Short courses with wide fairways, and elite players

[Chris Kane]

There have been a number of threads here before discussing whether strategy is irrelevant/obsolete for good players.  I always dismissed such speculation, believing that the wide fairway strategies employed by Mackenzie and Russell at Royal Melbourne would always stand the test of time.  

Now, after a game at St Andrews Beach with Mark Ferguson, I'm not so sure.  In his My Home Course entry, Mark describes the Gunnamatta course being a course which is "eminently playable by the average golfer, but demands relentless precision for the better player hoping to post a score".  Such a course fits the GCA "party line" perfectly, and is a philosophy which I assume Doak and Clayton set out to achieve.  The fairways on the Gunnamatta are very wide (most are 60m+), and on most holes the surrounding rough is undaunting.

St A.B is just over 6600 yards, and the greens were reasonably firm, but not concrete.  The wind was fairly light.

I brought along a friend of mine who has recently turned professional, also a keen student of golf design.  He shot an easy 68, which could have been 64 or 65 had he holed some putts.  St Andrews Beach is wide enough that driver can be taken on every hole except the par-3's, and by driving his ball 300+, he was left with very short shots into the undulating greens.  The "relentless precision" I thought was required was not necessary - even from the wrong angle, he was hitting to no more than 15ft with his lob wedge.  

I've come to the conclusion that unless the wind blows, such courses won't be able to challenge good players any more - strategy doesn't mean much when you're hitting wedges into all par-4's!  The alternative would be rock hard greens (like Shinnecock 2004 or Victoria 2002) which makes the course unplayable for the average player.

By contrast, as a 7-8 marker who drives it around 260, I found the course difficult.  Driving into position was more crucial to me, hoping to break 80, than it was for a professional trying to break 60!  With the severe greens, accurate iron play is essential - harder to achieve with a middle iron than with a wedge.

Is it time to discount the challenge posed to the best players when designing enjoyable courses for the rest of us?

[James Bennett]

Chris

I am reminded of playing at Royal Adelaide from the members tees, and from the back tees.  As a 5-marker (at that time), the members tees could possibly result in a par round on a good day, whereas from the back tees (this is pre 1998 extensions), a scor of 4-over was probably a good score.  The difference in length was probably 600metres then (nearly 700 yards).  

I'm not a big fan of alternate tees, but it works at RA.  It changes the line of play.  Perhaps there because the best of shots (from the correct tee) get to the position that gives you access to the green, free from bunkers and with a favourable slope (if there is one) whilst anything progressively less than ideal results in increasing difficulty, ending up with second shots across hazards to shallow greens with nil or reverse slope.

Can St Andrews Beach have a second set of tees for the gifted player?  If not, it sounds like an ideal course for the 99% of golfers out there, and they don't face the 'embarassment' of not playing the course from the 'tips'.

[Chris Kane]

James, its a perfect course for 99% of players.  I was slaughtered!

Plenty of room to add additional tees, on almost every hole.  Not really necessary given the number of rounds played by good players there.

Woodlands is the same length as St Andrews Beach, but plays so much longer because most tee shots a suited to a wood or long-iron.

[Andrew Summerell]

Chris,

So what you are saying is, instead of asking are courses relevent to professional golf, maybe we should ask is professional golf relevent.

Sports people will continue to improve for one reason or another. The problem with golf it that we keep score against the course & not another opponent. (Except in matchplay, although you would still have a fair idea if you shot 65).

The tennis player of today are better than the tennis players of 50 years ago. The cricketers of today are better than the cricketers of 50 years ago. These sports play against an opponent, so only a comparison can be made, not a score against a set standard.

Personally, I don't really care what the professional does. I believe courses should be designed for the 99% & then if it is a course that requires greater length for a tournament, chuck a few tees further back to lengthen it. If a guy is good enough to shoot 65 off the members tees then so be it.

Until the governing bodies do something about the ball (& clubs) scores will just keep getting lower.

[Mark_F]

Chris,

It's definitely a different game for guys like Anthony!

Thanks for bringing him around - a great bloke as well as a great player.  Hope it works out well OS.

Don't forget, though, that we played Gunnamatta with a mix of tees.  3 is very different 60 metres further back, as are 12 and 15 another 50 metres behind.  

He did hit some fabulous shots, though.  He deserves to do well as a pro.

[johnk]

Chris, it sounds like the operative word is short.  Would the pro you played with have any problem shooting a 68 on a similar length course that didn't have the width?

Pasatiempo is a good example of a similar length course that's not extra wide, and has some pretty narrow driving areas.  Its greens are its defenses.  I think it defends itself pretty well, but a 65-68 is eminently likely if a pro plays it.  Dornoch seems in a similar situation to me - at 6680 yds, most pros would put up pretty good scores unless the wind was howling.  Ballybunion was handled pretty well back in 2000 by the Euro tour - since it was only playing 6600+ yds.

