[Terry Lavin]

Shack's column in Gold Digest (http://www.golfdigest.com/blogs/the-loop/2014/04/three-easy-ways-to-improve-sun.html) got me thinking about the old pop song, Bend Me, Shape Me in relation to altering classic courses to hold tour events or majors. Lengthening and moving bunkers seems almost quaint when one considers clusters of fully grown trees planted near normal landing areas, or fairways moved thirty yards toward a roadway. How much alteration can be done in a way that still honors the architect's work?  When does tweaking segue into bastardization?  Borrowing from the pop tune, as long as they (club members) still love it, is that alright?

[Peter Pallotta]

T -

I put this on another thread.  Over the last ten years, the average winning score at the Masters was about -9,  with most of the scores bunched in around there. Compare that to the US Open over the same period: played on a variety of courses, the average winning score was -2 (though without Rory's -16 -- way outside the norm -- the average is just a smudge better than even par).

Those who run Augusta and those who run the USGA both have the means and will to control/adjust playing conditons and maintenance practices and design elements to try to 'influence' the winning score. And just looking at those scores, it seems clear that those who run the Masters aren't nearly as determined to make it a 'championship test' as the USGA is the US Open -- and never have been.

Which is to say, for all the changes at Augusta in design and maintenance practices, the Masters continues to be a place where a golfer at the top of his game can go out and 'win the tournament' instead of merely 'survive the championship' -- which I think is what Mr. Jones always intended.  Can the same be for the 10 venues that have hosted the US Open recently, i.e. would their designers say 'yes, that was what I intended, even par over 72 holes, with the winner being the last man standing'?

In short - changes/bends at Augusta "good": changes/shapes at most other American championship venues "bad".

P

[Terry Lavin]

PP:

Based on Jones' statements that the club didn't care about low scores by the pros and that the course was designed to allow a player to "get low", so to speak, I'm not sure all would agree with your assessment.

[Peter Pallotta]

T -

I know that many would disagree, and I'm confused about that.

Besides my own eyes, which year after year watch guys hit great shots and make birdies coming down the stretch to win the tournament, the average winning score has been about -9 for a long time, and 'seniors' like Langer and Couples and Mize and Lyle and Jimenez can and do hold their own year in and year out. 

To me, this IS "getting low" - how much "lower" do folks want/expect golfers to go before they'll say that Jones would be happy? 

P

[BCowan]

''In short - changes/bends at Augusta "good": changes/shapes at most other American championship venues "bad".''

Peter,

    You really think Mr Jones would like sub air and heaters under greens?  Over seeded rye which plays sticky and doesn't give to options around the green (that Jones designed them to allow) being it was inspired by TOC.  Could a Corey Pavin modern day pro win at Augusta, typically long hitters win at Augusta (especially after hottie changes) Zach Johnson is maybe the one exception.  Do you think that the greens are anywhere near as firm as they are in the US Open.  Testing driving accuracy isn't a good thing, especially in the bomb and gauge modern era?  Now i like when Shack suggests a primary rough 10 yards into the rough and I think that adds another element for an US Open.  If Nick Faldo was 25 now, I don't see him winning 3 Masters at the current set up.

Terry,

   The thing is Ross renovated many 9 hole courses and turned them in 18 hole Championship tracks.  I just think even cutting down dead trees is tough with most members.  They think the course will yield 63's all day, and they forget firmness in greens is a defense to low scores if that is what you are looking to achieve.  ''When does tweaking segue into bastardization''- Having not played the course, I'd say Oak Hill that has 70,000 or 700,000(can't remember number) more trees then it did when Ross left it.  

  

[Matt Bielawa]

Having not played the course, I'd say Oak Hill that has 70,000 or 700,000(can't remember number) more trees then it did when Ross left it.  

  

Not to thread-jack, but I'm not sure that's entirely true.  The trees weren't necessarily part of the original design, but they were planted immediately upon the course opening, such that I would think Ross had to known about it.  You could probably make a case that John Williams, who planted all the trees (it's over 70,000, not 700,000), was almost a co-architect based upon the influence that the trees have on the course today.

http://www.oakhillcc.com/default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=262791&ssid=127300&vnf=1

[BCowan]

Matt,

   good post.  Plus once Ross leaves it is the members course to do as they please. 

