Reaction from GCA on Atlanta

[Steve Wilson]

TEPaul:

What if, instead of water, the hazard on eighteen had been a vast unkept expanse of sand with gnarly clumps of grass and maybe even some rock outcroppings distributed randomly throughout it?  I know it would have been impossible at this venue, But wouldn't that make for a more fascinating choice.  As it is the player knows if he doesn't make it he's going to drop, hit a wedge and still have a good chance of making five.  Give him a penal and unpredictable hazard and bigger numbers come into play.  Of course, you might catch a perfect lie in the wasteland and still make 4....

[JamieS]

Mike Rewinski,

I heard during the broadcast that they were Bent Grass greens. I think there was some rain on Monday before the tournament, but Bent Greens in HotLanta need alot of water to stay alive...therefore, very soft championship greens.

As I have stated on several posts before concerning scoring and the protection of Par: No matter the yardage increase, the amount of hazards(Sand,Water,Nuclear), or whatever else you want to throw at the PGA Tour players of today...if the Greens are receptive there are going to be LOW numbers. Case closed.

With todays technology, the PGA Tour advertisement should read..."Are these guys too good?"

[Paul_Daley]

The course simply lacked imagination - all those 200 yard plus par 3s over water. How mundane and mind-numbing! I do agree, though, that one of these, per set of 3s, would make for fun and challenging golf.

Give me intricate short holes any day: those exemplified by the 7th at Pebble Beach, Postage Stamp at Royal Troon, or anyone of 75 examples of 130-165 metre par threes on the Melbourne Sandbelt.

"Brain over brawn" is one of the keys to course allure, especially on the par 3s.

As for the last hole, it was surely set up as a USGA bad joke.

[TEPaul]

Gary:

Yes, I believe your question is just about what I do think of AAC and the finale at the PGA. I feel that any golf fan would be fairly cool blooded not to appreciate that theatre (even on that course). David Toms looked like a cool customer throughout but I believe one could detect that everything he is and everything he had worked toward as a touring pro was bubbling to a boil as he stood there with his caddie deciding how to choose how to approach that green. Once he made his choice I think it became somewhat of a numbers game that threw the choices back to Phil. As someone said above Mickelson had to be standing there saying to himself; "Come on Toms, please hit that 5 wood." You know what a guy like Venturi says, Mickelson had to plan his strategy assuming Toms was going to make a par once he's layed up! It was good theatre and everything was still up in the air until the last putt dropped (Toms's!).

Steve Wilson:

I would say your example for #18 would be better and more interesting. Whatever could create more temptation I think would be better and more interesting.

MikeR:

I don't know whether Lanny Wadkins really knew the scoop or not but he did say a couple of times on Sunday that the greens had to be watered a lot as they were on the edge of dying!

[Taylor Anderson]

As I walked the course on Saturday, I saw the crew water one green with a hose between groups and several greens with portable sprayers.

[kilfara]

Short par 3s...hmmm. Idly speculating, wouldn't it be great to see a major championship par 3 like the 8th at Troon or the 7th at Pebble Beach with a green half its size? Something to really put the pucker factor into the pros' short-iron game - i.e. you either hit it to within 15 feet of the hole, or you face a nearly certain bogey or worse? (OK, maybe you could have a bail-out area on one side of the green - at the back, maybe - but everywhere else, a miss would be instant death...)

Yes, I know such a green would be impossible to maintain on a day-to-day basis (except at a super-private club which gets little or no play), but the penal super-short par-3 seems to be a dying breed in tournament golf, the 17th at Sawgrass possibly notwithstanding (but even it has a relatively large green for its length).

Cheers,
Darren

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok, as promised, let me give this one a shot...

As we speak, the city of Philadelphia is holding a series of athletic/daredevil competitions known as the ""X" Games".  For those unfamiliar with the term, the "X" stands for Extreme.  

Basically, the idea is the creation of new sports and morphing of old ones to create "instant drama", as the performing of the sport is as treacherous and heart-stopping as the actual competitive result.

For reasons that most of us couldn't begin to rationally comprehend, already dangerously dramatic sports like motorcycle racing are turned into some type of hybrid where the racers have to perform jumps, acrobatics, and risk everything within the context of the sport.  

If the medium is the message in communications, the daring is the doing in this brand of sports entertainment.

Where am I going with this?

