Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Erik J. Barzeski on October 20, 2018, 11:15:34 PM
-
I'm still on my side of the "distance" debate, but I wondered if anyone had a list of great courses that are no longer able to be played by the PGA Tour primarily because they're too short.
This means the courses should be considered good or great. The courses should be former PGA Tour courses that are no longer used (i.e. if you think they ruined a course by adding length to it, that doesn't count). The courses should be unused now primarily because of the distance they play, not because of infrastructure problems, lack of a sponsor, etc.
Ideally the course hosted more than a few PGA Tour events and was not just a one-off type thing.
-
That's a tough criteria. If we can include major championship courses, maybe Cherry Hills? But maybe there are logistical issues there too.
I went through Golf Digest's Top 200 and didn't find any others that seemed to fit.
Edit: They had a playoff event at Cherry Hills in 2014 and the winner was -14, so I guess they can still play there.
-
(i.e. if you think they ruined a course by adding length to it, that doesn't count)
Seems to me a course that got sigificantly lengthened or redesigned to stay Tour-able should be in the same boat as one that couldn’t or wouldn’t join the arms race and got left behind by the Tour.
In terms of technlogy’s impact on great classic architecture on Tour, the result is the same.
The answer to your very specific, well-qualified question might be “only Cypress Point”. But I’m not sure what the point of the very specific, well-qualified question is because we all know technology’s impact on classic architecture at the Tour level is much more significant than that.
-
Well there aren't many great courses that are regular PGA TOUR sites, to begin with. So it's kind of a trick question.
But the problem isn't the courses they play on TOUR. The problem is all the other courses that get changed because architects and club members watch golf on TV on the weekends.
-
Erik,
Flip your question around and take a look at the Golfweek Classic 100. How many have the length to host a tour event?
Ira
-
This is slightly OT, but given the fact that top level amateurs can smash the ball as well as most pros, I'm amazed that the 2025 Walker Cup Match will be played at Cypress. Bags without drivers and with 4-5 wedges will be the norm, unless they somehow find another 500-1000 yards to add to the course and/or roll back the ball.
Circa 2010 I was Competition convener at Aberdour and happened to be up in Dornoch during the Scottish Amateur and walked about with two + HCP players from AGC (ages 19 and 21), and they hardly pulled their drivers out of their bags.
-
I play with a ton of golfers who don't pull drivers when I do. It makes me happy, not sad.
-
I play with a ton of golfers who don't pull drivers when I do. It makes me happy, not sad.
John
As you and I know the watermelon metal driver is the life blood of the old fat fart. If I could bring myself to do it, playing driver/driver on every par 4s and 5s and maybe on a few of the par 3s, I could shoot in the high 70s, but it would be no fun......
Rich
-
There are other problems besides length. I have a non-resident membership at Sedgefield. It may not be a "great" course but it is a venerable old Ross that has hosted the Greensboro/Wyndham for decades. The pin placements the TOUR uses make the rounds the TOUR play birdie fests. We have some more difficult pin placements for member play.
-
Interlachen
-
Seems to me a course that got sigificantly lengthened or redesigned to stay Tour-able should be in the same boat as one that couldn’t or wouldn’t join the arms race and got left behind by the Tour.
Okay, how about we list those with an asterisk or something? But the course had to be at least "good" to begin with - a crappy course that was lengthened and remained crappy doesn't really count.
Well there aren't many great courses that are regular PGA TOUR sites, to begin with. So it's kind of a trick question.
You see, when I started this topic, I was trying to play devil's advocate with myself. It's a common thing, at least it seems to me, for people to bemoan all the great courses the PGA Tour can no longer play because of the distance the players hit the ball. Would I generally prefer to see the players play at great courses over crappy courses? Yes (then again I'm also not a "typical golf fan").
But… it might turn out that this statement, when made, is a bit of a false statement. If the PGA Tour hasn't had to stop playing a lot of great classic courses - then this argument doesn't hold as much water as some people seem to think it does. The PGA Tour (and top-level pro golf) is still played at some pretty old courses here in the U.S. (despite the fact that the game isn't particularly old here), and yes, they've been lengthened, which is why I think we should list those too if they've been ruined in their lengthening.
And my intent is not at all to create yet another distance debate topic, but to actually create a list of courses that are no longer playable (or ruined), as is so often cited.
But the problem isn't the courses they play on TOUR. The problem is all the other courses that get changed because architects and club members watch golf on TV on the weekends.
That may be your argument, but it's not the one I see cited widely, or the reason I started this topic.
Flip your question around and take a look at the Golfweek Classic 100. How many have the length to host a tour event?
I'd rather not, because I don't think it's important. As I've said a few times, 6500 yards is more than enough for the vast, vast, vast majority of golfers. And given Tom's comment… those clubs should be hailed for their resistance, lest they lengthen and ruin what they've got.
-
They used to play Cypress in the Crosby so Cypress should be on the list.
They played Plainfield twice in recent years and made the course look like a pitch and putt. They aren’t going back to Plainfield with the new schedule.
-
So right now the list is:
(I'm not sure Cypress Point would want to host a PGA Tour event, but still… but that's not what I asked. ;D )
-
Myopia and Chicago hosted several US opens way back when so I would add them.
Newport CC and Garden City hosted the Open also. Newport had the women’s open and one of Tiger’s US Ams.
Bobby Jones won his first Open at Inwood.
Jack won a US am at The Broadmoor. They had the senior open this year.
-
That's a tough criteria. If we can include major championship courses, maybe Cherry Hills? But maybe there are logistical issues there too.
I went through Golf Digest's Top 200 and didn't find any others that seemed to fit.
Edit: They had a playoff event at Cherry Hills in 2014 and the winner was -14, so I guess they can still play there.
What about Olympic?
The Pacific Coast Amateur was this year and the winner shot 12 under.
Most players on that level only use driver on a few holes.
The USGA has abandoned it for the US Open. They will hold a Women's open and the PGA has committed to a Ryder Cup which will be a match play event.
-
My beloved Olympia Fields might fit into this category. Regrettably. Unless the PGA comes back.
-
Myopia Hunt Club
-
So right now the list is:
(I'm not sure Cypress Point would want to host a PGA Tour event, but still… but that's not what I asked. ;D )
-
Well there aren't many great courses that are regular PGA TOUR sites, to begin with. So it's kind of a trick question.
-
Yes, as MLevesque suggests above, a quick scan of courses that hosted the US Open from circa 1900 to c 1930 shows a goodly number of then-highly regarded and top flight courses that dropped off the map with the shift from hickory to steel -- courses that never again served as 'models' (for non-championship, local courses). Augusta, and dozens of now nearly forgotten but once highly regarded host-courses for the PGA Championship and the Western Open etc, built/coming into their own during the steel shaft era, all stayed virtually unchanged -- lengthwise -- until the introduction of titanium and multi-core golf balls; and again, almost all save Augusta dropped off the map as pro-level tests and as models for recreational courses -- with Augusta staying 'relevant' only because it added 5-times more length in the next ten years than it had in the previous sixty years combined.
Which is to say: maybe technological change is the only constant in golf, but there can be no doubt about the costs and casualties involved when it comes to gca -- neither in the past nor in the future, nor of course as we speak.
Or, to answer Erik's question from another angle: there are *no* 'great courses' that the PGA can no longer play, but only because those dozens of once-great courses are no longer *considered* 'great'.
Peter
-
What about Olympic?
The Pacific Coast Amateur was this year and the winner shot 12 under.
Most players on that level only use driver on a few holes.
The USGA has abandoned it for the US Open. They will hold a Women's open and the PGA has committed to a Ryder Cup which will be a match play event.
Joel,
The PGA is also being held at Olympic in 2028, part of the deal when they switched across from the USGA I understand. The Ryder Cup will be held there in 2032.
Not knowing the course well, other than what I can remember from viewing US Opens on TV, I wonder if even fewer drivers will be used there at the PGA in 10 years’ time?