Of course, I also argue that 7200 yds isn't really a defense either.  However, a 7000 yard course "requiring" strategy and with strong green designs can usually hold its own whether the fairways are wide or narrow.  Isn't that Royal Melbourne composite?  Or does it give up too many low scores these days as well?

Now a wide course with devious fairway bunkering, undulating greens and 7200 yds, that's a good combo for pros.  I hope we'll see that situation, plus some wind in July.

[Sean_A]

I agree with Andrew.  People get all worked about how pros hit the ball.  It doesn't really matter unless you are a pro.  It is up to them to sort out how they want to play the game.  If they get it right, people will keep watching.  If they get it wrong, only the diehards will hang about.

Ciao

Sean

[Brian Walshe]

Chris,

I was at RM Sunday whilst the Pennant was being played on the West.  I heard of at least 3 7 unders which is pretty good scoring for amateurs.  You could argue that RMW is probably a par 68 these days but in good conditions with plenty of width for the driver the good players eat it up and wedges in take the sting out of the greens.

Oh and one of the guys that was 7 under lost on 19!

[Chris Kane]

John, if the wind doesn't blow, RM composite gets torn up as well.

Andrew, I agree that professional golf is not really relevant to how you or I play the game.  However, to build a course which can test the pros, while being playable for members from the same tees is very difficult, if not impossible with the modern professional game.

Brian, you're right.  Even the most severe greens at RM are close to defenceless when being approached with wedges.  The 9th comes to mind - it must have been a nightmare in the old days when playing from the top of the hill to that green with a long or middle-iron.  Now its a wedge for a hacker like me!

[Mark_Fine]

Chris,
The golf architecture topic Tom Ferrell and I write about in the July issue of Golf Tips Magazine is titled, "Wide Open - A New Angle on Width".  I think you will enjoy it and maybe it will change your mind.
Mark

[Jason Topp]

Chris - This topic strikes at so much about what we talk about here, technology and course design that accomodates all.  It also is an interesting example of Tom Doak's philosophy of not designing his courses for tournament play as well as his philosophy of limiting the number of tees on a course.  

Here are a few questions.  I am interested in your answers as well as the answers of others that have had similar experiences.

1.  Did your friend enjoy the course?  Did you?
2.  How far does he carry the ball off the tee?  How about you?
3.  Would he be able to play it the same way in a strong wind?
4.  Would he be able to play it the same way in a normal wind (I'm not sure what normal is)
5.  Would he have enjoyed it more with a ball that flew 15% shorter?  Would you?
6.   Would you have enjoyed the day more if there was another set of tees set 600 yards back?  Would you have played from them?
7.  It seems like Cape Kidnappers is an example of a course that has the teeth to challenge this sort of player.  Which is a more enjoyable test for the widest range of player?  Which is a better way to design a course?

[Brent Hutto]

Elite athletes get better over time. Period. When the supposedly impossible four-minute mile was finally accomplished, they didn't start running that event at a mile and a quarter to get the times back up again. Eventually the sport progressed where a world-class field could possibly produce multiple runs under four minutes in the same week.

Now I realize that a game like golf is qualitatively different than a timed run on a track in that there are several discrete parts of the game requiring different skills. Still, elite golfers get better at all of those skills over time. Just like there are a hundred men in the world who could go out tomorrow and run a mile in under four minutes, there are hundreds of golfers in the world who could go out on a course that would have given Bobby Jones or Byron Nelson a huge challenge and shoot a score in the 60's limited only by how many 10-foot putts end up in the hole that day.

Concern over the ability of elite golfers to play drive, pitch and putt (or even drive, chip and putt) on courses that would be perfect for a match between Mark Ferguson and Chris Kane or Byron Nelson and Sam Snead c. 1950 is misplaced IMHO. It is inevitable that the most accomplished golfers will eventually learn to totally dismantle a normal golf course, if not now then in 20 more years or whenever. So I answer Chris's original question

Is it time to discount the challenge posed to the best players when designing enjoyable courses for the rest of us?

with an emphatic Yes.

I'd rather see the best players in the world play different courses than I do under the same Rules (including equipment) than see the creation of two sets of Rules so that they can play from 6,800 yards with a Cayman ball and I can play the same course from 6,500 yards with a Maxfli Revolution.

[JESII]

So what you are saying is, instead of asking are courses relevent to professional golf, maybe we should ask is professional golf relevent.

I think this statement goes a long way towards identifying the attitude many clubs battle with. Unfortunately a large percentage of those clubs choose professional golf over their courses integrity.

[Kirk Gill]

Elite athletes get better over time. Period. When the supposedly impossible four-minute mile was finally accomplished, they didn't start running that event at a mile and a quarter to get the times back up again. Eventually the sport progressed where a world-class field could possibly produce multiple runs under four minutes in the same week.