I think we are going to see more and more of this type of "created drama", which seems to feed a need for fast-paced lifestyles, short attention spans, mega-bucks sporting activities, and instant gratification.  "Reality TV' is indicative of this trend, as is the XFL, the upcoming movie Rollerball (which is a remake based on a futuristic 70s movie that no longer seems so farfetched), the WWF, juiced up baseballs, and changes in roller coaster rides at amusement parks. (Take that rant, BarneyF!)  

Over the years, for the most part, the major championships of golf have been played on courses that permitted the competitors to create their own dramatics, but most often didn't try to force or create them.  It was generally assumed that the talents of the players, provided a fair and challenging test that would let them bring out their best, was enough.  The dramatics would take care of themselves.

That doesn't mean that their wasn't forced or heroic carries within the context of these courses, and often at critical junctures within a round, but these were generally white-knuckle exceptions.  

That started to change with the introduction of TPC Sawgrass.  We started to see strategy replaced by architectural dictation and demands, all in the interest of creating "excitement" and "drama" for the viewer.  It was no longer as much about the course, or the competition, but more about the entertainment value.

Still, even in that context, let's consider the finishing holes at TPC.  At 16, you can flirt with the lake on the right attempting to get home in two...on 17, you HAVE to hit the green, but it's only a pitch, and on 18, it's generally a bite off as much as you dare hole.  

Compare that with what we saw at AAC last week, and I think you'd agree that things keep getting ratcheted up a couple of notches.  

3 of the final 4 holes featured carries of over 200 yards across lakes with the greens pressed right to the stark edge of the hazard.  The greens themselves were all fairly large and anything but severe.

So, let's consider them from a strategic standpoint.  On 15, a player could either play for the large left side of the soft green (away from the weekend hole location) and attempt to two putt (fairly easily), or attempt the full water carry.  On 17, a player could bail to the shorter carry on the large right side of the soft green (away from the weekend hole location) and attempt to two putt (fairly easily), or attempt the full water carry.  On 18, we were introduced to one more option, the layup, which Toms smartly took advantage of.

Let's imagine for a moment that Toms came into 18 with a two-shot lead.  Would there have been any question as to his play?  Would the hole had provided any dramatics whatsoever if it wasn't for the fact that Mickelson & Toms were essentially in match-play mode by that time in the tournament?

How about "shot options"?  I'm not talking about whether to go for it or lay up, or play for the large, fat side of a flattish green or at the pin, but simply about shot shapes, trajectories, and imagination?  Straight and far seemed to be what AAC was all about, not options.

I also think that water tends to be the most unimaginative and boring hazard in the game, and that's perhaps my bias.  However, I LOVE recovery shots from compromising positions and bad angles, and gnarly predicaments, and water hazards have a finality to them that negates that aspect of the game.

What is comes down to though, is that the best courses (as in your Pine Valley example, Tom) have a great variety of requirements, including long-forced carries, but also have a balance and tastefulness that was largely missing at AAC.

Taking the extremes of length and water we saw at AAC to another level, it is easy to imagine the next generation of competitive course, perhaps with both an island fairway and island green, and ranging 550 yards par 4.  Yes, it might create some manufactured excitement for competitive, televised tournaments, but it would be golf's version of the "X Games", and hardly good, imaginative, fun, or enjoyable golf course architecture.

[Taylor Anderson]

Mike,

You bring up some very good points, but I don't think we're there yet. There are only two "hazards" in golf that the modern professoinal golfer cannot escape from: Water and O.B. The latter provides no dramatics and is, obviously and thankfully, not part of most professional courses. We saw at last year's US open that rough is really not a penalty and we've known for years that bunkers are not penalities. (Even with softer sand.)

That being said, I wonder if your critique would be the same if those holes were not the finishing holes. You asked would the dramatics be the same if Toms had a two shot lead on 18. I still say yes, because of the penal nature of the hole. Without the water, the chances of Toms making a 6 on the final hole would be virtually nil. In fact, the hole really only made a 3 shot lead insurmountable short of a Van De Velde. That is much different than the vast majority of majors. The fact that AAC made a professional think makes it worthy of some merits.

While I'm not a huge fan of AAC, I think the course was appropriate for today's professionals. We often lament the loss of the short par 5 - well, it made it's return this past week in the form of number 18 at AAC.