-
Scioto, Canterbury, Beverly, Westchester. Is there some magic number that is enough to make the point that distance has made very good courses obsolete for tour players? Maybe I am still missing the point of the thread.
Ira
-
I think Seminole can be added to the list. It never had a tour event but Hogan used to practice there to prepare for the Masters. Today top pros don’t practice there to prepare for the Masters.
-
Was told by the head pro at CPC that the course will not be lengthened for the upcoming Walker Cup. The rough and pin locations will make it challenging enough. CPC doesn’t want to do what ANGC did because of Tiger..
-
Yes, as MLevesque suggests above, a quick scan of courses that hosted the US Open from circa 1900 to c 1930 shows a goodly number of then-highly regarded and top flight courses that dropped off the map with the shift from hickory to steel -- courses that never again served as 'models' (for non-championship, local courses).
Yes, I probably should have said post-hickory era courses only (i.e. hosted a PGA Tour event after the early '30s).
Scioto, Canterbury, Beverly, Westchester. Is there some magic number that is enough to make the point that distance has made very good courses obsolete for tour players? Maybe I am still missing the point of the thread.
I thought the point was pretty clear. People often seem to say "we're losing so many great courses to the distance explosion." This thread seeks to evaluate the merit of those statements by listing these great, lost courses.
So, what's the list (starting in the early '30s) at now? Can we put the date of the last PGA Tour (or equivalent) level event hosted at the course? (Interlachen might not count, as nobody's asking for a roll-back to hickories. Well, not many people are.)
I think Seminole can be added to the list. It never had a tour event but Hogan used to practice there to prepare for the Masters. Today top pros don’t practice there to prepare for the Masters.
No, it can't.
-
I'm still on my side of the "distance" debate, but I wondered if anyone had a list of great courses that are no longer able to be played by the PGA Tour primarily because they're too short.
This is a phenomenally stupid question, and the course in question doesn't play host to PGA Tour events really, although it has played host to European Tour events. It also hasn't been substantially altered.
Royal Melbourne. The only way they can stop the pros poleaxing it is having the greens at ludicrous speed and firmness and silly pins.
-
This is a phenomenally stupid question
Thanks for sharing.
-
I thought the point was pretty clear. People often seem to say "we're losing so many great courses to the distance explosion." This thread seeks to evaluate the merit of those statements by listing these great, lost courses.
But do they? Above and beyond all the other reasons they say technology has adversely affected many great courses?
I'd love to see you at least somewhat establish that what you're claiming is the prevailing thing people say against the technology boom.
Until then it just seems like you're just trying to prove a thesis that doesn't exist.
Even if we stick to your defined frame of reference being where the pros do and don't play, only a fool would argue that Augusta National hasn't been architecturally compromised by 21st century efforts to manipulate scores and try to keep certain holes "relevant". But they still go there each April, so it wouldn't be on your list.
I just continue, despite your subsequent posts in the thread, to fail to understand how what you're trying to achieve is at all relevant or useful.
-
Canterbury last hosted a major in 1973. That wasn’t exactly the hickory era. How about Inverness, which hasn’t hosted a major since 1993?
It may not be considered “great” on this site, but Firestone was a mainstay on the Tour for 60 years (until this year, when Bridgestone packed up and left for Memphis). It was popular with players as a tune-up for the PGA and scores were never particularly low, until recently when 400+ yard drives became standard and flip wedges into greens that 25+ years ago saw 5 and 6 iron approaches. But I’m sure it had nothing to do with equipment...
-
The PGA tour could still play any of the great courses if those courses actually wanted them there AND if the tour wasn't so worried about trying to "fix" the scoring. Let them play the course and accept the score.
-
Canterbury last hosted a major in 1975. That wasn’t exactly the hickory era. How about Inverness, which hasn’t hosted a major since 1993?
It may not be considered “great” on this site, but Firestone was a mainstay on the Tour for 60 years (until this year, when Bridgestone packed up and left for Memphis). It was popular with players as a tune-up for the PGA and scores were never particularly low, until recently when 400+ yard drives became standard and flip wedges into greens that 25+ years ago saw 5 and 6 iron approaches. But I’m sure it had nothing to do with equipment...
Fitness and athleticism....
especially for born again athletes like Fred Couples.....
-
The PGA tour could still play any of the great courses if those courses actually wanted them there AND if the tour wasn't so worried about trying to "fix" the scoring. Let them play the course and accept the score.
Agreed...mostly.
The Tour is the modern day Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus...and is always ready, willing and able to go to the fancy new place, if the fancy new place will have them. Sponsorship's, Infrastructure and Cache have had more to do with courses leaving the rotation than the course itself...
In the distance debate, I am firmly in the camp of let the best players in the world shoot whatever they're going to shoot on the best current version of your course.
The circus came to Philadelphia this fall and made our biggest baddest course look like a pushover. It was bizarre. -20 at Aronimink??? No way...But you know what, they put the pins in the middle of the greens and slowed them from a daily 11/12, occasional 13 to about 10. If you can play Aronimink with no fear of short siding your approach or hitting it above the hole you've taken a hell of a lot out of the design. It was soft because it's rained every other day around here for the last 5 months and the Tour wants birdies...that's what pays. So they set it up just about as easy as possible.
So the conversation really isn't about distance in my opinion because the Tour wants low scores. Listen to Jason Day...roll back the ball 20%, better let us play courses 20% shorter. In addition, if they do roll the ball back 20%, who will be the first people to figure out how to recoup that 20%? The Tour guys because that's their job.
Let the Tour do whatever they want...make your course the best possible version of itself for the people that actually play it.
-
But do they? Above and beyond all the other reasons they say technology has adversely affected many great courses?
I'd love to see you at least somewhat establish that what you're claiming is the prevailing thing people say against the technology boom.
I'm not claiming what you seem to think I'm claiming. I'm claiming that nobody's actually put together a list, and that having done so, the list is likely quite a bit smaller than those who DO make comments like this think it is. That any time someone makes this type of statement, that they're inaccurate.
Until then it just seems like you're just trying to prove a thesis that doesn't exist.
I'm doing no such thing. My thesis isn't that this is the primary reason people cite, only that it's a reason that people cite, and that it's inaccurate when they do. Had that been my thesis, the proof would have been to count comments.
My thesis is that when people give this reason, they're doing so without much actual proof, without a list. They're doing so because it seems right. So, let's make the list.
Even if we stick to your defined frame of reference being where the pros do and don't play, only a fool would argue that Augusta National hasn't been architecturally compromised by 21st century efforts to manipulate scores and try to keep certain holes "relevant". But they still go there each April, so it wouldn't be on your list.
Even if you want to add it to the list… that's one course.
Canterbury last hosted a major in 1973. That wasn’t exactly the hickory era. How about Inverness, which hasn’t hosted a major since 1993?
Add them to the list if you'd like, though Inverness may have been more about infrastructure.It may not be considered “great” on this site, but Firestone was a mainstay on the Tour for 60 years (until this year, when Bridgestone packed up and left for Memphis).
They didn't leave because Firestone got too short.
If forced to care about PGA Tour players, I'm more in line with Jim Sullivan's take.
-
The PGA tour could still play any of the great courses if those courses actually wanted them there AND if the tour wasn't so worried about trying to "fix" the scoring. Let them play the course and accept the score.
Let the Tour do whatever they want...make your course the best possible version of itself for the people that actually play it.
Cha ching.
Ciao
-
Scioto, Canterbury, Beverly, Westchester. Is there some magic number that is enough to make the point that distance has made very good courses obsolete for tour players? Maybe I am still missing the point of the thread.
Ira
Wedge Dot Com tour has been at Canterbury last 3 years playing it a hair under 7,000 and scores have been -14, -8, -7 (cuts E, +2, +1). Soaked course on Thursday resulted in the low rounds for the week. Greens/Pins weren't nearly as bad as they are on a typical member Sunday.