[Peter Pallotta]

B -

I don't want to get into this too much, as I think I've already sidetracked Terry's thread; he was asking about other things, and approaching the question differently.

I'm just intrigued by how 'scoring' reflects architectural intent. And I find that the -9 winning score over the last 10 years is remarkably similar (coincidentally?) to Jack Nicklaus' winning score in 1986, long before many of the recent/dramatic changes to Augusta (including lengthening) took place.

Peter

[Michael Felton]

T -

I put this on another thread.  Over the last ten years, the average winning score at the Masters was about -9,  with most of the scores bunched in around there. Compare that to the US Open over the same period: played on a variety of courses, the average winning score was -2 (though without Rory's -16 -- way outside the norm -- the average is just a smudge better than even par).

Those who run Augusta and those who run the USGA both have the means and will to control/adjust playing conditons and maintenance practices and design elements to try to 'influence' the winning score. And just looking at those scores, it seems clear that those who run the Masters aren't nearly as determined to make it a 'championship test' as the USGA is the US Open -- and never have been.

Which is to say, for all the changes at Augusta in design and maintenance practices, the Masters continues to be a place where a golfer at the top of his game can go out and 'win the tournament' instead of merely 'survive the championship' -- which I think is what Mr. Jones always intended.  Can the same be for the 10 venues that have hosted the US Open recently, i.e. would their designers say 'yes, that was what I intended, even par over 72 holes, with the winner being the last man standing'?

In short - changes/bends at Augusta "good": changes/shapes at most other American championship venues "bad".

P

If your goal were merely to protect par, the easiest way to do that would be to call 13 and 15 par 4s. Then your winning score would be an average to par of pretty close to exactly the same as the US Open. The course, to my mind, doesn't change as a test of the golfer's mettle and nerve just because you change a couple of numbers on the scorecard. The 13th at ANGC is 510 yards (and was 465 for quite some time I think). The US Open venues frequently have holes longer than that that are called par 4s.

[Terry Lavin]

MF:

That's a facile, yet mischievous suggestion, inasmuch as the original design of those holes was to allow and even encourage great players to try to get on in two, with a dose of peril as the price paid. Monkeying with the holes to minimize opportunities for an eagle frustrates, to some extent, the architect's intent. Changing the par designation doesn't change how the hole is played and it certainly doesn't alter it's design. It merely alters the under-or-over par score.

[Sean_A]

-9 is irrelevant.  The course could easily be a par 69 and lose less than 100 yards in making that setup more than viable.  The point about Augusta is the scores under par almost exclusively rely on playing the par 5s under par.  That is much like the Open and PGA and at least at the Open par is artificially reduced by calling a par 5 or two par 4s.  Its all just numbers on pieces of paper.  IMO, proper par this past week should be 276 these days just because guys hit the ball so far.  Now, lets go back at the comments of Jones to get a better perspective.  In his day, proper par was much more in line with the real par of 288.  So when he talks about shooting good scores, today that is relative to a par 69.  I don't think we are actually seeing on the ground what Jones had in mind. I think Jones would think of good score these days as more like 265ish.  Its the imblanced importance of putting and chipping these days which has skewed the scores quite high.  Make the greens a good, but reasonable speed and I think we are getting back to what Jones envisioned.  Attack the trees such as on #11 and that helps a bit.  Reduce the length of #17 and that helps a bit as well.  So long as the greens are crazy fast and firm with that much slope and contour, we shall see defensive play around the greens and most of the attacking on par 5s.

Ciao     

[DMoriarty]

T -

I put this on another thread.  Over the last ten years, the average winning score at the Masters was about -9,  with most of the scores bunched in around there. Compare that to the US Open over the same period: played on a variety of courses, the average winning score was -2 (though without Rory's -16 -- way outside the norm -- the average is just a smudge better than even par).

