[Kevin Rawley]

In the new Sports Illustrated golf only section, they claim Muirfield was a winner at last week's open because it was tough. Then the writers says, "Note to aspiring course architects:well placed bunkers and penal rough are more effective deterrents to scoring than mindlessly adding yardage."

Now, I'm not for adding length either, but is it really the job of an architect to create "deterrents to scoring?" Is that what we want architecture to be in the future, working to deter scores?  

[A_Clay_Man]

I may be missing something, where was there a deterent to scoring?

I thought there was a deterent to mindless bombing of the ball not necc. scoring. And giving the player options on how much risk versus how much reward for every swing.

[Pete_Pittock]

IMO, the greatest deterrent to scoring for the professionals is toughening hole locations. The old standard of six easy, six medium and six hard per day should be changed by eliminating the easy locations, either by making it difficult to get the ball close to the hole on the approach, or making the putting more difficult by contours.
There were many examples at The Open and I remember ahe short three par in the Australian Open where the committee tucked the hole  behind the front bunker for three days because that was the only real defensible position. But I've been wrong before.



  

[Tyler Kearns]

It appears the author of the article is making quite a leap, concluding that well designed golf courses do not yield low scores. If a main objective of a golf course architect is to design holes that deter good scoring, golf would be a far less popular game than it is today.

At the end of the day, let's face it, when players get hot, they play well, and no golf course can adequately defend itself against superlative play and good luck!

[Derek_Duncan]

I like the way architect Steve Smyers puts it:  great golf courses identify great players.  

There's nothing wrong with a golf course giving up low scores to a player who is "on."  Smyers also said that he looks at the spread of scores as an indicator of how a golf course is playing.  If a ton of players are all bunched together, like at Muirfield, he doesn't believe the course is doing its job.  Not everybody will be playing well at the same yet everyone is scoring well.  Conversely when there is a great range of scores, some going low with others blowing up and many scores in between, that golf course is set up to identify who is playing well while eliminating those who are shaky, which is the point of a tournament.

So under that philosophy I guess I'd have to disagree that Muirfield was a great setup or a great course last weekend, but it sure was entertaining.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Taking architecture and setup ideas from courses hosting professional tournaments and using them on the average course is dangerous. That quote says to me that the author is looking at architecture from the point of view of the best golfers.

If you want to make a course difficult with penal rough, you'd better understand what that's going to do to lesser skilled golfers.

[Rick Shefchik]

The only significant deterrent to scoring at Muirfield was the weather.

Now, blustery weather is expected at the British Open, and so much the better. But if Saturday had been like Friday or Sunday, Tiger Woods would have finished -13.

Rick

[Jeff_McDowell]

Yesterday I played a five hour round on a very short par 72 course that had very little rough. I can't believe anyone with a brain in there head would think thick, penal rough is good for game of golf.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()