I think some of the Golden Age courses could still be in play, but they don't have the surrounding land necessary for the circus to come to town. Players also aren't exactly GCA fans and do a lot of moaning and groaning when presented with the defenses typical of these courses. 9 bridges far superior to Trinity in their eyes.
-
Since your date is the early 1930s, it seems fair to evaluate any present or recent major venues compared to their 1930 design.
-
This doesn't try to answer the question posed here, but I was just thinking locally about Conway Farms. Furyk's sub 60 round on a fairly windy day was eye opening to me. I have played the course many times and I never thought of it as a course that I would describe as easy. But when a short hitting pro can post a fifty something in the wind, I suppose that the course may be too short to test their entire games. As it is, you could call it a putting contest.
They have 3 par 5s that are near 600 yards. They some par 3s in the 220 range. Several par fours in the upper 400s. But you can get some roll out there, there are several shorter holes, and the greens are really good.
This is a short article where Justin Rose is actually expressing his preference for Cog Hill, seemingly just because of it's length. It appears as though he thinks that Conway's scoring is too low and it is harder for the "good" players... like himself, to get separation.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/golf/ct-return-to-cog-hill-20170917-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/golf/ct-return-to-cog-hill-20170917-story.html)
-
Forgive me if it’s been mentioned somewhere above, but a classic (literally) example in the U.K. would be Sunningdale Old, which hosted many a European Tour/Men’s professional event until it was deemed too short for (non-seniors) pro play.
A ‘Persimmon Open’, as Tom Doak called such an event, would be a nice event, even with modern balls, to see held there.
Atb
-
Thanks for sharing.
No problem. I'm surprised that you managed to sucker so many people into answering such a stultifying question, but I am always here to help.
PS. Merion, Sandwich, Muirfield, Carnoustie, Winged Foot West, Riviera and The Old Course would all be on your list if you had framed your nonsensical premise correctly.
-
Doesn’t play well with others.
-
They can play anywhere...they may shoot 23 under, but its fun to watch them play any golf course.
Trinity Forest, a long brand new course by a great architecture team let up a 23 under last year in the inaugural event. Do you think they'd shoot much lower if they played 4 rounds at Cypress? did you not enjoy watching that tournament (Trinity)? If they shot -30 at Cypress would it be that bad? You could make it a par 68 and then it would only be -14.
The only real reason they may not be able to play somewhere is it couldn't handle the crowds/the event/the infrastructure., etc.
-
PS. Merion, Sandwich, Muirfield, Carnoustie, Winged Foot West, Riviera and The Old Course would all be on your list if you had framed your nonsensical premise correctly.
You may not like the question, but that doesn't make it nonsensical.
How would you phrase the question? The PGA Tour (or the players in majors) still plays at Riviera, the Old Course, Carnoustie, etc., of course, so… what's your version of the question? What's your list of great courses that are no longer great or no longer played by the game's best because they hit the ball too far?
-
Not exactly your original question because I think you could hold a PGA Tour tournament on a 6,000 yard course and it could still be interesting. However, many courses no longer test the complete game because a player can either lay back in the fairway, or, more likely, hit driver somewhere within wedge range and figure it out from there. I believe Dustin Johnson was quoted as saying his longest iron into a par 4 in 2017 was a 7 iron (too lazy to research).
Colonial is an example of a course significantly compromised by the additional distance the ball travels. Today - layups or driver/flip wedge is the way the course is played.
The Old Course is still entertaining to watch but it takes severe weather (but not so severe that the balls will not stay still on the greens) to present a significant challenge associated with distance. That and most of the time they walk back from each green to each tee.
Merion was set up in a ridiculous fashion to host a US Open.
Westchester was highly thought of at one time but no longer hosts a tournament.
Augusta National is set up in a strange fashion with the grain cut towards the tee to increase the effective length of the course at the cost of the effects of the rolling landscape.
Royal Melbourne is still a challenge because the greens are difficult. However, length is not really a big part of that challenge.
-
Well there aren't many great courses that are regular PGA TOUR sites, to begin with. So it's kind of a trick question.
You see, when I started this topic, I was trying to play devil's advocate with myself. It's a common thing, at least it seems to me, for people to bemoan all the great courses the PGA Tour can no longer play because of the distance the players hit the ball. Would I generally prefer to see the players play at great courses over crappy courses? Yes (then again I'm also not a "typical golf fan").
But… it might turn out that this statement, when made, is a bit of a false statement. If the PGA Tour hasn't had to stop playing a lot of great classic courses - then this argument doesn't hold as much water as some people seem to think it does. The PGA Tour (and top-level pro golf) is still played at some pretty old courses here in the U.S. (despite the fact that the game isn't particularly old here), and yes, they've been lengthened, which is why I think we should list those too if they've been ruined in their lengthening.
And my intent is not at all to create yet another distance debate topic, but to actually create a list of courses that are no longer playable (or ruined), as is so often cited.
But the problem isn't the courses they play on TOUR. The problem is all the other courses that get changed because architects and club members watch golf on TV on the weekends.
That may be your argument, but it's not the one I see cited widely, or the reason I started this topic.
Erik, you dolt. if you are going to restrict it to great courses that have hosted PGA Tour events, then perhaps you should list which courses you think are great courses that have hosted a PGA Tour event. Tom seems to think at most a very small number of great courses have hosted a PGA Tour event (e.g. Cypress Point), so if you really mean courses that have hosted a PGA Tour event, then it is a trick question.
Probably, when people bemoan there are great courses that can no longer host a PGA Tour event, they are referring to great classics that have not been bastardized enough to allow hosting a PGA Tour event to make some semblance of sense. E.g., Seminole, which in your myopic view you say doesn't qualify as one that can be one that can no longer hold a PGA Tour event.
Great of course is in the eye of the beholder. if you allow the definition of great to be US Open worthy, then a great example that shows how distance has affected the pro game is Pumpkin Ridge in Oregon. When it was built, it was targeted to be a US Open site, because the USGA wanted more sites on the west coast, and the pacific northwest has great weather at US Open time, with hardly an chance of an electrical storm. However, it just happened to come online when the new ball created a distance explosion, and was obsolete for US Open purposes from the get go. The USGA had to wait for Chambers Bay to get their pacific northwest Open site.
-
How would you phrase the question? The PGA Tour (or the players in majors) still plays at Riviera, the Old Course, Carnoustie, etc., of course, so… what's your version of the question? What's your list of great courses that are no longer great or no longer played by the game's best because they hit the ball too far?
It's difficult to get a handle on what you believe, Erik.
It appears to be that you think the distance issue, such as it is, is due to natural progress, better coaching and better fitness, and not necessarily technology. Is that the case? (And that the effects of the increase in distance are exaggerated, but that's a different argument).
All of those courses I listed have been significantly altered to allow for the distance modern players hit the ball. If they weren't altered, or otherwise tricked up, would they still host PGA/European tour events? Jason touches on some of them above.
The Old Course, for instance, is now played from three separate courses for The Open.
Ernie Els almost shot 60 at RM a few years ago. In one of the books about the club, an Argentinian player from long ago is mentioned as being a colossal hitter who drove the 1st East green and hit the 17th East with a 7-iron second. These days, such feats are commonplace.
-
Inverness just de-Fazio'd itself and went up to about 7700 yards so I'm guessing it's back in the game now.
-
Hi Erik,
Perhaps it might be enlightening to start a list of the courses that have had to be lengthened since the ProV1 arrived because you'd agree that if they have been lengthened then it was because they sought to remain relevant and that distance was the issue they were combating. I'm guessing but it would likely be a list of most of the courses the Tour visits regularly. As Mark pointed out, the Old Course now uses teeing grounds on other courses in order to remain relevant. If they played Augusta as it was in 1986 today it would be a pitch and putt. Sadly not every club can go and buy up the land around it as ANGC has to stop it being added to your first list.
I suppose the only answer to the distance issue is to ban Trackman, prevent players from using the gym and have McDonalds provide all the meals. That way we'd see the driving average plummet back to around 275yds because it obviously isn't the ball or the clubs.
-
This is a phenomenally stupid question
Thanks for sharing.
Not a stupid question at all.
I like it. It’s actually a simple call the ball.
“Those that think length has ruined the ability of great courses to host a PGA event, name those courses.”
I believe tallied to date are; CPC, Scioto, Interlachen, Beverly, Plainfield, Olympia Fields, Chicago and a few others.
Add to the list OR perhaps the courses played wern’t that great.
-
I thought the point was pretty clear. People often seem to say "we're losing so many great courses to the distance explosion." This thread seeks to evaluate the merit of those statements by listing these great, lost courses.
But do they? Above and beyond all the other reasons they say technology has adversely affected many great courses?
I'd love to see you at least somewhat establish that what you're claiming is the prevailing thing people say against the technology boom.
Until then it just seems like you're just trying to prove a thesis that doesn't exis.
I just continue, despite your subsequent posts in the thread, to fail to understand how what you're trying to achieve is at all relevant or useful.
Relevant and useful? It’s a discussion board about golf architecture. He asked a question seeking an opinion. It’s a great question. If it needs a tweak let’s ponder the permutations.
People complain that distance has ruined great courses’ ability to host tour events.
Name those courses.
In discussing, we may find either the greatest courses didn’t host or care to host them, changed their skins to host them or perhaps they weren’t great courses. I don’t know the answer but it has peaked my curiosity to take a look.
Elevate the exploration vs. s#itting on the question.
It’s a discussions board about golf architecture, not cat videos. This poses a great question asking for names to tie to complaints about golf architecture’s relationship with technology and competition.
It begs “do great courses want tour events?” “Do great classic courses only want USGA events?” Etc
Stop complaining about the usefulness of the question and share some useful insight.
-
Vaughan,
The issue as I (and others, it seems) see it is that such a list excludes all those courses that have been bastardised by lengthening, tightening and green changes to retain a place on Tour: TOC & ANGC front and centre.
If the concern is the impact on great classic architecture of the technology arms race, then surely the focus should be on all the great courses in pro golf that have been adversely affected and not just those that couldn’t or wouldn’t keep up.
A list simply comprising the latter will be short enough that many would say “see, it’s not a big deal - only a handful of courses.”
-
It appears to be that you think the distance issue, such as it is, is due to natural progress, better coaching and better fitness, and not necessarily technology. Is that the case? (And that the effects of the increase in distance are exaggerated, but that's a different argument).
I don't think there's a distance issue. I think a small group of people (a high concentration is here) give too much weight to the pro game and the distance a tiny percentage of golfers hit the ball, and bemoan that the Tour can't play classic or great courses… while simultaneously pointing out that the PGA Tour doesn't really even play "great" courses.
On the PGA Tour, the ball goes farther. For the average golfer, the ball goes farther. Why? Everything. Technology. Understanding. Instruction. Fitness. Agriculture/maintenance practices.
If players were still hitting balata balls with steel-shafted metal drivers, they'd be hitting the ball farther now, too. Not as far as they are hitting it, but farther. Tiger in 1997 hit it far. We understand the physics of launch angle, spin, etc. to maximize carry. Players are more fit. The lighter shafts and larger heads only further increase that, as does the ball.
Everything contributes.
I just don't think there's an issue, because I don't really care about a tiny fraction of the golfers playing PGA Tour level golf. While I can appreciate the added skill of having a 4-iron to a green, over an 8-iron, on TV you see a player hit a ball, you see a ball against the sky, and you see the ball land on the green. With an 8-iron it's likely going to land closer, and the player is more likely to birdie, and that's more exciting.
About the only thing I wish the rules makers had done was limit the size of the driver clubhead a bit more. 460cc is big. But that still wouldn't change much on the PGA Tour. Those guys still hit their 3-woods far (with relatively small heads).
6500 yards is plenty for the vast, vast majority of golfers, and courses that want to chase the PGA Tour are free to do so, but it's not like the average golfer has to play the same tees as the PGA Tour players. They can still play their 6300 yard tees, or whatever. When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
So who cares what the PGA Tour does? It's entertainment, and if you don't find it entertaining, go PLAY golf. You probably aren't playing from 7700 yards. Can you still go play Interlachen and have a good time?
If they played Augusta as it was in 1986 today it would be a pitch and putt.
And it was for Tiger in 1997, pre-ProV1, pre-graphite-shafted-drivers. Tiger swung faster.
I suppose the only answer to the distance issue is to ban Trackman, prevent players from using the gym and have McDonalds provide all the meals. That way we'd see the driving average plummet back to around 275yds because it obviously isn't the ball or the clubs.
I've never thought that there was/is a "distance issue." :)
The issue as I (and others, it seems) see it is that such a list excludes all those courses that have been bastardised by lengthening, tightening and green changes to retain a place on Tour: TOC & ANGC front and centre.
So build a few different lists.
-
Vaughan,
The issue as I (and others, it seems) see it is that such a list excludes all those courses that have been bastardised by lengthening, tightening and green changes to retain a place on Tour: TOC & ANGC front and centre.
If the concern is the impact on great classic architecture of the technology arms race, then surely the focus should be on all the great courses in pro golf that have been adversely affected and not just those that couldn’t or wouldn’t keep up.
A list simply comprising the latter will be short enough that many would say “see, it’s not a big deal - only a handful of courses.”
Perhaps but the discussion is the best part of the enlightenment as the complaints need to be debunked or qualified.
“Joe Blowhard” at a club will blather on how “the ball” has ruined great courses and they can’t hold PGA events.”
Well if “Joe Blowhard” is up to it (rarely is) making them define their list of lost great courses would be sporting. Is Firestone on the list? The old ANGC vs post Tiger? Is it length or lack of strategic architecture that doomed it or did it just look bad on TV?
Or a PGA event is so huge and invasive, the course just doesn’t want it. (CPC)
Expanding and defining the “list of the lost” should be part of the excercise because it’s not an easy answer but a great thread for this very group.
It would be interesting to me to understand what people consider were the “great” courses that were lost to technology
-
issue." :)
The issue as I (and others, it seems) see it is that such a list excludes all those courses that have been bastardised by lengthening, tightening and green changes to retain a place on Tour: TOC & ANGC front and centre.
So build a few different lists
Exactly.
If golfgeek ground zero can’t expand and explore this very topic, why are we here? ;)
-
I'm still on my side of the "distance" debate, but I wondered if anyone had a list of great courses that are no longer able to be played by the PGA Tour primarily because they're too short.
This means the courses should be considered good or great. The courses should be former PGA Tour courses that are no longer used (i.e. if you think they ruined a course by adding length to it, that doesn't count). The courses should be unused now primarily because of the distance they play, not because of infrastructure problems, lack of a sponsor, etc.
Ideally the course hosted more than a few PGA Tour events and was not just a one-off type thing.
I’m thinking the need to cross reference old PGA schedules with the corresponding Top lists of that day.
-
I'm still on my side of the "distance" debate, but I wondered if anyone had a list of great courses that are no longer able to be played by the PGA Tour primarily because they're too short.
This means the courses should be considered good or great. The courses should be former PGA Tour courses that are no longer used (i.e. if you think they ruined a course by adding length to it, that doesn't count). The courses should be unused now primarily because of the distance they play, not because of infrastructure problems, lack of a sponsor, etc.
Ideally the course hosted more than a few PGA Tour events and was not just a one-off type thing.
I’m thinking the need to cross reference old PGA schedules with the corresponding Top lists of that day.
Vaughn, I did a quick but fairly full cross-reference when I listed some of the courses that meet Erik's question. The reality is that the tour never has played on a high percentage of top tier courses. So although the list of courses that have become obsolete plus those that have been "bastardized" may seem small, it actually is a high percentage of the top tier courses the tour uses/used.