For a frame of reference, here are the avgerage number of strokes from this year at:

the 13th, ANGC: 4.791

the 18th, AAC: 4.46

(I point this out simply for a frame of reference. Both holes are of similar yardage and are doglegs right. Both will be played by the average player and the professional in a similar manner.)

[Mike_Cirba]

Taylor,

Thanks for your thoughts, but please don't give Tom Paul any more ammunition to launch a counter-offensive against my logic.  I am guessing that right now he's read my post and has retired to his sitting room to figure out how I managed to tie the "X Games" and AAC together so seamlessly  

I promise to respond to your points, as well, because they are quite good.

On a side note, I can't believe that 13 at ANGC played to a stroke average of 4.8 (relatively and almost amazingly high for a hole of only 475 yards) and the officials of that club and Tom Fazio have decided that it needs to be lengthened!!! (read = made incredibly dull) Triple Boo hiss!!  

[Brian Phillips]

Taylor,

If it is true what you have just said then I class that as cheating.  It is almost as bad as moving the hole to an easier pin position in between groups.

You don't know which groups it involved do you?  What I mean is which group was before the watering and which group was after?

[Mark_Fine]

One of the more interesting discussions here of late.  Ponder this - Would Pine Valley's #18 be a more exciting and "strategic" finish than the Athletic Club's 18th?  What would the pro's hit at PV, long iron and wedge?  Probably so since I hit 3W and 6I or 7I.  How strategic is that?  You can't miss that fairway and the green is enormous.  The pros wouldn't even see any of the hazards.    

I've played The Highland's course at The Atlantic Athletic Club and am not a big fan.  But the course does provide a good test for the pros.  I think the most obvious thing that came out of the tournament is that length does not make a course harder "at least for these guys".  They could have stretched it to 8000 yards and they still would have gone low.  Furthermore, if the course played firm and fast as they wanted it to, 8500 yards would still have yielded sub par scoring.  

Bottomline, the equipment needs to change or the golf courses we all know and love will have to.
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

Great to see you here!  I was ready to start a "Where in the world is Mark Fine?" thread.

I understand your example, but you've also pinpointed the problem.  The 18th at Pine Valley is 430 yards!  That USED to be a pretty decent length par four, requiring, let's say a healthy 270 yard drive, followed by a 160 yard sharply uphill approach.  The fact that those numbers sound so paltry today is just evidence of how quickly technology has changed the game, because that USED to be what a pro would be hitting driver - 6-iron to just a decade or more ago.

Today, if you assume a drive of 320, one is left with a pitch on almost any conceivable par four under 460 yards!  That's the problem, as you've identified.

The fact that holes like 18 at AAC are stretched to 500 yards and called par fours and require a 200 yard carry over water doesn't make them good architecture, though.  It makes them highly-manufactured attempts to create entertainment and television drama while putting a bandaid on the fact that the game has spiraled out of control in terms of distance limitations.    

[Taylor Anderson]

Mike,

Your point about the length addition at 13 is so well taken. I was literally furious that they were adding yardage to a hole that I love. (Yes, it's cliche to be a fan of the 13th, but a great golf hole is a great golf hole.) I love short par 5's where 3 and 7 are just one shot away. I too was surprised at the 4.8 on 13. I think it has so much to do with the topography (and therefore the lie of the second shot) of the landing area(s) and less to do with the water fronting the green. Unfortunately, AAC's fairway appeared to be nearly flat. Toms was in the first cut, and surprise!, it was the lie that dictated that he lay up much more so than the water fronting the green.

Brian,
The literally had the hose open full blast on the 13th hole between the pairing of Calc and whoever he was playing with and the next group, Fred Couples and Justin Leonard, on Saturday.

[Mike_Cirba]

Taylor,

I share your pain about the 13th at Augusta.  I just think it's going to become a very humdrum hole for most of the field at the new length, because I think the angle where one can get a flat lie to go for it will be out of reach (and angle) for most of the field.  Too bad.

I'd also bring up the green on 13 at ANGC being a MAJOR difference between the two holes.  Depending on where you are, and where the hole is cut, two putting is hardly a certainty, whether one's first putt is for Eagle or Birdie, or worse.

[Ed_Baker]

Excellent posts gentlemen.

After reading the entire thread,I would have to agree with Taylor Andersons erudite statement,"I think AAC is appropriate for todays professionals."

