liked diagonal bunkers and holes that promoted better angles in the fairway for better shots to the green.  
o      Flynn always suggested sufficient room between fairways when at all possible.

• On Water:
o      Though Flynn did incorporate water in his designs, he was like most architects of his time and believed it was a nuisance.
o      On the other hand, he fully realized the need for water from a maintenance standpoint was critical to any design.  
o      He often stated that water hazards prohibit the recovery shot, perhaps the best shot in the game.  
o      He felt parallel use of water was best.  
 
• On Approaches:
o      Flynn liked interesting approaches that rewarded the ground game.
o      He felt this was an area that was often over looked by architects.
o      He liked ground features that looked natural and tied into the rest of the greensite.  

• Other thoughts:
o      Flynn was one of the first to recognize the longer term impact of golf equipment on course design.  He believed one day this could force golf courses to be 7500 and even 8000 yards in length.  
o      He placed a strong importance on each hole having individual character.  He felt problems should be developed on each hole and their order of importance are first - accuracy, second - carry and third – length, which includes carry and roll.  Accuracy of play should carry the greatest reward as it is the essence of the game.  Carry, while slightly less valuable than accuracy is important in that it promotes boldness.  Length may be considered least important but it becomes quite a factor when a player is able to mould all three tests together.    

Did Flynn pioneer the aerial game as Pat suggests?  I don't think so.  If he pioneered anything, it might have been "modernizing" design from a construction standpoint.  
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

T_MacWood

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2003, 07:35:30 PM »
No way. Flynn was definitely of the strategic school. One of Flynn's great themes was variety, which might result in holes which required a carry on the approach or off the tee, but from my experience if you place your drive properly in most cases you will be left with an opening of some sort. If you don't place your drive well you might be faced with a carry. In fact Flynn was a promoter of firm conditions and the pitch and run.

I don't think there are too many architects who don't appreciate the importance of accuracy or carry or length. It seems to me though that this quote or at least the interpretation of the quote as a Flynn emphasis on the aerial game is mistaken, and takes his words out of context.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2003, 08:00:38 PM »
Tom,
Looks like you and I agree for a change :)  
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

T_MacWood

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2003, 08:25:09 PM »
Mark
It shouldn't be surprising, you sent me a large packet of Flynn's articles from the Green Section of the USGA. His thoughts on accuracy, carry and length are in those articles.  :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2003, 08:32:05 PM »
Mark:

That post of yours has to be one of the most comprehensive, detailed and accurate overall analyses of any architect I've ever seen. That post is really really good! Anyone interested in William Flynn should print that post out and save it! That post should be a Golfclubatlas classic on a particular architect!! it's precisely the kind of post that can make this site so valuable to people attempting to do research!

The only thing at all I would take some issue with is on Flynn's bunkering. Much of it can look ordinary but it's my firm belief now that there're some very interesting reasons for that and when it becomes better understood one would probably have no real reason to consider Flynn bunkering "ordinary" at all.

What I'm talking about I'll explain at some other time.

Pat:

Great thread! Really good. This is something Wayne and I have been seriously thinking about developing in our book.

Personally, at this point at least, I don't think William Flynn was the "father of the modern aerial game" at all. But the fascinating question is--Would he have been had he lived past 55 and into the post WW2 "Modern Age of Architecture" (he died in 1945!).

And there's no question in my mind that Dick Wilson's architecture is probably the best evidence there is today of a combination of the coming "Modern Age" aerial game and real vestiges of the old ground game. And frankly courses like Bidermann and certainly Pine Tree are great examples of this "inter-era" or "inter-age" transition between the old ground game reliant designs and the coming aerial game architecture. Interestingly, a Wilson course like Meadowbrook seems much more like the older ground game courses--but of course it was pretty early (1955). Another interesting combination ground/aerial design is NCR.

Certainly RTJ is a good example of this "transition era" too but my feeling is Dick Wilson is a much better example. The difference to me between Wilson and Jones in this context is Jones's style was one that just created a far larger scale in architecture than Wilson did. Have you ever noticed how Jones's green-end bunkering after WW2 was originally massive in scale fanning way out to the sides of the greens? Jones seemed to use far more green-end bunker area and laterally than Wilson did. Wilson, though, got his green-end bunkering, even on some of his longer holes more in front of greens and eating in more from the sides in towards the middle of approaches than the courses before the war. Many of the front nine holes of Pine Tree are great examples of this transition. There are even a few long ones at Pine Tree that have some bunkering right in the middle of the approach and apparent ground options on either side of the fronting bunkering. This I always thought was a little low on ground game function and probably not much more than some "stylistic" transition (from the ground game era and the aerial era!).

But again, to your question. I don't think Flynn was the "father" of the modern aerial game in his architecture. You just can't see it in his designs since most of them have real ground game available options.

What I really do think about Flynn though is that he just may be the best example of the "link" between the "Golden Age" and the "Modern Age" of architecture and of course you couldn't be more right than to look at his proteges such as Dick Wilson, Gordon and Lawrence for evidence of the beginnings of "aerial" architecture.

But Mark is so right about Flynn--he was an innovator--a designer who was definitely not wedded to all the old fashioned "principles" of architecture. And he approached the art in a very "scientific" way both in concept and also in planning and construction.

But this is a great question and I hope one that will get some really thoughtful consideration and discussion on here.

The "hiatus" of the depression era and WW2 is one of the most fascinating things of all in the evolution of 20th century American golf architecture and Flynn and his thoughts and style just may have been the most interesting of all of them in that he almost spanned the two eras. There was a definite "break" or lack of cohesion with that "hiatus" in so many things about architecture, its style and certainly the game too between the first quarter or first third of the century and the last half of the century and very few spanned it.

RTJ would seem to be the natural "link" between the "Golden Age" and the "Modern Age" but I don't think he was since he departed from what came before WW2 so much for whatever his reasons were--and God knows he was successful post WW2.

I think William Flynn was that real "link" between the "Golden Age" and the "Modern Age" but I don't think he was the "father" of the modern aerial game. Perhaps if he'd lived longer and into the "Modern Age" he may have been though. But we'll never know and all we do know is his own architecture didn't really show that "Modern Age" aerial game architecture at all!

Great question!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2003, 06:11:23 AM »
Tom MacWood,
I do remember sending you something on Flynn.  Glad you found it informing.

Tom Paul,
Thanks for the compliment!  If people find them useful, I may post a few more on other architects later on.  

Your point about the bunkering is interesting and I think I know where you are coming from.  Wonder what Wayne will say?
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2003, 09:00:55 AM »
Wonderful summary, Mark:

I think Wm Flynn and Howard Toomey were great students of the drainage requirements in course design.  When I think over the many holes I have walked on Flynn courses I can picture their contours, and recall how they lent themselves to good drainage.
His bunkers were always shaped with drainage in mind. IMHO
When you look at Geoff's "Golden Age" you can visit his pictures, and imagine how well those bunkers ran away from the target, carrying a big storm.  Perhaps that is why Flynn's bunkering was the last to appear, and those quirky approaches were not always an aerial shot, but often a bump and run.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2003, 09:35:19 AM »
Mark
Thanks for the excellent summary of Flynn's ideas.  I do wonder if any of those ideas are at all in conflict with the ideas expressed by the other classic practitioners of and writers on GCA.  While more thorough that MacKenzie's 13 points, for example, aren't they pretty much saying the same stuff?

The point I'm getting to is--are there any real points of contention as to what constitutes "good" GCA from the "golden olides."  While I note random contradictions from time to time, the essentials seem to be pretty consistent, and ther doesn't seem to me to be much real argument going on in the "Golden Age."  Does anybody argue against "variety" or "using natural landforms" or "strategic design" etc.  Those of you who have read more widely than me on this subject, please enlighten me where I am wrong, if I am.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2003, 09:42:43 AM »
I've becoming increasingly convinced that Flynn viewed his bunkers and the particular look of them as highly evolutionary in the sense that he originally built them in quite generic and ordinary shapes and then very much expected growth on the surrounds and edges to take over and make them much more mature looking, interesting looking and natural looking due to the growth over time and probably maintenance practices to fit into that look.

One can't forget Flynn had been a superintendent and from Merion alone this is the way the bunkering very much evolved and was expected to. In the course of time he might even recommend growing in some little capes and bays and sometimes larger ones--generally quite narrow. Merion shows this too from its beginning in the early teens into the 1920s and 1030s. Shinnecock is exactly the same, Lancaster too, Indian Creek, Cleveland, Brookline many of his courses. We also can't forget Flynn was a real expert on grasses--fascinated by grasses--and he and Toomey even bought a farm in Montgomery Co to experiment with grasses.

The only trouble with the expected look of Flynn's bunkering whose look probably depended so much on grassing over time and the look of that alone is that many clubs over time may not have understood that very well and ended up edging his bunkers into a much cleaner, generic and ordinary look and shape than they should have or than he would have wanted them to.

Probably more than any architect I think Flynn wanted his bunker look to evolve naturally over time. I think this planned modus operandi has been largely misunderstood.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2003, 10:05:24 AM »
Rich:

There was no real argument between Flynn and the early "Golden Age" architects on most of the basic priniciples of architecture such as variety, strategic importance and such but Flynn definitely departed from the thinking of the early immigrant architects on such things as the use of trees in architecture. He even wrote their ideas on not using trees in architecture were passe! He even poked fun at the Scot's because of their ideas about not using trees.

His departure from the early thinking on trees is completely understandable though and was really no different than Tillinghast's and Crump's ideas and some others. Their point was they were building courses inland and I think they were probably getting tiried of hearing this crap from the old linksmen architects that if a course wasn't linksy (no trees) it wasn't really golf.

And a number of those architects like Flynn and Tillinghast who wrote were beginning to move away from the dictates of European architecture and felt they were into some new uniquely American ideas in architecture.

Flynn's ideas on trees was definitely site specific--to use them where they were naturally occuring when he got to a site and not using them when they weren't. The tree plan for Shinnecock was one of the most fascinating and sophisticated plans I've ever heard of and the budget for it was not inconsequential at all. The effect the tree plan was supposed to accomplish was so interesting though.

One can certainly see if you study Flynn closely though was he was very much getting into what might be called "scientific" architecture and a number of writers in 1920s and 1930s even referred to what he was doing as that.

I think his overall strategies as he evolved got a bit more center directed and nuancy than they might have once been. He was also into real shot testing occasionally and the expected strategies of not accepting the option of the "test" meant the expectation of dropping a shot or scrambling at the green end to make it up.

His whole idea of par was pretty interesting too and he believed the actual par number we think of was just the expectation of the good player. His alternate feeling about par for any player was just the best he could do. His feeling about par 5s was they should definitely be three shotters.

Flynn had a lot of interesting ideas of his own and if they went against some of the old dictates in architecture it didn't seem to concern him much at all.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

T_MacWood

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2003, 10:15:14 AM »
When did Flynn start designing golf courses, what were some of his earliest designs? How does his early work differ from his later work (if at all)?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2003, 10:38:25 AM »
Doesn't the question imply that there was no areial game prior to Flynn?
or
Would it be more accurate to call im the father of the excessive use of the one dimensional aerial game?

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2003, 10:44:15 AM »
Flynn's first design was in Hartwellville Vermont in 1909 when he was 19. From there he moved to Philadelphia and spent the next 5-10 years working on Merion in various capacities and designing a few other courses on his own as early as 1915 such as Doylestown and Harrisburg. He obviously worked with Wilson on any designs Wilson was involved in such as Merion's West course 1913-14, Cobb's Creek, Phoenixville, Seaview and Kittansett. As time progressed clearly Flynn did most of the design work for the duo. Toomey was around through that entire era too and Flynn went into business with him in the early to mid 1920s.

Flynn's style was relatively consistent throughout his career although there does appear to have been a big influence on his style from first Merion and then Pine Valley. It appears now that Flynn spent more time working on Pine Valley than we knew. This was after Crump died and he was down there 3-4 days a week for an extended time. A lot of that might have had to do with problematic agronomy at PVGC but clearly it had to do with holes 12-15 too.

The Pine Valley influences on him for a time are pretty interesting and pretty neat really.

But the sophistication of his plans is really remarkable for that time and was much of his modus operandi for a variety of reasons.

I don't think this question of who first put the aerial game into their architecture is all that interesting really. That happened for obvious reasons. The equipment was changing dramatically after WW2 and aerial shots were becoming much easier to use. The architects of that time didn't just begin to start to do aerial architecture because they felt like it---they did it as a reaction to the way golfers were beginning to hit the ball.

I know this personally. My Dad who was a good player was what I would call a "transition" golfer in that he started in the old ground game era and transitioned into the rapidly evolving aerial era. He used to talk about the evolving differences all the time and of course he worked for Spalding too so he knew what he was talking about in that vein with the clubs and the balls.

Architects after WW2 just adjusted to what was happening in the game with their architecture--that's all. They sure as hell didn't just go off and decide to do something different in architecture (aerial architecture) for no reason.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2003, 11:29:38 AM »
A Clayman,

One could make the case that the ground game is more restrictive, more one dimensional than the aerial game.

The ground game must follow land forms, features, hazards and corridors, the aerial game knows no such restriction, no such boundaries, it is free as flight in the wild blue yonder.

In combination, arc and trajectory are unlimited.
The ground game is confined, ergo....limited.

TEPaul,

Shouldn't Dick Wilson get the title as the "LINK" rather than Flynn ?

Thanks for the compliment on the question.

Remember our deal with Ran,
You get paid by the word,
and I get paid for asking questions and spurring debate.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2003, 01:19:35 PM »
Pat:

Personally, I wouldn't look at Dick Wilson as the "link"--I'd look at Flynn as the link. Wilson didn't start designing courses on his own until after WW2. God knows he sure did try to act like he'd been designing courses before the war, and a few of the courses Flynn designed like Shinnecock but he didn't.

As far as I'm concerned we've gotten to the bottom of this Wilson/Shinnecock thing from two people who I would consider to be the two remaining "horse's mouthes". The fact was Wilson did some things at Shinnecock that really pissed off both Flynn and the project manager/foreman William Gordon. Those guys worked right off Flynn's extremely detailed drawn plans for that course and Wilson did a few things on his own and they basically got furious and had to go back and change them back to the plan.

The only reason the club thought Wilson did more than he did, apparently even designing the course is because he came back there in the 1950s and told them he designed it. It was simply never true---not even close--matter of fact it wasn't the only time he pissed Toomey & Flynn and the project manager off. He was always a problem they've all said. Just to prove they weren't being proprietary and trying to bad-mouth Wilson, did you know that Wilson had a brother who also worked for Toomey & Flynn? Those that have said Dick Wilson could be a problem have all said his brother was a great guy and never a problem at all. That says a lot to me.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2003, 06:43:07 PM »

Quote
One could make the case that the ground game is more restrictive, more one dimensional than the aerial game.

The ground game must follow land forms, features, hazards and corridors, the aerial game knows no such restriction, no such boundaries, it is free as flight in the wild blue yonder.

In combination, arc and trajectory are unlimited.
The ground game is confined, ergo....limited.
Pat, Are you the one? Are you saying that you believe that the areial game's arc's and trajectories are unlimited up in the wild blue yonder?

I still don't see that because the arc and trajectories are still unlimited while using the land as an added dimension is by definition multi.



  

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2003, 06:53:44 PM »
A Clayman,

Let me try to illustrate an example.

If a green is protected by two fronting bunkers, and there is a 8 yard strip of land between them that cants right to left, the ground approach to the green is limited by the topography, and the relationship of the features, not so through the wild blue yonder.

Some holes have no ground option.  
The aerial option is omnipresent and unlimited.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

T_MacWood

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2003, 04:47:03 AM »
TE
At 19! Is Hartwellville still around and any idea what it is/was like? CC of Harrisburg, was that 18 holes and is it in relatively good condition. After Harrisburg and Doylestown was there a gap due to WWI?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2003, 05:10:14 AM »
Tom MacW:

As far as we know now Flynn was working on Merion in the teens (and for a time Pine Valley) probably mostly agronomy on both of those, other than #12-15 PVGC.

Hartwellville basically is NLE
Harrisburg is 18 and has been changed some
Doylestown, maybe only 3-4 Flynn holes remaining--all three very topographical.
Eaglesmere, I can't remember the date but early and this course he added holes to a Findlay (I think) six hole course and this one is the only Flynn design where he seemed to stay in character with what preceded him. It's an amazing use of severe elevation changes in some of the sections of the course. At Eaglemere there's a Flynn 18 hole course contiguous to this one that was obsoleted early but it's still out there in the woods. Apparently over really severe terrain.
Merion West, Flynn became the construction foreman in 1913-14 when previous construction foreman (Pickering) got too pickled!
It's probably save to assume Flynn worked with Wilson on Cobb's Creek and Phoenixville but we have nothing on that at this point. But from the correspondence of Wilson's it would seem very unusual for Flynn not to have worked with Wilson on those two.

Flynn worked for about a year in the WW1 war effort and then got going again in design in the early 1920s.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:03 PM by -1 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2003, 06:53:07 AM »
Pat- In the example you provide, I assume the fronting bunkers don't allow for a ball to be rolled up. Therefore the only option is aerial and because of that it is forcing the golfer to play the aerial or to lay-up short and then maybe use the right to left cant of the land between the green and the bunker. Don't those fronting bunkers limit the options?

Doesn't the new ball go straighter which also limits the english one can put on that ball?

The complete reliance on the aerial game has done nothing but made irrigation companies an essential part of course construction, just so somebody can hold the green with a seven wood, while not allowing another golfer to shape a shot and play it short to run or to kick off a soggy feature?

The complete reliance on the aerial game has caused the loss of creative shotmakers while simutaneously making the dullard think he's playing golf.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2003, 07:14:10 AM »
Mark
    Wow!!!Even a techno-idiot like myself emailed that summary and sent it to myself for better printing.Your summary lays out the thoughtfulness of Flynn.My experience is that he  also did what he said.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
AKA Mayday

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2003, 07:36:51 AM »
Pat Mucci:

While I see your point, and mostly agree with you thereon, you might be giving the aerial game just a bit much credit for being limitless.

Are there not green conditions (too hard), weather conditions (too downwind) and/or green complex design (think NGLA #'s 1,4,11) wherein the aerial game simply will not work for anything other than THE perfect shot?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #23 on: March 17, 2003, 09:46:58 AM »
A Clayman,

I wasn't saying that the aerial game should be the only one in town, only that your statement that the aerial game was one dimensional was not accurate.

Chipoat,

I've never advocated excluding the ground game as
A Clayman mistakenly concluded.

The holes you referenced at NGLA are perfect examples of holes where many decisions must be made on each approach shot, and where the aerial game may not provide the best results in the risk/reward decision.

Downwind (typical) # 11 with the pin on the left plateau, it is almost impossible to find that tier with an aerial shot.

I would say the same thing about the back left bowl on # 1 unless the wind is strongly in your face.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Is Flynn the father of the modern aerial game
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2003, 01:17:26 PM »
Pat- I don't know that I concluded anything on this thread other than It is my opinion after playing courses with only the aerial assault as a viable option, due to thier wetness, that it is a one-dimensional approach to a game that is as vast in all aspects as we are as individuals. But on chocalate pudding you have no other option, which to me is one dimensional.

You are the one who said "that the ground game is limited" and It's my belief you are mistaken in that conclusion. And as far as your flowery verbage as to blue yonders and fairness acts, makes me suspect you were just on a fishing expedition.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back