But I take issue with the notion that the major objection to increased length among those on gca.com is that it means that the tour cannot play classic courses or that such courses must become bastardized. I have found the weight of objection is similar to Tom Doak's point--the tour courses/length influence/influenced new course design negatively. We are seeing fewer classic courses of the 6000-6500 yard length which as Erik points out is plenty for the vast, vast majority of golfers. Just look at how much attention was generated by the announcement of the Doak short course at Sand Valley--if that were close to the norm, we would have a different view about how far the pros hit it.
Ira
-
It appears to be that you think the distance issue, such as it is, is due to natural progress, better coaching and better fitness, and not necessarily technology. Is that the case? (And that the effects of the increase in distance are exaggerated, but that's a different argument).
I don't think there's a distance issue. I think a small group of people (a high concentration is here) give too much weight to the pro game and the distance a tiny percentage of golfers hit the ball, and bemoan that the Tour can't play classic or great courses… while simultaneously pointing out that the PGA Tour doesn't really even play "great" courses.
On the PGA Tour, the ball goes farther. For the average golfer, the ball goes farther. Why? Everything. Technology. Understanding. Instruction. Fitness. Agriculture/maintenance practices.
If players were still hitting balata balls with steel-shafted metal drivers, they'd be hitting the ball farther now, too. Not as far as they are hitting it, but farther. Tiger in 1997 hit it far. We understand the physics of launch angle, spin, etc. to maximize carry. Players are more fit. The lighter shafts and larger heads only further increase that, as does the ball.
Everything contributes.
I just don't think there's an issue, because I don't really care about a tiny fraction of the golfers playing PGA Tour level golf. While I can appreciate the added skill of having a 4-iron to a green, over an 8-iron, on TV you see a player hit a ball, you see a ball against the sky, and you see the ball land on the green. With an 8-iron it's likely going to land closer, and the player is more likely to birdie, and that's more exciting.
About the only thing I wish the rules makers had done was limit the size of the driver clubhead a bit more. 460cc is big. But that still wouldn't change much on the PGA Tour. Those guys still hit their 3-woods far (with relatively small heads).
6500 yards is plenty for the vast, vast majority of golfers, and courses that want to chase the PGA Tour are free to do so, but it's not like the average golfer has to play the same tees as the PGA Tour players. They can still play their 6300 yard tees, or whatever. When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
So who cares what the PGA Tour does? It's entertainment, and if you don't find it entertaining, go PLAY golf. You probably aren't playing from 7700 yards. Can you still go play Interlachen and have a good time?
If they played Augusta as it was in 1986 today it would be a pitch and putt.
And it was for Tiger in 1997, pre-ProV1, pre-graphite-shafted-drivers. Tiger swung faster.
I suppose the only answer to the distance issue is to ban Trackman, prevent players from using the gym and have McDonalds provide all the meals. That way we'd see the driving average plummet back to around 275yds because it obviously isn't the ball or the clubs.
I've never thought that there was/is a "distance issue." :)
The issue as I (and others, it seems) see it is that such a list excludes all those courses that have been bastardised by lengthening, tightening and green changes to retain a place on Tour: TOC & ANGC front and centre.
So build a few different lists.
Eric
I don't understand why you need any lists if you don't care about the PGA tour. I am in the same boat as you...let the tours do what they do and we can individually decide if we want to buy the product.
What most people say is the tours effect decision-making in terms of length. Meaning if clubs want to remain relevant to the big boys then added yardage is a necessity. I have long believed this to be about the worst reason possible to alter a course unless clubs actually do wish to hold top events...which very few ever do. Even then, it is entirely their choice to stay on the big boy band wagon or hop off in favour of doing what is right by their members and as caretakers of classic courses. Even then take two, most courses aren't worth worrying about architecturally speaking so its a complete non-issue for a huge percentage of courses.
IMO...given that folks have been railing on about out of control distance, it seems to me it is best to worry about protecting one's club against architectural abuse rather than worry about the tours who may or may not ever be involved with a roll back. Yes, I do agree distance is out of control, but to a large extend it doesn't matter because we all have the power to play where we wish. If ya don't like what a club has done and it means that much...walk. Its no different from any other product on the market...we make a decision each and every time we put our hands on the wallet.
What I really find stupidly ironic is all the people who moan about distance then stand in line for the next does it all driver and balls. It is very difficult for me to have much sympathy for guys who are part of the problem they wish to see mitigated.
Each club and person is responsible for their decisions. Don't blame the USGA or tours for the equipment you buy or for the changes to your golf course. Take responsibility for your actions and the odds of change happening will rise. I think the new Doak course in Wisconsin and the other smaller projects we see are absolute evidence of this.
Ciao
-
But I take issue with the notion that the major objection to increased length among those on gca.com is that it means that the tour cannot play classic courses or that such courses must become bastardized.
If I've said that it's the weight or majority objection, I misspoke. I'm simply of the belief that it's ONE of the objections. And I'm pretty sure I never said it was just here on GCA.
I don't understand why you need any lists if you don't care about the PGA tour. I am in the same boat as you...let the tours do what they do and we can individually decide if we want to buy the product.
Because I care about golf, and because people will bring this up when talking about golf and specifically about the distance players hit shots these days.
-
I don't think there's a distance issue. ...
The members at my course insist on tight tree lined fairways so that bombers can't turn the course into a pitch and putt. Bombers complain they can't use anything more than a hybrid off the tee, and don't join. Don't tell me there's not a distance problem.
-
it seems to me it is best to worry about protecting one's club against architectural abuse rather than worry about the tours who may or may not ever be involved with a roll back.
"protecting one's club against architectural abuse" is classic.
I think GCA is the "Amber Alert" org for that. (Non-US GCAers, the US "Amber Alert" system sends regional warnings to cel phones and other media such as billboards when a minor is reported missing.)Sean I agree but that said, until recently, isn't the PGA tour on TV the primary influence on the "proliferation" of architectural abuse? Do all roads lead back to Tiger and his fitness and club head speed,... and irons accuracy,... and putting acumen,... and mental toughness etc..?
-
Well there aren't many great courses that are regular PGA TOUR sites, to begin with. So it's kind of a trick question.
You see, when I started this topic, I was trying to play devil's advocate with myself. It's a common thing, at least it seems to me, for people to bemoan all the great courses the PGA Tour can no longer play because of the distance the players hit the ball. Would I generally prefer to see the players play at great courses over crappy courses? Yes (then again I'm also not a "typical golf fan").
But… it might turn out that this statement, when made, is a bit of a false statement. If the PGA Tour hasn't had to stop playing a lot of great classic courses - then this argument doesn't hold as much water as some people seem to think it does. The PGA Tour (and top-level pro golf) is still played at some pretty old courses here in the U.S. (despite the fact that the game isn't particularly old here), and yes, they've been lengthened, which is why I think we should list those too if they've been ruined in their lengthening.
And my intent is not at all to create yet another distance debate topic, but to actually create a list of courses that are no longer playable (or ruined), as is so often cited.
But the problem isn't the courses they play on TOUR. The problem is all the other courses that get changed because architects and club members watch golf on TV on the weekends.
That may be your argument, but it's not the one I see cited widely, or the reason I started this topic.
Erik, you dolt. if you are going to restrict it to great courses that have hosted PGA Tour events, then perhaps you should list which courses you think are great courses that have hosted a PGA Tour event. Tom seems to think at most a very small number of great courses have hosted a PGA Tour event (e.g. Cypress Point), so if you really mean courses that have hosted a PGA Tour event, then it is a trick question.
Probably, when people bemoan there are great courses that can no longer host a PGA Tour event, they are referring to great classics that have not been bastardized enough to allow hosting a PGA Tour event to make some semblance of sense. E.g., Seminole, which in your myopic view you say doesn't qualify as one that can be one that can no longer hold a PGA Tour event.
Great of course is in the eye of the beholder. if you allow the definition of great to be US Open worthy, then a great example that shows how distance has affected the pro game is Pumpkin Ridge in Oregon. When it was built, it was targeted to be a US Open site, because the USGA wanted more sites on the west coast, and the pacific northwest has great weather at US Open time, with hardly an chance of an electrical storm. However, it just happened to come online when the new ball created a distance explosion, and was obsolete for US Open purposes from the get go. The USGA had to wait for Chambers Bay to get their pacific northwest Open site.
I think lots of great courses host Tour events or have in the past. My top three:
Riviera
Sawgrass
Pebble
-
Riviera
Sawgrass
Pebble
Riviera lengthened over 300 yards.
Pebble lengthened and par reduced.
Sawgrass don't know.
-
While I was researching something on Lido earlier today, I came across this passage in an article by George Trevor that I believe was published in the early 1930s.
"Lack of watering system system caused the fairways to dry out so that the ball ran a mile, hole values were distorted and farcical scores in the sixties became fairly common."
Later, he adds "The installation of a modern fairway sprinkling system, plus the devoted greenskeeping of Charley Mayo, have now restored Lido to something like its original virility.... Thanks to Mayo's efforts at rehabilitation, Long Island open contestants found a snarling, treacherous Lido which resisted domination with all its former guile."
In this case, distance inflation was caused by conditioning changes, but the effect was the same as if it had been equipment changes.
I think that the timelessness of this passage is that for a sporting person, there is some thrill in watching golfers battle the course, not dominate it. We want to see stresses that cause the golfers to have to have to think, play, and deal with adversity. Basically, we want the course to be an opponent, not just a venue.
With weekly winning scores hovering around -20 (event with par 5s turned into 4s), sporting persons only really have the majors to look forward to for some stress on the players. I'm a huge golf fan in my heart, but I can't imagine watching 2 hours of a normal weekly tour event. It's just putting.
-
it seems to me it is best to worry about protecting one's club against architectural abuse rather than worry about the tours who may or may not ever be involved with a roll back.
"protecting one's club against architectural abuse" is classic.
I think GCA is the "Amber Alert" org for that. (Non-US GCAers, the US "Amber Alert" system sends regional warnings to cel phones and other media such as billboards when a minor is reported missing.)Sean I agree but that said, until recently, isn't the PGA tour on TV the primary influence on the "proliferation" of architectural abuse? Do all roads lead back to Tiger and his fitness and club head speed,... and irons accuracy,... and putting acumen,... and mental toughness etc..?
Vaughn
In matters related to golf we can choose our influences, so I don't buy that the tours are to blame. The decision makers may have thought their reasoning was sound and in some cases I bet it was, but the decision makers pulled the trigger.
Peter
There is a huge difference between aerial 300+ yard drives and running 300+ yard drives. In today's world, the running shot can be dealt with via shaping and features in ways that simply don't work very well for the aerial attack. To me, its the difference between strategic and penal architecture.
Ciao
-
6500 yards is plenty for the vast, vast majority of golfers, and courses that want to chase the PGA Tour are free to do so, but it's not like the average golfer has to play the same tees as the PGA Tour players. They can still play their 6300 yard tees, or whatever. When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
My current course is a 7 mile walk from the 6700 yard tees and covers 240 acres. It can be played from 7600 yards or so.
My prior course which was 6600 from the back tees was a 5 mile walk on 160 acres.
Maybe a million dollars in additional land costs, a significant addition to annual maintenance costs and an extra half hour to finish the round?
-
... When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
...
Erik, you dolt. Don't you even read your own thread? Two people have already pointed out that the PGA Tour has to play off of three courses when they go to the Old Course by going to teeing grounds that are off of the Old Course. A third person has already pointed out that the course has been extensively bastardized for the tour, which would also imply to the normal person that they should post the drivel you did above.
You seem to be totally ignorant of how competitions are handled in the British Isles even though you have had every opportunity to read about it here. Many courses there have competition tees, and visitors are not allowed to play them. So a visitor to The Old Course would not even be allowed to play the competition tees let alone venture off course to play the tees the tour plays.
Heck, even Tarbat Golf Club, a nine holer undoubtedly less than 3000 yards reserves its competition tees for competitions, and doesn't allow visitors on them.
So Erik, are you here to learn something, or just to post your misinformed drivel?
-
... When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
...
Erik, you dolt. Don't you even read your own thread? Two people have already pointed out that the PGA Tour has to play off of three courses when they go to the Old Course by going to teeing grounds that are off of the Old Course. A third person has already pointed out that the course has been extensively bastardized for the tour, which would also imply to the normal person that they should post the drivel you did above.
You seem to be totally ignorant of how competitions are handled in the British Isles even though you have had every opportunity to read about it here. Many courses there have competition tees, and visitors are not allowed to play them. So a visitor to The Old Course would not even be allowed to play the competition tees let alone venture off course to play the tees the tour plays.
Heck, even Tarbat Golf Club, a nine holer undoubtedly less than 3000 yards reserves its competition tees for competitions, and doesn't allow visitors on them.
So Erik, are you here to learn something, or just to post your misinformed drivel?
I don’t agree with Erik’s premise. But you can’t get a golf ball airborne, so why should anyone care what you think?
-
... When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
...
Erik, you dolt. Don't you even read your own thread? Two people have already pointed out that the PGA Tour has to play off of three courses when they go to the Old Course by going to teeing grounds that are off of the Old Course. A third person has already pointed out that the course has been extensively bastardized for the tour, which would also imply to the normal person that they should post the drivel you did above.
You seem to be totally ignorant of how competitions are handled in the British Isles even though you have had every opportunity to read about it here. Many courses there have competition tees, and visitors are not allowed to play them. So a visitor to The Old Course would not even be allowed to play the competition tees let alone venture off course to play the tees the tour plays.
Heck, even Tarbat Golf Club, a nine holer undoubtedly less than 3000 yards reserves its competition tees for competitions, and doesn't allow visitors on them.
So Erik, are you here to learn something, or just to post your misinformed drivel?
I don’t agree with Erik’s premise. But you can’t get a golf ball airborne, so why should anyone care what you think?
Getting a ball airborne has nothing to do with knowing about competition tees in GB&I.
:)
-
... When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
...
Erik, you dolt. Don't you even read your own thread? Two people have already pointed out that the PGA Tour has to play off of three courses when they go to the Old Course by going to teeing grounds that are off of the Old Course. A third person has already pointed out that the course has been extensively bastardized for the tour, which would also imply to the normal person that they should post the drivel you did above.
You seem to be totally ignorant of how competitions are handled in the British Isles even though you have had every opportunity to read about it here. Many courses there have competition tees, and visitors are not allowed to play them. So a visitor to The Old Course would not even be allowed to play the competition tees let alone venture off course to play the tees the tour plays.
Heck, even Tarbat Golf Club, a nine holer undoubtedly less than 3000 yards reserves its competition tees for competitions, and doesn't allow visitors on them.
So Erik, are you here to learn something, or just to post your misinformed drivel?
I don’t agree with Erik’s premise. But you can’t get a golf ball airborne, so why should anyone care what you think?
Getting a ball airborne has nothing to do with knowing about competition tees in GB&I.
:)
But it helps with credibility.
-
... When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
...
Erik, you dolt. Don't you even read your own thread? Two people have already pointed out that the PGA Tour has to play off of three courses when they go to the Old Course by going to teeing grounds that are off of the Old Course. A third person has already pointed out that the course has been extensively bastardized for the tour, which would also imply to the normal person that they should post the drivel you did above.
You seem to be totally ignorant of how competitions are handled in the British Isles even though you have had every opportunity to read about it here. Many courses there have competition tees, and visitors are not allowed to play them. So a visitor to The Old Course would not even be allowed to play the competition tees let alone venture off course to play the tees the tour plays.
Heck, even Tarbat Golf Club, a nine holer undoubtedly less than 3000 yards reserves its competition tees for competitions, and doesn't allow visitors on them.
So Erik, are you here to learn something, or just to post your misinformed drivel?
I don’t agree with Erik’s premise. But you can’t get a golf ball airborne, so why should anyone care what you think?
Getting a ball airborne has nothing to do with knowing about competition tees in GB&I.
:)
But it helps with credibility.
So how's your credibility? A PGA pro has verified to you that I can indeed get the ball airborne, but yet you harp on the same old thing.???
-
I have always tried to ignore what's happening on the PGA TOUR, in terms of how I design my courses. As I've told many clients, those guys won't pay to play your course. You've gotta pay them!
But, I should point out to Erik that it's not just PGA TOUR courses that are affected by the distance players hit it today. If you've got safety problems over boundaries, those problems are much worse than they were 30-40 years ago, and more courses are having to make changes as a result. [I've done work to Royal Melbourne and Yarra Yarra and Essex County because of this, to name just three non-PGA TOUR courses.]
And if your club ever wants to host a USGA event - not just the Open but the Amateur, the Mid-Amateur, the Walker Cup, or the Junior Amateur - the USGA Championship Committee is going to make you make a bunch of changes and possibly build a bunch of stupid tees for the privilege. Stonewall, which hosted the Mid-Am three years ago, had to make a bunch of changes for the event, none of which were done at the club's initiative - all for an amateur event that was held at match play. But the USGA insisted these changes were necessary to present a challenging and fair test to top amateur players ... they couldn't just leave the two courses alone.
Likewise, for CommonGround to host one of the stroke play qualifying rounds for the U.S. Amateur at Cherry Hills, we had to add 500 yards worth of tees to the course, even though it was 7000 yards before we started. [The altitude in Denver exacerbates the problem.]
So, as I said before "Great courses the PGA TOUR can no longer play" is not the real problem. It's a straw man. The real problem is how the PGA TOUR affects everyone else's decision making, even when you are resisting making decisions on that basis.
-
I have always tried to ignore what's happening on the PGA TOUR, in terms of how I design my courses. As I've told many clients, those guys won't pay to play your course. You've gotta pay them!
But, I should point out to Erik that it's not just PGA TOUR courses that are affected by the distance players hit it today. If you've got safety problems over boundaries, those problems are much worse than they were 30-40 years ago, and more courses are having to make changes as a result. [I've done work to Royal Melbourne and Yarra Yarra and Essex County because of this, to name just three non-PGA TOUR courses.]
And if your club ever wants to host a USGA event - not just the Open but the Amateur, the Mid-Amateur, the Walker Cup, or the Junior Amateur - the USGA Championship Committee is going to make you make a bunch of changes and possibly build a bunch of stupid tees for the privilege. Stonewall, which hosted the Mid-Am three years ago, had to make a bunch of changes for the event, none of which were done at the club's initiative - all for an amateur event that was held at match play. But the USGA insisted these changes were necessary to present a challenging and fair test to top amateur players ... they couldn't just leave the two courses alone.
Likewise, for CommonGround to host one of the stroke play qualifying rounds for the U.S. Amateur at Cherry Hills, we had to add 500 yards worth of tees to the course, even though it was 7000 yards before we started. [The altitude in Denver exacerbates the problem.]
So, as I said before "Great courses the PGA TOUR can no longer play" is not the real problem. It's a straw man. The real problem is how the PGA TOUR affects everyone else's decision making, even when you are resisting making decisions on that basis.
it's amazing and quite silly that a few people in one organization (the USGA) can have SO MUCH EFFECT on golf course designs by their decision not to control how far the ball goes......
-
I have always tried to ignore what's happening on the PGA TOUR, in terms of how I design my courses. As I've told many clients, those guys won't pay to play your course. You've gotta pay them!
But, I should point out to Erik that it's not just PGA TOUR courses that are affected by the distance players hit it today. If you've got safety problems over boundaries, those problems are much worse than they were 30-40 years ago, and more courses are having to make changes as a result. [I've done work to Royal Melbourne and Yarra Yarra and Essex County because of this, to name just three non-PGA TOUR courses.]
And if your club ever wants to host a USGA event - not just the Open but the Amateur, the Mid-Amateur, the Walker Cup, or the Junior Amateur - the USGA Championship Committee is going to make you make a bunch of changes and possibly build a bunch of stupid tees for the privilege. Stonewall, which hosted the Mid-Am three years ago, had to make a bunch of changes for the event, none of which were done at the club's initiative - all for an amateur event that was held at match play. But the USGA insisted these changes were necessary to present a challenging and fair test to top amateur players ... they couldn't just leave the two courses alone.
Likewise, for CommonGround to host one of the stroke play qualifying rounds for the U.S. Amateur at Cherry Hills, we had to add 500 yards worth of tees to the course, even though it was 7000 yards before we started. [The altitude in Denver exacerbates the problem.]
So, as I said before "Great courses the PGA TOUR can no longer play" is not the real problem. It's a straw man. The real problem is how the PGA TOUR affects everyone else's decision making, even when you are resisting making decisions on that basis.
it's amazing and quite silly that a few people in one organization (the USGA) can have SO MUCH EFFECT on golf course designs by their decision not to control how far the ball goes......
+1. But as Congressman John Dingell said, "You write the substance. I write the rules. I will beat you every time." USGA gets to write the rules for better or worse.
Ira
-
I have always tried to ignore what's happening on the PGA TOUR, in terms of how I design my courses. As I've told many clients, those guys won't pay to play your course. You've gotta pay them!
But, I should point out to Erik that it's not just PGA TOUR courses that are affected by the distance players hit it today. If you've got safety problems over boundaries, those problems are much worse than they were 30-40 years ago, and more courses are having to make changes as a result. [I've done work to Royal Melbourne and Yarra Yarra and Essex County because of this, to name just three non-PGA TOUR courses.]
And if your club ever wants to host a USGA event - not just the Open but the Amateur, the Mid-Amateur, the Walker Cup, or the Junior Amateur - the USGA Championship Committee is going to make you make a bunch of changes and possibly build a bunch of stupid tees for the privilege. Stonewall, which hosted the Mid-Am three years ago, had to make a bunch of changes for the event, none of which were done at the club's initiative - all for an amateur event that was held at match play. But the USGA insisted these changes were necessary to present a challenging and fair test to top amateur players ... they couldn't just leave the two courses alone.
Likewise, for CommonGround to host one of the stroke play qualifying rounds for the U.S. Amateur at Cherry Hills, we had to add 500 yards worth of tees to the course, even though it was 7000 yards before we started. [The altitude in Denver exacerbates the problem.]
So, as I said before "Great courses the PGA TOUR can no longer play" is not the real problem. It's a straw man. The real problem is how the PGA TOUR affects everyone else's decision making, even when you are resisting making decisions on that basis.
it's amazing and quite silly that a few people in one organization (the USGA) can have SO MUCH EFFECT on golf course designs by their decision not to control how far the ball goes......
+1. But as Congressman John Dingell said, "You write the substance. I write the rules. I will beat you every time." USGA gets to write the rules for better or worse.
Ira
way worse in this case...I wish the Masters had the balls to dictate a tournament ball, but Ridley is a USGA flunky so he won't..
amazing how a few at the USGA know what's better than Jack and Tiger and everyone else who has opposed their view for decades
Ran's essay on his 147 Custodians gets at this issue too...golf should be a game that can be played quickly...hard to play quickly when courses keep getting longer and longer...what a waste of resources
-
Someone brought up Colonial on another thread as a course that has unfairly fallen out of the top 100. They still play an event there "because Ben Hogan," but it has gone from being one of the toughest tracks on Tour to being the course where Annika felt like she had her best chance to compete, because the trees and doglegs make the long hitters rein it in.
At least they haven't f'd it up trying to correct that.
-
I have always tried to ignore what's happening on the PGA TOUR, in terms of how I design my courses. As I've told many clients, those guys won't pay to play your course. You've gotta pay them!