In track and field, equipment is not as much of an issue as it is in golf, or tennis for that matter. IMHO it took more skill for McEnroe or Borg or Laver to do what they did with the equipment they had than it takes the modern player to do what they do with the rocket launchers they play with. I also believe it was more entertaining for an audience than the modern men's game. In track, the improvement has been largely due to improvements in training, diet, and supplements (let's not get started on the whole steroid thing).

While conditioning and diet have certainly changed amongst some touring golf pros (Jon Daly notwithstanding), as in tennis the equipment has been the major source of change in performance.

You can't blame the athletes for attempting to get every advantage they can, so long as it is within the rules of the game, and you can't blame equipment manufacturers for their ingenuity in making better products (and a buck as well !). To quote The Godfather, "after all, we're not communists."

Similarly, for those courses that aspire to host the pros, who can blame them for wanting to provide a test, and for wanting to protect the integrity, if you will, of their club by trying to make their course tougher. It's ironic, then, the the integrity of the course design usually suffers.

But since there are many more golf courses than there are professional tournaments, a design philosophy that takes professional-quality players into account shouldn't always be necessary.

Shouldn't obviously being the operative term.

[Tom_Doak]

Chris:

Hopefully someday soon, St. Andrews Beach will have a longer Composite course to test your friend.  But I'm not the least bothered that someone shot 65, especially if he wasn't all the way back.  Scott Simpson had a 61 at Pacific Dunes last year, and he thought it was a great course anyway.

If you want to really test your friend, bring him to Sebonack next year.  I think it's going to be pretty tough, and it's usually windy there as well.

[BCrosby]

We need to get over the notion that a mid-60's score means the course has been defeated.

That is USGA group-think.

Low scores don't bother Tom Doak. They certainly didn't bother MacKenzie, they never bothered Bobby Jones at ANGC and they shouldn't bother us.

In fact an absence of low scoring can be a sign the course lacks strategy.

Brent has a good point, one that has been discussed in the past. Let world class players hold their championships on special purpose courses. Courses like The Atlanta Athletic Club ('03 PGA),  a set up that would be unplayable by even scratch amateurs.

But leave other courses alone.

The relationship between design quality and scoring is very, very complicated. It is not an easy win/lose trade-off.

Bob



 

[Chris Kane]

Jason,
1. Yes, he enjoyed it a lot.
2. Carries around 300.  I carry around 250
3. No.
4. Possibly
5. It would be a completely different challenge with a tournament ball, and certainly a better one.  
6. The course would have been much more difficult for Anthony, and probably more fun as well.  Not so for me - the course as it stands is perfect for the way I play.
7. Havn't seen Cape Kidnappers, but the photos suggest that St Andrews Beach would be more enjoyable from a golf perspective for the average player.

Tom, I'm not bothered either by low scores, but what I'm trying to say is that I think its time we forgot about how professionals and plus handicappers play when designing courses (except to add tees at ridiculous distances).  Thats what you and Mike appear to have done on Gunnamatta, and I applaud you for it!  The Composite will no doubt be difficult, but won't it also be a train-wreck for average players?

It was actually 68, but could have been anything.  What bothered me was that on many holes, he didn't have to hit particularly good shots to have birdie opportunities - hit driver into a massive fairway, a commercial-standard wedge, and he's away!  With the wind blowing hard, it would be completely different, and good shotmaking would be essential.

An unrelated point - watching and playing with good amateurs and pros shows me that strategy is often irrelevant on par-4's, but on par-5's it is critical.  When they have a long-iron or fairway wood in hand, they do need to hit the correct side of the fairway!

[Bill_McBride]

Bob Crosby says, "In fact an absence of low scoring can be a sign the course lacks strategy."

Boy was that demonstrated vividly during the several recent Masters when the rough was grown, the fairways pinched, and the pins put in inaccessible locations.  Those were boring tournaments, luckily followed the last couple of years by course set ups like the good old days.  The return to strategic set up brought back eagles and birdies and a lot more interesting events.

[harley_kruse]

Chris

With interest I noticed your following observation

"I've come to the conclusion that unless the wind blows, such courses won't be able to challenge good players any more - strategy doesn't mean much when you're hitting wedges into all par-4's! "

To me if the pro is hitting wedges into all the Par fours then the answer is a fairly simple one....."get them landing  back there ...not way up here".....length

A solution to the issue you mention is to have the championship tees well back from the regular tees. In some cases this could be 40 –70 yards behind the regular tees. Ridiculous? Not really.

This is a bit like Royal Birkdale where many of  Open tees are  in  vastly different locations to the regular play.  The Open tees used not to be easily seen.  At least they used to be but I haven't been there for some time. In fact I remember IBF telling me how it was Peter Thomson in a practice round  prior to IBF's Open win who showed him where the tees were ("way back up there in that long grass") as he wouldn’t have found them otherwise.
 
As you say Gunammatta  is great for 99% of players then  obviously it works just fine from those tees. Adding tiger tees for the big guns may not have been an option during the design if room was tight or  as Tom D has alluded,  in the context of 2 courses (and a Composite tournamemt course)  then  championship length on this first course was not critical.