It is "stark,dictates shots ect",but it provided the intended result,an exciting tournament for the best players in the world.
We on this site may not like the architecture,(or lack of it)but we can't really argue that the excitement of the tournament or shotmaking suffered because of it.
That said,if the tournament were being played at Westchester or Winged Foot or Olympic would there have been any less "drama"? Was the Open at Pinehurst not one of the most exciting ever?But the reality is fewer and fewer of our favorite old classics are still "appropriate" for todays pros.We better get used to different style courses being the true "tests'for the worlds best players.We may hate the architecture,but does the enjoyment of the tournament suffer for the average fan?

[Mike_Cirba]

If last week's tournament was called the "Mastercard Atlanta Classic", and not the "PGA Championship", would we all have felt that the golf course caused the drama and excitement we felt?

The 18th at English Turn in New Orleans is similar in many respects, but I've yet to hear anyone hold that up as a strategic test.

[Ed_Baker]

It might if it had the same field.(95 of the world top 100)

Which raises the question,Is it the venue or the field that creates the "drama"?

[Mark_Fine]

Ed,
It's the history and soon the courses, like it or not, will have little to do with that part of the equation.
Mark

[kilfara]

Ed - it's not the venue, and it's not the field. It's the event. Call it a "major championship", and the nerves go ga-ga like nowhere else.

You know what the PGA of America should select as a future venue for its major? PGA West. I don't even know why it bothers with courses like Brookline anymore (yes, it's going to Brookline soon - 2003, is it?)...it might as well be the "modern course major", which would at least give it a certain modicum of charisma it lacks at the moment.

Cheers,
Darren

[Jeff_McDowell]

TEPaul,

I think AAC is a great example how even the most penal holes can have an element of strategy if you look hard enough.

Sure each golfer was faced with decisions that had extreme ramifications. But the decisions were black-and-white a.k.a BORING.

Think about David Toms decision on the 18th hole. He had a little over 200 yards to the pin and about 185 to carry the water. He had a downhill stance with a not-so-great lie in the first cut of rough. His decision was to go wedge, wedge or to hit a five wood.  How boring is that.  He didn't have any options like hitting a hot running hook, or to intentially miss the green to a chipping area, etc.

And think about his second shot. Talk about boring. He had a wide open fairway with no hazards other than the water long. There was no strategic advantage to play to the left or right side of the fairway, because his third shot was going to be over water no matter what.

What about Phil? He wasn't even faced with a decision. He had a perfect lie in the fairway with 197 to the pin and 180 to carry the water. That's not even tough when the guy just hit his tee shot 300 yards. Hell if I was in his position, I would go for it too, and I suck.

Even penal holes have strategy if you look hard enough.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Would the 18th at Pive Valley been a more exciting and less "boring" finish?  Then we could have at least seen both of them hit wedges in!
Mark

[Mark_Fine]

I mean Pine Valley.  I can't type!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Toms didn't sit there for five minutes because he didn't have options to weigh ?

Since these players were hitting 5-6 irons from 207, he had lots to think about.

Left and right aren't the only options in golf, short and long sometimes come into play.

[TEPaul]

Very fine counterpoints Mike! Well thought out. There were some interesting comparative examples in the responses to your post. Most of them were examples of various holes and also some interesting average scores  involved with those holes. The most interesting were the comparative number of ANGC's #13 and AAC's #18. Different pars, of course, but very close in the average scores! And then there was the example of Pine Valley #18 and how a tour pro would play that hole (very simply was the consensus).

As for my wrapup of AAC, I would say that somehow the course produced some drama but I think you're saying, in essence, Mike, that although a course like that can produce drama, it's sort of predictable drama! I think we can agree that the strategies were there but they were predicatable ones and the greens of that course are probably its ultimate letdown. Everybody focused on how long the course was but it was quite clear that that kind of length really isn't a problem to today's tour pro. The course is just a series of long par 4s, medium length par 5s and some long par 3s. Not much variety and balance there! So they can hit greens of even a course of that length with regularity and once on those green (or somewhere around them) there really wasn't much more for them to think about or challenge them! I guess that's the word on AAC and a reason they went lower than most expected on a long total card yardage golf course!

As an aside, I would mentioned that we know the pros really are good now, but how they are good is sometimes a little misunderstood. They are really long, they putt and chip well but the facet of their games that is probably light years ahead of all others levels is their distance control on approaches into greens. Light years ahead! They have the best info, they are realistic and they can really execute those shots. That spells far more GIRs, far more par 5s in two than any other level of golfer! And of course when they do miss they are far more consistent at chipping then other levels.