But, I should point out to Erik that it's not just PGA TOUR courses that are affected by the distance players hit it today. If you've got safety problems over boundaries, those problems are much worse than they were 30-40 years ago, and more courses are having to make changes as a result. [I've done work to Royal Melbourne and Yarra Yarra and Essex County because of this, to name just three non-PGA TOUR courses.]
And if your club ever wants to host a USGA event - not just the Open but the Amateur, the Mid-Amateur, the Walker Cup, or the Junior Amateur - the USGA Championship Committee is going to make you make a bunch of changes and possibly build a bunch of stupid tees for the privilege. Stonewall, which hosted the Mid-Am three years ago, had to make a bunch of changes for the event, none of which were done at the club's initiative - all for an amateur event that was held at match play. But the USGA insisted these changes were necessary to present a challenging and fair test to top amateur players ... they couldn't just leave the two courses alone.
Likewise, for CommonGround to host one of the stroke play qualifying rounds for the U.S. Amateur at Cherry Hills, we had to add 500 yards worth of tees to the course, even though it was 7000 yards before we started. [The altitude in Denver exacerbates the problem.]
So, as I said before "Great courses the PGA TOUR can no longer play" is not the real problem. It's a straw man. The real problem is how the PGA TOUR affects everyone else's decision making, even when you are resisting making decisions on that basis.
it's amazing and quite silly that a few people in one organization (the USGA) can have SO MUCH EFFECT on golf course designs by their decision not to control how far the ball goes......
No what's more amazing is that this is the same organization that consistently said the distance gains were statistically irrelevant, all while lengthening every venue they held an event....
We can all say we don't care what PGA tour players do-fair enough.
What about the athletic 11 handicapper I played with who twice hit into the group on 330-350 yard par 4 greens a couple days ago, to say nothing of how much more dangerous his foul balls are at 320 rather than 290.
It's not just a PGA Tour thing.....
-
I have always tried to ignore what's happening on the PGA TOUR, in terms of how I design my courses. As I've told many clients, those guys won't pay to play your course. You've gotta pay them!
But, I should point out to Erik that it's not just PGA TOUR courses that are affected by the distance players hit it today. If you've got safety problems over boundaries, those problems are much worse than they were 30-40 years ago, and more courses are having to make changes as a result. [I've done work to Royal Melbourne and Yarra Yarra and Essex County because of this, to name just three non-PGA TOUR courses.]
And if your club ever wants to host a USGA event - not just the Open but the Amateur, the Mid-Amateur, the Walker Cup, or the Junior Amateur - the USGA Championship Committee is going to make you make a bunch of changes and possibly build a bunch of stupid tees for the privilege. Stonewall, which hosted the Mid-Am three years ago, had to make a bunch of changes for the event, none of which were done at the club's initiative - all for an amateur event that was held at match play. But the USGA insisted these changes were necessary to present a challenging and fair test to top amateur players ... they couldn't just leave the two courses alone.
Likewise, for CommonGround to host one of the stroke play qualifying rounds for the U.S. Amateur at Cherry Hills, we had to add 500 yards worth of tees to the course, even though it was 7000 yards before we started. [The altitude in Denver exacerbates the problem.]
So, as I said before "Great courses the PGA TOUR can no longer play" is not the real problem. It's a straw man. The real problem is how the PGA TOUR affects everyone else's decision making, even when you are resisting making decisions on that basis.
it's amazing and quite silly that a few people in one organization (the USGA) can have SO MUCH EFFECT on golf course designs by their decision not to control how far the ball goes......
No what's more amazing is that this is the same organization that consistently said the distance gains were statistically irrelevant, all while lengthening every venue they held an event....
We can all say we don't care what PGA tour players do-fair enough.
What about the athletic 11 handicapper I played with who twice hit into the group on 330-350 yard par 4 greens a couple days ago, to say nothing of how much more dangerous his foul balls are at 320 rather than 290.
It's not just a PGA Tour thing.....
It sounds like this dude is very dangerous and ought to increase his insurance policy to cover poor decision making. As with anything in life, at some point people have to take responsibility for their actions.
Ciao
-
Tom, thank you for your thoughts. While I appreciate them, and realize that distance isn't just about the courses the PGA Tour plays… I chose to limit this discussion to just the PGA Tour courses affected by distance.
Garland, refer to the signature. I skip over everything you type.
-
Garland, refer to the signature. I skip over everything you type.
Now that is something with which we all can agree. Consensus! #ignore36handicappers
-
#ignore36handicappers
Oh, it's not because he's (apparently) a bad golfer.
-
#ignore36handicappers
Oh, it's not because he's (apparently) a bad golfer.
Besides Erik, that is fake news. ;D
-
#ignore36handicappers
Oh, it's not because he's (apparently) a bad golfer.
A 36 who is convinced he’s a genius.
-
6500 yards is plenty for the vast, vast majority of golfers, and courses that want to chase the PGA Tour are free to do so, but it's not like the average golfer has to play the same tees as the PGA Tour players. They can still play their 6300 yard tees, or whatever. When the average golfer goes to the Old Course, they don't play a bastardized course - they play where the pros play, one of the oldest courses in the world, and a great course… from 6300 yards. Or 6700. Or whatever.
My current course is a 7 mile walk from the 6700 yard tees and covers 240 acres. It can be played from 7600 yards or so.
My prior course which was 6600 from the back tees was a 5 mile walk on 160 acres.
Maybe a million dollars in additional land costs, a significant addition to annual maintenance costs and an extra half hour to finish the round?
So we can add FootJoy, Ecco and Skechers to the distance conspiracy in support of longer courses in an effort to sell more comfortable shoes. ;)
-
Tom, thank you for your thoughts. While I appreciate them, and realize that distance isn't just about the courses the PGA Tour plays… I chose to limit this discussion to just the PGA Tour courses affected by distance.
No you didn't, you chose to limit it to "courses the PGA Tour can no longer play". Let's not pretend for a second that that's the same thing as "PGA Tour courses affected by distance".
"PGA Tour courses affected by distance" would be an easy and authoritative list: all of them.
-
No you didn't, you chose to limit it to "courses the PGA Tour can no longer play". Let's not pretend for a second that that's the same thing as "PGA Tour courses affected by distance".
"PGA Tour courses affected by distance" would be an easy and authoritative list: all of them.
Okay, expand it to say "affected in the way I described". That list still seems to be pretty short.
-
No you didn't, you chose to limit it to "courses the PGA Tour can no longer play". Let's not pretend for a second that that's the same thing as "PGA Tour courses affected by distance".
"PGA Tour courses affected by distance" would be an easy and authoritative list: all of them.
Okay, expand it to say "affected in the way I described". That list still seems to be pretty short.
As usual, I completely disagree. It's hard to think of Tour courses that haven't been affected by distance.
A new list I would like to propose to prove my point:
List all the courses that host a PGA Tour event or major championship where the total yardage today is within 200 yards of its total in 1995 (and par is the same).
Waialea and Harbor Town may make the list (although Waialea changed its first hole from a par 5 to par 4). Other "short" courses like TPC Sawgrass, Pebble, Merion are quite a bit longer than they used to be (even Merion added 400 yards over a couple decades!!!)
-
As usual, I completely disagree. It's hard to think of Tour courses that haven't been affected by distance.
I specified courses that the PGA Tour could no longer play due to distance. That list is pretty short (at least so far).
List all the courses that host a PGA Tour event or major championship where the total yardage today is within 200 yards of its total in 1995 (and par is the same).
The 1913 U.S. Open was contested at about 6200 yards and a par 73. And +12 got into a first place playoff.
Nobody has ever denied that courses have gotten a bit longer.
-
This isn't a "great" course, but the SF Chronicle reported today that Lake Merced CC has emerged as the course to host the new Steph Curry PGA Tour event in September 2019 (the new Rees course at Alameda was previously rumored to be the spot).
As a condition to host, the club must expand the course to more than 7,300 yards and expand the driving range to 290 yds (presumably with a net at the far end).