Those who run Augusta and those who run the USGA both have the means and will to control/adjust playing conditons and maintenance practices and design elements to try to 'influence' the winning score. And just looking at those scores, it seems clear that those who run the Masters aren't nearly as determined to make it a 'championship test' as the USGA is the US Open -- and never have been.

Which is to say, for all the changes at Augusta in design and maintenance practices, the Masters continues to be a place where a golfer at the top of his game can go out and 'win the tournament' instead of merely 'survive the championship' -- which I think is what Mr. Jones always intended.  Can the same be for the 10 venues that have hosted the US Open recently, i.e. would their designers say 'yes, that was what I intended, even par over 72 holes, with the winner being the last man standing'?

In short - changes/bends at Augusta "good": changes/shapes at most other American championship venues "bad".

P

Peter,

As Michael Felton's and Sean's post suggest, it is just a slightly different methodology of manipulating the course to control the scores.  Among other things, the USGA often changes par on a hole or two to help hold scores down. Or they choose courses where the par is already 70.  In contrast, the fame of ANGC's par fives and the tradition of the tournament means that the Masters is par 72, even though the longest hitter might hit a sand wedge(!) into a "par 5."   If we forget about par and look at scores, we can see that over the past 10 years, the scoring is pretty comparable.  Average winning score of the USOpen is 279.9, average winning score of the Masters is 278.5.  

This year at the Masters, there were 18 rounds in the 60s.  Last year at Merion there were 23 rounds in the 60s.  In 2012 at Congressional there were 33 rounds in the 60s.  

[Peter Pallotta]

David - in one sense I understand what you and Sean and Michael are saying. On the other, I can't make myself agree that the Masters I've watched for so many years feels anything like the US Opens over those same years. Augusta, for all the changes and increase in difficulty and lessening of options still seems to play a heck of a lot differently than Merion, Oakmont, Shinnecock, Bethpage, Winged Foot, Torrey Pines, and even Pebble Beach did after the USGA finished 'preparing them' to host the Opens. And, average scores aside, going way back into the 70s and 80s at the Masters and right up until present day, I'm never surprised that there are a bunch of golfers finishing up around -5, and -6, and -8, year after year.  I can't even remember the last single year, let alone a few years in a row, when that was true at the US Open. In short, I know that it is a subjective perspective and maybe not worth much, but the width and possibility of recovery and the greens that reward great shots all seem still to exist there at Augusta -- in a different form/degree no doubt than originally, but, to answer Terry's question again, in a form/degree that I think still keeps the original spirit alive well enough.

Peter

[Sean_A]

David - in one sense I understand what you and Sean and Michael are saying. On the other, I can't make myself agree that the Masters I've watched for so many years feels anything like the US Opens over those same years. Augusta, for all the changes and increase in difficulty and lessening of options still seems to play a heck of a lot differently than Merion, Oakmont, Shinnecock, Bethpage, Winged Foot, Torrey Pines, and even Pebble Beach did after the USGA finished 'preparing them' to host the Opens. And, average scores aside, going way back into the 70s and 80s at the Masters and right up until present day, I'm never surprised that there are a bunch of golfers finishing up around -5, and -6, and -8, year after year.  I can't even remember the last single year, let alone a few years in a row, when that was true at the US Open. In short, I know that it is a subjective perspective and maybe not worth much, but the width and possibility of recovery and the greens that reward great shots all seem still to exist there at Augusta -- in a different form/degree no doubt than originally, but, to answer Terry's question again, in a form/degree that I think still keeps the original spirit alive well enough.

Peter

Pietro

I agree, the Masters exacts its pound of flesh much more on the greens than US Opens.  US Opens is more about straight driving or else.  I am not convinced either way is very balanced or providing maximum entertainment.  By far the most entertaining event for me every year is the The Open.  There seems to be a good balance of driving and recovery.  Where The Open falls a bit short is in putting.  Most of the Open greens are not nearly as challenging as some US Open courses and Augusta.  The only way to make up for the differential is if the greens are very firm and there is some wind about.  Of course, weather dictates this for the most part and that to me seems as it should be.  I dislike the idea of setting up a course to meet a predetermined score.  That is the feeling I get with the US Open and The Masters.