I might be way off base but just for a minute leave the actual architectural analysis alone and think about the numbers mentioned in some of the hole examples.

Look at the numbers on AACs #18. Why was that over par? Because as stated, it really is about the same (to them) as the short go/no go par 5. The difference is the green is architecturally much weaker than ANGC. The pros were wasting shots and driving up the average numbers at AAC's #18 by going in the water occassionally (not a ton of strategic interest!) But at ANGC's #13 they can get over the water almost always (good distance control) but their work is by no means done (much more strategic interest on and around that green!).

Pine Valley's #18? What the posters said about how a tour pro would play that hole is a world of difference from the old days and a far cry from what Crump had in mind! And there isn't an architecture thing in the world that Pine Valley can do to make that hole harder.

So maybe (although I fear it will never happen) if the regulatory bodies aren't going to roll back the ball distances in some manner, maybe they (all of us) should just start to wrap our minds around some different numbers. Let these players go low, in other words, relative to what the pars of some of these holes have been for so many years! What difference does it really make?

They just don't hit shots like they did years ago and they probably never will again! So how can we make those old holes as challenging and strategic to them if they aren't going to be playing them the same way. Basically we can't by actual design without getting corrupting and ridiculous! So maybe the simplist way to go is to just start to change our perception of the numbers! The total numbers!

If it's true the way some of our posters say the tour pros will play #18 Pine Valley, then let them (there's nothing we can do anyway), and watch as the scoring average goes to something like 3.81.

So what? It's probably getting to be a bit of a fallacy that a tour pro, in a 72 hole tournament, might consider a birdie on #18 Pine Valley a real bonus. Those fellows are smart and they're very aware what the rest of the field is doing. I would say that whether a hole that plays like #18 AAC or #13 ANGC is called a par 4 or par 5 is virtually meaningless to the tour pro. What they concern themselves with is what are their fellow competitors doing on a particular hole and are they and their choices losing ground, gaining ground or staying about neutral.

This is another way of thinking about strategic considerations and it would be a way of doing it without constantly redesigning holes, adding length or whatnot, particularly if the regulatory bodies are never going to do much about how far the ball goes.

The problem is the regulatory bodies don't seem willing to give up their antiquated concept of the meaning and significance of par--total par! But just think if they did!

If they never give up on it and its ever increasing fallacy, golf courses are going to continue to be changed in the hope of adjusting, defending, whatever (the fallacy of total par)! If the regulatory bodies (and all of us) can wrap our minds around some different numerical thoughts, then these tour pros might start making some slightly different decisions despite their course management skills and their basic competitive intelligence. And it's possible, in an architectural context, they may be turned loose. The temptation factor may rise and golf and some of its strategy may return, in a bit of a different form, but maybe more unencumbered.

Is it possible that if the perceptions about the total numbers were to change (par and all that relates to it) that the basic instincts of a golfer (even a tour pro) might be released and unencumbered?

I will make a personal admission in this vein. I've played a lot of tournament golf in my time. I'm a combination of both very short in comparison to my fellow competitors but I'm very conservative too. If after all this time you did things to me like change some short par 5s into long par 4s, I'm sorry to have to admit it but I know I would play those holes differently than I ever have before! It doesn't make much sense, does it? But it's true. And to a lesser degree I might also play other holes slightly differently if total par became less significant.

Maybe this makes no sense, although in an odd way it does to me. If it could happen,  architecture might get saved from alteration to a large degree and the instinct of a golfer and his essential approach to strategy might change too.

The regulatory bodies probably don't even have to change hole pars that much, just leave architecture alone totally, let the scores go down with the new way people play golf and today's tour pros and other golfers will figure out for themselves when to gamble, when to hold em and when to fold em.

Max Behr had some absolutely extraordinary ideas about golf architecture and other nuances of the game, but if all else failed he might like this! Maybe I'm stating the obvious--sometimes I don't understand some of the things even I write any better than I do the finer points of Max Behr. Shackelford sent me something from Max Behr that just blew my mind. The man could have been light years ahead of his time and ours too!

[TEPaul]

Jeff McDowell:

Very good points you make. There definitely were strategic ramifications and implications, as you said, but fairly predictable ones. The choice of a running,  bouncing shot was certainly out except for the NuNuNu shot of Shingo!

[Tags:]

Tags: