WEBVTT - Stanley Thompson and Canadian Golf Architecture 0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.480 I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset. 0:00:02.640 --> 0:00:04.920 When I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset. 0:00:05.000 --> 0:00:05.880 And when I find my. 0:00:05.840 --> 0:00:08.920 Ball in a fried egg Friday egg, the dreaded Frida egg, 0:00:09.039 --> 0:00:11.880 Frida Egg, Frida egg Egg Frida egg bride egg Lie, 0:00:11.920 --> 0:00:37.559 I'm about ready to run off of the hump. Welcome to 0:00:37.600 --> 0:00:41.440 the Frida Egg Golf Podcast. I'm Garrett Morrison and it 0:00:41.520 --> 0:00:45.240 is Canada Week for us. The President's Cup at Royal 0:00:45.240 --> 0:00:49.520 Montreal Golf Club is underway. Look, is this the most 0:00:49.560 --> 0:00:53.120 interesting golf course in the world. No, but it does 0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:56.520 give us an excuse to talk about Canadian golf architecture, 0:00:56.560 --> 0:01:01.360 and specifically about the greatest Canadian golf architect, Stanley Thompson. 0:01:02.080 --> 0:01:04.600 I've wanted to discuss Thompson on the pod for a 0:01:04.640 --> 0:01:08.720 long time. Such a fascinating figure and an enormous talent. 0:01:09.360 --> 0:01:11.760 To dig into Thompson's life and work, I'm bringing on 0:01:12.000 --> 0:01:16.640 Ian Andrew. Ian Andrew is a practicing Toronto based golf 0:01:16.720 --> 0:01:20.800 architect who has focused on restorations and renovations, but has 0:01:20.840 --> 0:01:24.560 also done some original work. He's a great thinker and 0:01:24.640 --> 0:01:28.160 writer about golf course design and one of the world's 0:01:28.280 --> 0:01:31.480 leading experts on Stanley Thompson, so I'm very excited to 0:01:31.480 --> 0:01:35.480 speak with Ian. First though, a word about Club TFE, 0:01:35.840 --> 0:01:38.880 which is Frida Egg Golf's membership. You can find out 0:01:38.920 --> 0:01:42.240 all the information about CLUBTFE at the Frida Egg dot 0:01:42.280 --> 0:01:47.400 com slash membership. It's a broad offering. We have exclusive 0:01:47.520 --> 0:01:52.880 content for members, including weekly course profiles and design notebook 0:01:52.920 --> 0:01:55.640 feature where we keep track of what's going on in 0:01:55.680 --> 0:01:59.080 the golf architecture world. But one thing that I think 0:01:59.120 --> 0:02:01.440 people would be interesting it in when it comes to 0:02:01.480 --> 0:02:05.640 Club TFE is the access you get to a variety 0:02:05.760 --> 0:02:08.720 of wonderful golf courses. First of all, you get early 0:02:08.840 --> 0:02:12.200 access to Frida Egg Golf events, which is a big deal. 0:02:12.560 --> 0:02:15.680 We hold these at some wonderful golf courses across the 0:02:15.720 --> 0:02:19.800 country and elsewhere. And we're also starting to offer some 0:02:20.040 --> 0:02:24.800 international trips as well as individual days at certain golf 0:02:24.840 --> 0:02:28.799 courses where we just you know, offer around offer tea 0:02:28.840 --> 0:02:31.480 times just to our members. So if you want to 0:02:31.520 --> 0:02:33.359 find out more about that stuff, if you want to 0:02:33.400 --> 0:02:36.960 take part in that, CLUBTFE is a great place to go. 0:02:37.040 --> 0:02:40.839 Again the Frida Egg dot com slash membership. Check it out. 0:02:41.160 --> 0:02:43.720 All right, let's get to Ian Andrew and talk about 0:02:43.720 --> 0:02:53.920 Canadian golf architecture and Stanley Thompson. I am here with 0:02:54.120 --> 0:02:57.040 Ian Andrew, the golf architect. Ian, thank you for joining 0:02:57.120 --> 0:02:58.119 me today. How are you doing? 0:02:58.960 --> 0:02:59.440 Excellent? 0:03:00.480 --> 0:03:03.000 That that pretty much sums it up right there, one word. 0:03:03.160 --> 0:03:07.560 So we have got the President's Cup at Royal Montreal 0:03:07.600 --> 0:03:11.080 Golf Club coming up. We are here to talk about 0:03:11.080 --> 0:03:15.720 Canadian golf architecture in general, Stanley Thompson specifically, but I 0:03:15.720 --> 0:03:18.799 thought we'd touch quickly on this course that people are 0:03:18.800 --> 0:03:22.200 going to see on TV this week. Do you have 0:03:22.240 --> 0:03:24.520 any thoughts about the Blue Course there? 0:03:25.400 --> 0:03:28.160 So? I think the Blue Course is a. 0:03:29.760 --> 0:03:33.760 Golf course that really benefits the long driver of the ball, 0:03:34.560 --> 0:03:37.640 and with all the compartments that Reese put in the 0:03:37.640 --> 0:03:41.760 greens when he redid the greens, being able to get 0:03:41.800 --> 0:03:44.760 to shorter irons definitely will open up the ability to 0:03:44.760 --> 0:03:47.400 score and open up the possibility for a lot of birdies. 0:03:48.080 --> 0:03:50.440 And I really honestly think it's going to be a 0:03:50.520 --> 0:03:53.520 huge benefit for the American team. I think it's a 0:03:53.520 --> 0:03:55.320 golf course that really will suit their game. 0:03:56.520 --> 0:03:59.400 Okay, so that that is sort of a prediction about 0:03:59.400 --> 0:04:02.360 the about the way the course is going to affect 0:04:02.400 --> 0:04:07.120 the competition. It's not surprising that that a design with 0:04:07.240 --> 0:04:10.720 influences from Rhys Jones might might favor the American team. 0:04:10.800 --> 0:04:14.600 We've we've seen this dynamic before at past President's Cup courses. 0:04:15.280 --> 0:04:18.600 Originally this course was if I'm not mistaken at Dick 0:04:18.640 --> 0:04:24.000 Wilson design. Do you find anything interesting about about Dick Wilson. 0:04:24.040 --> 0:04:26.359 You know, he's he strikes me as an interesting figure 0:04:26.760 --> 0:04:28.800 given that he was working at the same time as 0:04:28.880 --> 0:04:31.600 Robert Trent Jones and picked up a lot of the 0:04:31.720 --> 0:04:36.839 jobs that Jones didn't want, and he did slightly different 0:04:36.880 --> 0:04:39.440 work than Jones, did, I suppose he did. 0:04:39.600 --> 0:04:42.120 You've got to think that his main influence has to 0:04:42.160 --> 0:04:46.320 be sorry, the architect he worked for the Chinacock Hills, 0:04:47.360 --> 0:04:48.840 Flynn Flynn, Thank you. 0:04:49.080 --> 0:04:54.200 Yes, William Flynnlyn Dick Wilson did. That's something that people 0:04:54.200 --> 0:04:57.400 often forget about Dick Wilson is that he did train 0:04:57.600 --> 0:05:00.400 with a Golden Age architect, much as Robert Trent Jones 0:05:00.400 --> 0:05:04.040 in fact trained with Stanley Thompson in a sense. But 0:05:04.360 --> 0:05:07.320 Flynn was Flinn and Toomey was kind of Dick Wilson's 0:05:07.720 --> 0:05:09.520 entry into the industry, I suppose. 0:05:09.360 --> 0:05:13.640 And you look at some of the ideas the angles 0:05:14.400 --> 0:05:20.159 playing for a position, a lot of the architecture the 0:05:20.200 --> 0:05:23.200 strategies are very similar. When you look at a lot 0:05:23.240 --> 0:05:25.600 of Flynn's work, and when you look at a lot 0:05:25.600 --> 0:05:27.800 of Wilson's work, you see a lot of the same 0:05:27.960 --> 0:05:31.560 use of those carry angles or angles or angled greens, 0:05:32.720 --> 0:05:37.040 looking at things sort of being bookended a little bit 0:05:37.080 --> 0:05:39.440 by bunkers as well, where you've got to try to 0:05:39.960 --> 0:05:42.240 maybe you're trying to hit a drawer or fade with 0:05:42.440 --> 0:05:44.440 fronting bunkers and you've got a back bunker as well 0:05:44.480 --> 0:05:47.359 that's sort of containing you. And I just find you 0:05:47.360 --> 0:05:53.359 can see the influences from his work that just really 0:05:53.400 --> 0:05:53.960 come through. 0:05:55.160 --> 0:05:59.440 Yeah, the tie ins with the Golden Age and Wilson's 0:05:59.440 --> 0:06:03.000 work seem to be a little clearer than the tie 0:06:03.000 --> 0:06:07.119 ins from say Robert Trent Jones's work or other post 0:06:07.120 --> 0:06:09.600 World War Two architects. It seems like Wilson kind of 0:06:09.920 --> 0:06:13.360 carry forward a little bit more of what he experienced 0:06:13.360 --> 0:06:15.880 earlier in his career than other architects, I think. 0:06:15.839 --> 0:06:20.720 With Robert Trent Jones. So I work with Midvale in Rochester, 0:06:20.839 --> 0:06:23.279 which is Trent's first work, and he did it with 0:06:23.880 --> 0:06:27.120 Stanley Thompson. And the interesting thing about it is it's 0:06:27.200 --> 0:06:30.480 not like the work that came a lot later. I 0:06:30.520 --> 0:06:33.240 find the pre war work was a lot more elaborate, 0:06:33.279 --> 0:06:35.359 the greens were a lot smaller, and a lot more 0:06:36.560 --> 0:06:41.120 intimately contoured, a lot more interior contouring. I happen to 0:06:41.120 --> 0:06:44.160 think Midvale is a really stunning piece of architecture. It's 0:06:44.160 --> 0:06:47.920 well worth going to play. I think that sort of 0:06:48.200 --> 0:06:52.400 as the war came, we saw mechanization. I think Trent 0:06:53.000 --> 0:06:55.680 adapted to sort of where golf was going, which was 0:06:55.720 --> 0:06:58.800 to be a lot more efficient. And even that efficiency 0:06:58.839 --> 0:07:03.360 goes right through to strategies and architecture as well as 0:07:03.400 --> 0:07:07.240 the construction and everything else. And I think that I 0:07:07.240 --> 0:07:10.400 think post war everybody was looking for new rather than 0:07:10.440 --> 0:07:12.840 looking for the past. I think they were trying to 0:07:12.880 --> 0:07:16.320 shed the impact of the war. And I think the architecture, 0:07:16.360 --> 0:07:19.520 the building style, and even the expression of architecture all 0:07:19.560 --> 0:07:22.120 represented trying to do something different. 0:07:23.240 --> 0:07:27.280 And you even see that gradually emerging after the war, 0:07:27.600 --> 0:07:32.720 because Jones's work right after World War two again looks 0:07:32.720 --> 0:07:34.840 a little different than the stuff he might have done 0:07:35.160 --> 0:07:39.120 in the late fifties and early sixties. Peachtree in Atlanta, 0:07:39.640 --> 0:07:43.240 for instance, is of course he designed soon after the war, 0:07:43.600 --> 0:07:46.680 and certainly that style evolved. So that's a very good 0:07:46.720 --> 0:07:50.280 note and an interesting thing to remember about Trent Jones. 0:07:50.680 --> 0:07:55.080 I think what happened was, over time, architects got the 0:07:55.080 --> 0:07:58.160 ability to move more and more of the site. They 0:07:58.160 --> 0:08:01.679 had a bigger budget, they had had better equipment. The 0:08:01.720 --> 0:08:06.080 initial equipment they had, the initial machinery was rudimentary and 0:08:06.120 --> 0:08:09.920 had some limitations. And as the equipment got better, whether 0:08:09.960 --> 0:08:14.040 it's bulldozer's excavators or anything else, as it got bigger, 0:08:14.120 --> 0:08:17.080 better and they were able to do more with it, 0:08:17.600 --> 0:08:20.440 I think they started to believe that they should change 0:08:20.480 --> 0:08:22.680 more of the site because they had the technology to 0:08:22.760 --> 0:08:25.600 do it. And instead of accepting the things that I 0:08:25.600 --> 0:08:29.920 think make places like Peachtree or Midville really spectacular, because 0:08:29.960 --> 0:08:35.040 the contour still dominates the initial land, you started to 0:08:35.080 --> 0:08:40.840 see changes, and probably two aggressive changes where they he 0:08:41.400 --> 0:08:43.440 wanted to try to settle a lot more into bulls 0:08:43.440 --> 0:08:46.120 that weren't there. And once you start moving things around, 0:08:46.200 --> 0:08:48.320 you start to lose flow and you start to lose feel. 0:08:49.160 --> 0:08:52.199 And I wonder if maybe architects in that post war 0:08:52.240 --> 0:08:55.800 period also started to design a bit more for maintenance 0:08:56.320 --> 0:08:58.840 and modern maintenance equipment, and that's a big reason why 0:08:58.880 --> 0:09:01.120 we see the shaping stuffile shift. 0:09:01.800 --> 0:09:06.400 Well, even the bunkering kind of got muted, and a 0:09:06.480 --> 0:09:08.400 lot of that had to do with well, if I 0:09:08.559 --> 0:09:11.560 do this, I can get a gang more in between. 0:09:11.800 --> 0:09:15.000 Now that would be more of his peers. But still 0:09:15.040 --> 0:09:19.439 you saw that even with Trent's work that they started 0:09:19.480 --> 0:09:23.000 to if they shaped it just slightly differently, now you 0:09:23.000 --> 0:09:26.000 can all of a sudden use a large piece of equipment. 0:09:26.240 --> 0:09:29.760 And again this came back to that whole notion of efficiency, 0:09:30.120 --> 0:09:33.559 the efficiency in how the architecture was expressed right through 0:09:33.559 --> 0:09:36.719 to how the property was maintained. And I think we 0:09:36.800 --> 0:09:40.720 just went through more and more efficiency, and then finally 0:09:40.760 --> 0:09:44.560 we sort of started to finally get small reactions and 0:09:44.600 --> 0:09:47.400 then with Pete a huge reaction to it. 0:09:48.559 --> 0:09:50.439 Well, this was sort of a digression, but a very 0:09:50.480 --> 0:09:54.320 interesting digression. We started with observing that Dick Wilson was 0:09:54.360 --> 0:09:58.559 the original architect at Royal Montreal Golf clubber the most 0:09:58.600 --> 0:10:03.040 decisive architect I suppose in that course's the Blue Course's history, 0:10:03.480 --> 0:10:07.080 and perhaps you see some indications of his hand in 0:10:07.160 --> 0:10:09.360 the course still, but a lot of it is quite 0:10:09.600 --> 0:10:14.560 Reese Jonesy so fairly near Royal Montreal is a course 0:10:14.800 --> 0:10:19.680 that you designed alongside Mike Weir, who is of course 0:10:19.760 --> 0:10:22.959 the captain of the international team this year at the 0:10:22.960 --> 0:10:26.600 President's Cup. This is the Blue Course at Laval sirl Locke. 0:10:27.800 --> 0:10:30.960 What was it like working with we're on this project. 0:10:31.000 --> 0:10:34.559 I'm not sure that people really know that he has 0:10:34.640 --> 0:10:38.640 experience or interest in golf architecture, but certainly he was 0:10:38.640 --> 0:10:39.680 involved in this project. 0:10:40.880 --> 0:10:46.760 So fun Mike's One of the interesting things about Mike 0:10:46.880 --> 0:10:52.680 is we spent a data gusta, not a master's data augusta, 0:10:52.679 --> 0:10:54.840 but actually a data gusta going around the golf course 0:10:54.840 --> 0:10:57.800 and he talked about what he liked about the golf 0:10:57.800 --> 0:11:01.160 course and the fun about it was he was playing 0:11:01.160 --> 0:11:04.680 and he was also explaining why he was playing strategically 0:11:04.720 --> 0:11:05.680 the way he was playing. 0:11:06.160 --> 0:11:07.640 We also did that at Riviera. 0:11:08.920 --> 0:11:12.240 We both have common experiences at Royal Melbourne and we 0:11:12.320 --> 0:11:14.800 actually talked through the holes at Royal Melbourne that we like, 0:11:14.920 --> 0:11:18.640 and shinnikok Kills ended up coming up because we like 0:11:18.720 --> 0:11:21.839 the way the edges run off the greens and one 0:11:21.880 --> 0:11:25.480 of the fun things about Mike is he's very aware 0:11:25.520 --> 0:11:31.199 of Golden Age architecture because of you know, he wasn't 0:11:31.520 --> 0:11:34.480 a bomber or a big hitter. He always had to 0:11:34.480 --> 0:11:38.240 think about the golf course strategically. And the really interesting 0:11:38.240 --> 0:11:40.360 one for me, because I'm a huge fan of Riviera, 0:11:41.080 --> 0:11:44.360 is he talked about how he was able to play 0:11:45.280 --> 0:11:49.040 really effectively at Riviera by picking his spots. So I 0:11:49.040 --> 0:11:51.600 remember before I played, one of the things he'd explained 0:11:51.600 --> 0:11:53.280 to me was do not hit a driver on ten, 0:11:53.840 --> 0:11:55.880 and you're actually not trying to hit the fairway either, 0:11:56.679 --> 0:12:00.840 And it worked and mid handicapped me and my by 0:12:00.840 --> 0:12:04.760 playing left. And then the funniest part was the next 0:12:06.400 --> 0:12:08.079 I can't remember what the event was called at that time. 0:12:08.080 --> 0:12:10.200 I mean he was still the La Open. But the 0:12:10.240 --> 0:12:12.199 next one he played and he hit driver because that's 0:12:12.200 --> 0:12:12.880 where he started. 0:12:12.960 --> 0:12:13.480 Made six. 0:12:14.080 --> 0:12:15.720 So and he had told me never hit a driver, 0:12:15.800 --> 0:12:18.920 and he and when he won the both times he 0:12:18.960 --> 0:12:21.920 had he had laid up. But we talked about the 0:12:22.040 --> 0:12:26.520 use of trees, how they impinge without taking away the 0:12:26.520 --> 0:12:31.400 ability to play, and we both like that. We talked 0:12:31.400 --> 0:12:35.079 a lot about the use of side slopes rather than 0:12:35.280 --> 0:12:40.080 fairway bunkering that how effective that is for play, and 0:12:40.120 --> 0:12:44.360 then obviously the beautiful change of angles that happens quite often, 0:12:45.160 --> 0:12:48.320 and both of us have sort of Obviously, he's won 0:12:48.400 --> 0:12:49.959 there a couple of times, so he's got an extra 0:12:50.040 --> 0:12:52.120 love for it. But I really do have a love 0:12:52.160 --> 0:12:54.400 affair for Revere. I think it's one of the finest 0:12:54.400 --> 0:12:58.839 designs in all of golf, and even as much as 0:12:58.840 --> 0:13:01.880 they tinker with it, the bones underneath it are spectacular. 0:13:02.840 --> 0:13:06.320 Something that's so great about Riviera is the use of 0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:10.360 contour in the landing zones. In fairways. You mentioned the 0:13:10.480 --> 0:13:17.000 use of side slopes as opposed to five bunkers fifth hole. Wow, yeah, absolutely, 0:13:17.040 --> 0:13:19.160 I mean the way that kind of rises up and 0:13:19.600 --> 0:13:21.800 gives you a reward for hitting a great drive, but 0:13:21.920 --> 0:13:24.160 also kind of holds you up if you don't hit 0:13:24.240 --> 0:13:27.160 a great drive. So, okay, I wonder if you could 0:13:27.160 --> 0:13:29.480 talk a little bit more about that, whether you know, 0:13:29.520 --> 0:13:32.760 in some cases fairway bunkers can be excluded in favor 0:13:32.920 --> 0:13:34.640 of some of these slopes, and how do you use 0:13:34.679 --> 0:13:35.240 those slopes. 0:13:35.480 --> 0:13:38.280 So we started doing Lavelle. I'm going to use that 0:13:38.360 --> 0:13:39.319 and explain. 0:13:39.000 --> 0:13:42.040 Sort of the thought process because I think it'll provide 0:13:42.040 --> 0:13:44.760 a window into mic So we started looking at the 0:13:44.840 --> 0:13:48.480 design itself, and the fun part about it was when 0:13:48.520 --> 0:13:50.720 we were going through and picking the corridors that we 0:13:50.760 --> 0:13:53.000 were going to use as oppose to the corridors we weren't 0:13:53.000 --> 0:13:55.680 going to use. Because it was two nine holes by 0:13:55.720 --> 0:13:59.840 two different architects, we ended up with a very little 0:13:59.880 --> 0:14:02.480 fairway bunkering. There's very little bunkering actually in the golf course. 0:14:02.520 --> 0:14:08.880 It's all largely elevated greens with runoffs. We both love 0:14:09.520 --> 0:14:12.240 all the golf around Melbourne, so that was the prime influence. 0:14:13.240 --> 0:14:14.320 But we took. 0:14:14.120 --> 0:14:19.480 From Riviera the idea of if we've got I will 0:14:19.480 --> 0:14:21.960 come back to Roal Montreal for this. If we have 0:14:22.640 --> 0:14:27.480 slow moving dog legs like bananas that don't turn but 0:14:27.600 --> 0:14:30.440 actually just keep drifting and drifting and drifting, say it's 0:14:30.440 --> 0:14:33.280 from right to left and they keep drifting around and 0:14:33.280 --> 0:14:36.520 there's trees on that corner. There's some really good examples 0:14:36.720 --> 0:14:39.120 of Revere where you've really got to think out how 0:14:39.120 --> 0:14:41.960 you're going to try to fit the ball in, and 0:14:42.080 --> 0:14:44.600 we designed a number of the tea shots where there 0:14:44.600 --> 0:14:48.000 are no fairway bunkers at all. But the clearing that 0:14:48.040 --> 0:14:51.680 we did was using those corridors. And it was actually 0:14:51.680 --> 0:14:54.560 my favorite thing about Royal Melbourne when I roll Melbourne 0:14:54.840 --> 0:14:58.040 Roal Montreal when I first played. It was the reason 0:14:58.080 --> 0:15:01.400 that Tiger played there in his prime and I'm trying 0:15:01.400 --> 0:15:03.320 to remember if you made the cut, but he really 0:15:03.320 --> 0:15:06.280 struggled there. And what it was was the longer players 0:15:06.320 --> 0:15:09.120 didn't play well that week, and it was because at 0:15:09.160 --> 0:15:12.560 that time it was a very very difficult driving golf course. 0:15:12.600 --> 0:15:14.320 And it was actually one of my favorite driving golf 0:15:14.320 --> 0:15:16.400 courses in the country because. 0:15:16.080 --> 0:15:19.040 It had all these slow moving dog legs, But. 0:15:19.040 --> 0:15:22.640 When they lengthened it and move some tea's around, they 0:15:22.720 --> 0:15:25.120 kind of straightened out some of that where it plays 0:15:25.160 --> 0:15:29.000 a little bit more typical where it's out and then in. 0:15:30.000 --> 0:15:32.160 But we talked about that when we were working on 0:15:32.240 --> 0:15:35.960 Laval about we want to get everything grassing lines, bunkering, 0:15:36.680 --> 0:15:40.480 tree lines, corridors. We want them to move slowly so 0:15:40.560 --> 0:15:44.160 that if somebody can work the ball, they're they're going 0:15:44.200 --> 0:15:47.880 to score really well. But if they can only drive 0:15:47.920 --> 0:15:51.480 it really far but not really with much ability to 0:15:51.480 --> 0:15:53.200 move it one way or the other, there may be 0:15:53.240 --> 0:15:55.240 a direction it works fine for them because they play 0:15:55.240 --> 0:15:57.560 a fade but if the hole is calling for a 0:15:57.680 --> 0:15:59.400 draw in the next we were really careful to try 0:15:59.400 --> 0:16:03.600 and balance out. They would really struggle to deal with 0:16:03.640 --> 0:16:06.560 those holes. And so there's not a lot of fairway bunkers. 0:16:07.520 --> 0:16:10.280 In fact, there's hardly any fairway bunkers. And we did 0:16:10.320 --> 0:16:15.640 actually lean into the idea of the slow moving tree lines, right, 0:16:15.880 --> 0:16:16.520 and that's enough. 0:16:16.800 --> 0:16:18.880 That's interesting. 0:16:18.920 --> 0:16:21.360 That's a conversation we had, But that was something that 0:16:23.200 --> 0:16:25.600 Mike really leaned in on. He really loved the idea, 0:16:25.680 --> 0:16:28.880 but it's it wasn't something where I said we should 0:16:28.880 --> 0:16:32.600 do this. Mike was actually, what do you think about this? 0:16:33.880 --> 0:16:36.120 One of the most interesting things that you can ask 0:16:37.280 --> 0:16:42.040 high level PGA tour golfer is what scares them, what 0:16:42.120 --> 0:16:45.880 really frightens them off the tee or on an approach 0:16:46.000 --> 0:16:50.960 or anything. And it's funny how fairway bunkers often don't 0:16:51.040 --> 0:16:55.640 really scare them unless they're super punitive. But a slow 0:16:55.720 --> 0:17:00.360 moving fairway line, a constantly moving fairway line that just 0:17:00.480 --> 0:17:03.240 keeps kind of working away from you and working away 0:17:03.240 --> 0:17:06.800 from you, that can be a little bit scary because 0:17:06.800 --> 0:17:10.040 you have to be precise in where you're placing your drive. 0:17:10.119 --> 0:17:12.359 You can't just kind of aim down the middle and 0:17:12.400 --> 0:17:14.639 not worry about how far it goes, because as long 0:17:14.680 --> 0:17:17.320 as you hit it straight, it'll be there. With a 0:17:17.320 --> 0:17:21.360 constantly moving fairway, you have to marry line and distance, 0:17:21.840 --> 0:17:24.600 and I wonder if that's where that observation from mine 0:17:24.680 --> 0:17:25.080 came from. 0:17:25.240 --> 0:17:27.080 And the other end of it is if you don't 0:17:27.080 --> 0:17:30.320 have bunkers, or you don't have something in the distance 0:17:30.400 --> 0:17:33.879 that's a target, particularly, I happen to hate the idea 0:17:33.920 --> 0:17:36.960 of directional bunkers. I think that they're sort of the 0:17:37.680 --> 0:17:42.639 bastardization of really good golf architecture. If you don't have 0:17:42.680 --> 0:17:46.639 those reference points, then and you're working with a slowly 0:17:46.720 --> 0:17:49.840 moving fairway, you're actually never quite certain on what your 0:17:49.880 --> 0:17:53.080 target is. So unless you can pick up maybe you've 0:17:53.080 --> 0:17:55.119 got a birch tree amongst a bunch of maples, and 0:17:55.160 --> 0:17:57.840 that makes it really easy. But if it's kind of 0:17:58.920 --> 0:18:01.240 a mixture of trees, usually you've kind of got to 0:18:01.520 --> 0:18:04.600 figure out what canopy, what am I even at the 0:18:04.640 --> 0:18:08.159 little bit of yellow in that one, it's not as it's. 0:18:08.040 --> 0:18:08.800 Not quite as certain. 0:18:08.880 --> 0:18:11.200 And the other end of it, as you said, it's 0:18:11.240 --> 0:18:14.520 the miss through, it's the I'm meant to cut it 0:18:14.520 --> 0:18:16.439 a little bit, and it just stayed dead straight and 0:18:16.480 --> 0:18:18.560 it runs through into the rough and now they've got 0:18:18.600 --> 0:18:20.440 to deal with that job. Yep. 0:18:21.000 --> 0:18:24.040 Yeah, No, that's that's that's very interesting. I wonder if 0:18:24.080 --> 0:18:28.280 there's something about a player like Mike Weir that that 0:18:28.680 --> 0:18:32.639 sort of disposes him to be smart about golf architecture 0:18:32.720 --> 0:18:37.360 in a way that a lot of elite players aren't. Necessarily, 0:18:38.320 --> 0:18:41.600 he was a different kind of player. You know, he 0:18:42.040 --> 0:18:45.280 didn't hit it as far as Tiger Woods did, but 0:18:45.520 --> 0:18:49.760 he managed to score anyway. He was, you know, as 0:18:49.760 --> 0:18:53.080 far as top players were concerned, a little bit unusual 0:18:53.200 --> 0:18:55.720 in his playing style. And I wonder if it is 0:18:55.760 --> 0:18:59.719 those kind of eccentrics, I guess, in terms of playing style, 0:19:00.280 --> 0:19:04.160 who are a little more inclined to think about golf 0:19:04.240 --> 0:19:06.359 architecture in at least interesting ways. 0:19:06.680 --> 0:19:10.640 I think when you take somebody like Mike or Funny enough, 0:19:10.680 --> 0:19:11.800 I walked Revere with. 0:19:13.240 --> 0:19:17.040 Zach or Zak Johnson. Yeah, Zak Johnson, thanks, I'm just 0:19:17.600 --> 0:19:21.480 for me. It's it's names, it's agent names. 0:19:22.119 --> 0:19:24.600 Well, Zak Johnson immediately came to mind for me because 0:19:24.960 --> 0:19:27.320 if you're talking about genres of players, Mike, he Or 0:19:27.320 --> 0:19:29.040 and Zach Johnson are not that descent, so. 0:19:29.000 --> 0:19:29.480 I got to walk. 0:19:29.560 --> 0:19:32.680 Rivere was Zac Johnson as well, so it was set 0:19:32.760 --> 0:19:34.639 up while I was there. I actually had gone to 0:19:34.640 --> 0:19:37.879 see the work at La Country Club with Gil and 0:19:37.920 --> 0:19:40.119 then i'd gone back to Rivier and got introduced to 0:19:40.160 --> 0:19:42.440 different people and they sent me out with a foursome 0:19:42.560 --> 0:19:46.280 to walk inside the Ropes, which is on Tuesday, which 0:19:46.320 --> 0:19:47.879 was awesome, and he was one of the four and 0:19:47.880 --> 0:19:51.080 he was the most talkative. I think the players who 0:19:51.119 --> 0:19:56.720 don't have the distance, it's really important to them to tack. 0:19:56.800 --> 0:19:58.719 I don't don't know what better. This sort of more 0:19:58.760 --> 0:20:02.160 of a sailing term, but if they tacked to position, 0:20:03.560 --> 0:20:08.080 then because they're hitting longer clubs, they can still end 0:20:08.160 --> 0:20:14.040 up finding place, finding ways or finding moments to be 0:20:14.080 --> 0:20:18.960 aggressive or to to you know, to to chase because 0:20:18.960 --> 0:20:21.800 you've you've still got to make some birdies. And I 0:20:21.840 --> 0:20:24.960 think it's what happens is they think a little bit 0:20:25.000 --> 0:20:27.879 more about the strategy because it's sort of self preservation. 