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

I too agree that, generally, the Masters and the USOpen have a different feel, but would add that they are much closer in feel now than they were a couple of decades ago.  For example, the changes Geoff wants reversed (discussed in the linked article above) all focus on making the drive more demanding and difficult, and they all eliminate angles and options off the tee.  While it is a matter of degree, in these instances ANGC seems to be moving in the direction of a more penal and less strategic driving course.  It is hard to see how these changes are consistent with the course of old. 

Also, while Augusta still "extracts its pound of flesh" differently, one other similarity is that except on the par fives (and 16 with the left pin) the golfers are mostly just trying to keep their head down and survive.  Golfers might occasionally luck into birdies on the other holes, but really they all are just trying to avoid mistakes and figure out a way to keep making pars.  Again, I am not so sure that this was the type of golf envisioned with the original design.   

[Peter Pallotta]

D, S -

no doubt the angles of play have been restricted at Augusta over the years, and that alone has altered the original intent (or at least the original design). But, since this alteration has in part been driven by changes in technology, and since it has been partly mitigated by the ability of the world's best golfers to come into greens with shorter clubs (even as the course has gotten longer), I'm suggesting that all in all the Masters has done a better job than most of keeping with the original design intent in the face of a changing game. But I understand: this is all a matter of degrees, and for some the "better than most" is not saying much at all.

P

[Sean_A]

D, S -

no doubt the angles of play have been restricted at Augusta over the years, and that alone has altered the original intent (or at least the original design). But, since this alteration has in part been driven by changes in technology, and since it has been partly mitigated by the ability of the world's best golfers to come into greens with shorter clubs (even as the course has gotten longer), I'm suggesting that all in all the Masters has done a better job than most of keeping with the original design intent in the face of a changing game. But I understand: this is all a matter of degrees, and for some the "better than most" is not saying much at all.

P

Pietro

Yes, I agree with you.  I think Augusta was always meant to be about slopes, contours and greens which have to be outthunk    In terms of retaining those elements, yes, some angles have been reduced, but I don't think to the degree of US Open courses.  Many of those prime examples are so far removed from original design its crazy.  And some, such as Oakmont, were always that way - meant to hammer the players into submission with zero get of jail cards available.  I would equate Augusta to TOC in terms of the changes limiting golfer opportunities.  For instance, Augusta's right side at 11 being taken out of open play is about the same as taking left of the Principals Nose out of open play.  Both places have struggled a bit to retain their roots yet be challenging enough to make pros cope a bit.  Again, the big difference is the greens.  Augusta has tricked the greens up to such a degree that the greens dominate the challenge.  TOC while having tricky greens doesn't go anywhere near to the degree of speed combined with slope as Augusta does.  TOC is a more balanced test, but generally not as difficult a test.  I can see where both sides are coming from.

Ciao

[Michael Felton]

It is interesting to think how much difference the number on the card makes. Take 13 at Augusta. As a par five it's a great risk reward hole, but if you changed nothing about the hole but made it a par four, I think people would view of differently. Suddenly it becomes that much more of a slog and a hard fought par just wouldn't have the excitement of making birdies. It probably wouldn't affect the players that much or the way that they play, but the perception would be different for the watchers.

As to the US Open versus Augusta, they protect par in different ways. Augusta offers birdie chances fairly frequently, but it also offers up the opportunity to make big numbers too. I feel like players make more 8s and 9s at Augusta than in the US Open. A hole like 15 can extract 8 or 9 fairly easily even if you don't get a 2 shot penalty for a bad drop. The US Open is more the type of tournament where you can suddenly make a string of bogeys. As others have said it's driving versus greens too.

I wonder if it would be harder to play Oakmont with a balky driver or Augusta with a balky putter. Could be a close run thing. Neither would be a lot of fun with something on the line.

[Terry Lavin]

MF,

Changing the par on 13 and 15, for argument's sake, would not change a thing in a pro's approach to playing the hole, but would just crush a "regular" player.  Now, he would be relegated to the three-perfect-shots-and-a-lucky-putt way of making par. That's not what anybody but a sadist would use as a basis to design a par-4 hole.

After thinking about this issue for years, I'm at peace with transmogrifying a classic course in order to make it relevant for major championship golf. It keeps Merion, ANGC and Merion, for examples, in the golf consciousness of the hoi polloi. Which has value, it seems to me. I'm troubled only by the doubletalk of those responsible for debasing the design while praising those who came up with the design in the first place.

As long as we love it, love seeing the best play these great, if altered courses, it's alright on an important level.

[Tom_Doak]

After thinking about this issue for years, I'm at peace with transmogrifying a classic course in order to make it relevant for major championship golf. It keeps Merion, ANGC and Merion, for examples, in the golf consciousness of the hoi polloi. Which has value, it seems to me. I'm troubled only by the doubletalk of those responsible for debasing the design while praising those who came up with the design in the first place.

As long as we love it, love seeing the best play these great, if altered courses, it's alright on an important level.

I'll take the other side of that argument.

If we didn't allow these courses to be defaced in the name of "protecting" the design [i.e. the winning score], the governing bodies would have two choices:  they could either abandon the famous venues for new ones like Chambers Bay and Erin Hills, or if they didn't want to do that, they might have a reason to get serious about regulating the equipment.  But, as long as we allow them to screw around with great courses iand cover their asses on their failures in equipment regulation, then we're stuck with having to fix all the other courses ourselves.

[Terry Lavin]

TD,

Thanks for taking the other side of "Socrates on Classic Designs". As always, I have the weaker argument. Where do the rights, interests and goals of the owners/members come in?  When I was at Olympia Fields and we had a vote on a substantial renovation for the US Open, there was only one question at a membership meeting. And it had to do with cutting down a Willow tree!  The lure of a major in the eyes if a classic private club's eye is such that they are willing to compromise in order to have a slice of enduring glory. If a course was pretty much designed to test the best in the 20's and 30's, can one blame a club if it's willing to sacrifice architecture to a degree in order to fulfill its perceived mission?  If not, that part of its history fades in relevance.

[Tom_Doak]

TD,

Thanks for taking the other side of "Socrates on Classic Designs". As always, I have the weaker argument. Where do the rights, interests and goals of the owners/members come in?  When I was at Olympia Fields and we had a vote on a substantial renovation for the US Open, there was only one question at a membership meeting. And it had to do with cutting down a Willow tree!  The lure of a major in the eyes if a classic private club's eye is such that they are willing to compromise in order to have a slice of enduring glory. If a course was pretty much designed to test the best in the 20's and 30's, can one blame a club if it's willing to sacrifice architecture to a degree in order to fulfill its perceived mission?  If not, that part of its history fades in relevance.

Terry:

Thanks for sharing your experience at Olympia Fields.  I wouldn't have put it in the same pantheon as Merion or Augusta, the examples you used previously, but I'm sure that the member dynamics are much the same at most clubs seeking a one-time event [Augusta is entirely different, and members play almost no role in it].  I remember the Merion protectors vowing to make the USGA change greens back if they changed them for the Open ... but that was never going to happen.

In practice, power politics at most clubs generally stifle member input on architectural work in any large renovation, whether it's associated with a tournament or not.

Mostly, I wish clubs would not talk out of both sides of their mouths ... using the words "historic restoration" on one hand at the same time they make changes for tournaments behind their backs.  Protect it, or don't boast about it.  But this seems too much to ask.

[Terry Lavin]

Tom,

I wouldn't put Olympia anywhere near the others either, but I'm thinking that there's a commonality of experience as you suggest. And I totally agree about the talking out of both sides of the mouth. My mouth was agape last year as I listened to Mike Davis wax eloquently about the genius of Merion's architectural bones after they had tortured it pretty significantly.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()