0:20:28.600 --> 0:20:31.439 They need to be in good places to score. I 0:20:31.480 --> 0:20:34.960 think one of the things sort of frustrating about watching 0:20:36.080 --> 0:20:38.439 golf in more recent times is the players who hit 0:20:38.480 --> 0:20:42.120 it so far it didn't actually matter where they were 0:20:42.359 --> 0:20:46.679 because they had also honed. To their credit, they developed 0:20:46.720 --> 0:20:49.960 the skill in their wedge game, but they didn't need 0:20:50.000 --> 0:20:53.160 to play positionally as much. And I got admit that's 0:20:53.240 --> 0:20:57.879 when golf kind of lost my obsessive viewership and I 0:20:57.920 --> 0:21:02.240 became more of a part time of the game. It 0:21:02.320 --> 0:21:07.399 had a huge impact on me because I found I 0:21:07.400 --> 0:21:09.760 couldn't get much out of it architecturally. It was better 0:21:09.760 --> 0:21:13.760 to actually think about the average player. At least we're 0:21:13.800 --> 0:21:16.240 back to the sort of attacking and the strategies, and 0:21:18.920 --> 0:21:22.160 rather than being sort of overcome by either brute strength 0:21:22.400 --> 0:21:25.520 or today's day and age, they actually get their roots 0:21:25.520 --> 0:21:29.720 planned for them with percentage golf, so they sort of 0:21:29.760 --> 0:21:33.040 this is the most effective way to play this golf course, 0:21:33.560 --> 0:21:37.200 and they're given that as a roadmap that they'll deviate from, 0:21:37.720 --> 0:21:39.880 but they'll use it a lot. I kind of wish 0:21:40.000 --> 0:21:42.680 we weren't in that era. I'd rather watch a Nick 0:21:42.720 --> 0:21:48.000 Price show up and turnaball right, turnaball left, needs to spin, 0:21:48.080 --> 0:21:51.280 it needs to hit it low. I loved watching him play. 0:21:51.320 --> 0:21:54.240 I followed him a wack of times when I was younger, 0:21:54.240 --> 0:21:57.560 and he was a joy. But he also seemed to 0:21:57.560 --> 0:21:58.920 be making it up in the fly when he was 0:21:58.920 --> 0:22:00.720 playing really well because he could. 0:22:01.600 --> 0:22:04.960 Yeah, and he came up with those ideas. And yes, 0:22:05.760 --> 0:22:09.240 it's inevitable that the game, the professional game, has gone 0:22:09.400 --> 0:22:14.760 where it's gone with the assurances of a team of 0:22:14.840 --> 0:22:19.200 experts helping you figure out what the optimal strategy for 0:22:19.880 --> 0:22:22.840 playing a golf course would be. But it does take 0:22:22.920 --> 0:22:26.400 some individuality out of it, and we've seen that across 0:22:26.480 --> 0:22:32.160 many sports. It's happened profoundly in baseball in America. That's 0:22:32.200 --> 0:22:35.159 been maybe the most affected sport, but golf is not 0:22:35.280 --> 0:22:39.120 far behind, and you're certainly not alone in feeling less 0:22:39.119 --> 0:22:41.720 of an interest about it. What's so interesting about players 0:22:41.760 --> 0:22:44.960 like Mike Weir and Zach Johnson in fact, and why 0:22:45.000 --> 0:22:48.520 they might play well at an Augusta National, is that 0:22:48.680 --> 0:22:52.080 they became very good at figuring out when to be aggressive. 0:22:52.520 --> 0:22:55.880 They picked their moments. They couldn't always be aggressive. What 0:22:55.920 --> 0:22:59.000 you see from some players now is that they can 0:22:59.000 --> 0:23:01.560 be aggressive all the time time because they hit it 0:23:01.600 --> 0:23:04.760 so far. If there's a hole where the design is 0:23:04.880 --> 0:23:08.560 resisting aggression, they almost don't care because they can be 0:23:08.560 --> 0:23:11.480 aggressive with it anyway. So they're not choosing their moments, 0:23:11.640 --> 0:23:16.240