Architecture producing Great champions?

[James Edwards]

Do certain golf courses used on The Open rotas on both sides of the Atlantic including tour events, really produce the Great Champions and the best players because of their architecture??  Is there a correlation or is it just coincidence that say..TOC produces seemingly the best player as its Champion on a regular basis?  

I here this thrown around a lot in commentary and from friend to friend, that 'this' course and 'that' course always produces the best player?  why?  

I would of said that it's not a lot to do with the golf course, but more to do with the talent of the player, playing the course and how well they are playing?  

Why does the Woods, Nicklaus, Palmers, Watsons, Players, Faldos rise to the top at ANGC?  Is it because they are/were the best in the field or because the golf course produced the best champion?

Your thoughts?

[John_Conley]

Looks like the type of belief that holds until Paul Lawrie, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, or Brian Watts wins at the Old Course.

[PThomas]

at least one reason they rise at AGNC is because the field is smaller!

Oakland Hills, ususally considered a great course, produces Hogan...and Andy North and Steve Jones

Baltursrol produces Jack - twice -- and then Lee Janzen

Carnoustie was the once course that consistently produced champions  as winners:  Cotton, Hogan, Player, Watson -- and then Lawrie, although we can blame the setup there

etc...

all majors have their "fluke" winners

[James Edwards]

I hear a lot of architects and alike saying "that course produces the best champions"

John, So you agree that the best player wins the golf tournament that week and its nothing to do with the golf course?

[TEPaul]

It's been said that courses that produce champions like Woods are generally par 72 courses, the reason being they generally have more par 5s and his otherworldly domination on par 5 holes (if you haven't yet seen Woods's career under par stats on par 5s you will be shocked).

Obviously there're other reasons other courses produce him as the champion such as he's just that good. But on courses that have at least four par 5s it WOOD seem WOULDS has an additional edge.

[John_Conley]

Oakland Hills, ususally considered a great course, produces Hogan...and Andy North and Steve Jones

Baltursrol produces Jack - twice -- and then Lee Janzen

North and Janzen won TWO U.S. Opens.  One could argue that they'd win more often if all Tour stops had a more challenging setup.

North and Jones were often injured.  We'll never know how much that affected them

Jones is a flat-out champion.  He has a far more impressive record than you'd imagine.  (Look it up.)  The win in Montreal at the Canadian was incredibly impressive; the course was brutal that week.  He also won in the desert since the Open with a VERY low score despite hitting something like only 45 greens or so.

I'm not arguing that these guys are the world's elite.  None, however, are Wayne Grady, Ian Baker-Finch, Paul Lawrie, Bob May, Brian Watts, etc....

[PThomas]

John -- Janzen I don't get ...I thought he was going to be a GREAT player, and he hasn't won since Olympic, I believe

year, I would put North and Jones above the others you listed, but injuries or whatever Andy and Steve won't be remebered by many

[John_Conley]

1988  AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am.  
1989  MONY Tournament of Champions,  
Bob Hope Chrysler Classic,  
Canadian Open.  
1996  U.S. Open Championship.  
1997  Phoenix Open,  Bell Canadian Open.  
1998  Quad City Classic.

That's pretty impressive.  8 wins, one Major.  Compare that to others and he's not far from Davis Love, Mark O'Meara, Fred Couples.  Probably just below them in a group with Tom Lehman, Mark Calcavecchia.  And he's lost a good part of his career to injury.
 

[PThomas]

that is  a better record than I thought, John!

guys like COuples and Love with only major -- they are also hard to figure....

of course, Davis 3-jacked the last hole when Jones won, which I believe cost him a playoff

and Lehman hit driver into the fairway bunker there to do the same I think!

[cary lichtenstein]

First, I think the greatest players play in all the majors, they tune up their games for the majors and probably at lot of the courses turn the best players on a great challenges.

But the best would win on a dog track, look at the conditioning 60/70/80 years ago. The stempmeter was 5 or 6, and everyone just popped the ball on the greens and they won with 1 irons and before the sandwedge was even invented.

[wsmorrison]

I'm not speaking of major championship golf, although the course could easily hold just about any championship in America, but Huntingdon Valley CC is a course that both attracts and produces great champions in the Golf Association of Philadelphia.  Maybe Jim Sullivan will speak of this with his first-hand perspective.  

Along with Merion, the best golfers in the district seem to come from Huntingdon Valley and always have.  Hard to say that there is a direct cause and effect, but it sure seems that way.

[PThomas]

and speaking of Merion, how about its roll call of winners:  Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus (the World team Amateur chanpionship in 61, I believe), Trevino, Graham

[James Edwards]

Wayne, Paul.

Interesting... so what makes both courses warrant a great champion?  Is it the architecture? I have been to Merion and have my views, but as yet to go to Huntingdon.

[Marc Haring]

Don't know if Graham could be described as great but I remember that last round at Merion. On that day he could have been the greatest golfer that ever lived.

[James Edwards]

This is my view, surely it depends on just how good a certain individual was that four days.. Curtis won with great champions around him, Hamilton won with great champions around him.

Is it a case for horses for courses?  In woods case at TOC, is seems so?  In 95 he got the medal, 00 and 05 he wins?  Is he suited to the course?  or does the course set up well for great players?

I take Toms view that 72 is a real reason for him winning on a lot of Par 72 courses...

We just had a discussion within the office about it, and a colleague said, why does that matter what the par is?  I responded with because par 5 greens are designed for a 3rd shot approach generally and not for a long iron/wood approach... and this is where woods excells and the long hitters ofcourse....

[wsmorrison]

Don't forget Olin Dutra in the 1934 Open at Merion.  He was playing very well and was named by a number of pros before the event as the one to watch.

Certain courses have certain shot testing (including putting) and some have specific shot demands as well.  In the days of balata balls and persimmon woods, an all-around game was needed.  You had to have distance control, move the ball and accuracy.  This was especially true under championship conditions.  And especially true at Merion and Huntingdon Valley.  

Merion's deep rough requires accuracy; the slick slopes on the greens are hard to read and can make anyone look bad; length of itself does not separate players chances--there are short and long holes and the two par 5s can't normally be reached in two shots.  The greens themselves, a number of which are set at angles to the line of play in addition to the bunkering reward approach shots from the right angles.

At Huntingdon Valley, and maybe Tom Paul, Jamie Slonis and Jim Sullivan (member) will weigh in, I believe that it is kept firm and fast more than any other course I've seen on a day to day basis.  You must think your way around the golf course and consider bounce and roll not simply distance for hit and stick shots.

There is grain in the greens so you have to be able to read putts very well and of course hit them just right.  Flynn's greens are subtle complexities of slopes that are difficult to read.  Throw in grain and these greens are very difficult to putt well on.

The other aspect that Huntingdon Valley requires is absolutely perfect ball striking.  There are so many uneven lies (not like they note on TV where they say the ball is below his feet and its only two or three inches, this is a course where the ball really can be above or below your feet) and specific  shot demands that you have to strike the ball well and hit it to the right portion of the firm greens or approaches to give yourself a chance at birdie or par.  Winged Foot, Bethpage Black, Oakmont, Baltusrol, and other championship courses don't have the fairway contours that Huntingdon Valley has and this makes it a higher demand golf course with regard to ball striking, in my opinion.

I'm probably being to simple with this.  Most will say that its the same on their course or championship courses they've seen.  Sorry I can't explain the mystery of HVCC well.  I encourage anybody that can play there to do so and see for themselves.  It is a fact, great players are drawn to and made at Huntingdon Valley and Merion.

[RT]

Interestingly enough I was doing a summer internship at Congressional in '81, and one of the 'old'er guys on the crew, "Charlie" an excellent striker of the ball, and fine player, was always talking about the greatness of Huntingdon Valley and how he would play there the rest of his days.  I mean there wasn't a day go by that he wouldn't talk about it (and wear the oil/grass stained golf shirt from there...)

[Tom_Doak]

I think the best player on that given week is the one who wins.  Everybody leaves Tony Lema off the roll call at St. Andrews because he doesn't fit the profile they are trying to establish ... not a knock on him, I'm sure he was a great player in his own right, but Arnold Palmer "should" have won according to the criteria.

That said, I do think St. Andrews and Augusta are a bit different.  The players treat major championships differently than a regular event; they feel more pressure, and only the mentally tough get through them.  Sometimes a "fluke" winner playing at his all-time best gets through, usually by convincing himself for the week that it is just another tournament.  But that is much harder to do at St. Andrews or Augusta than it is at Valhalla.

By the same token, Jones and Nicklaus and Tiger Woods play BETTER under the pressure of major championships, and all three of them wanted to win at St. Andrews even more than usual.

PS to James:  The Old Course is indeed a par 72, but there are only two par fives.

[George Pazin]

I remember back in 2002, a bunch of the cognescenti in the world of sportwriting thought Tiger wouldn't win at Bethpage because it was a par 70 (for the Open).

I'd tend to think more that great courses produce great leaderboards, as opposed to great champions. Anyone can have a hot week, but a great course almost always yields a superior leaderboard, even if the winner is an unknown (think Sandwich in '03 versus Oak Hill in '03).

Of course, our resident statistician, Brent Hutto, would probably point out that we don't have nearly a large enough sample size to draw meaningful conclusions.

[James Edwards]

Agreed Tom, but ANGC has 4, PB has 4? Sawgrass has 4? anyway... thats not what im trying to say....

My original point was that I hear a number of commentators, Aliss, Critchley, Harmon and Murray and alike talk about certain courses producing the great champions because of their architecture, their design, their essence, their strategy...

Is this true in your view - what are the closest examples?  if this is a true statement?

Huntingdon, Merion, TOC, Pebble, ANGC?

are these golf courses worthy of that accolade, that when the tournament comes to them, you know that 'the cream will rise to the top' (another power phrase used by many commentators) will happen?

[James Edwards]

George,

Just read your post... an excellent point - great leaderboards is indeed a better allround sentence IMHO...

[Jim Nugent]

I think the best player on that given week is the one who wins.  Everybody leaves Tony Lema off the roll call at St. Andrews because he doesn't fit the profile they are trying to establish ... not a knock on him, I'm sure he was a great player in his own right, but Arnold Palmer "should" have won according to the criteria.

That said, I do think St. Andrews and Augusta are a bit different.  The players treat major championships differently than a regular event; they feel more pressure, and only the mentally tough get through them.  Sometimes a "fluke" winner playing at his all-time best gets through, usually by convincing himself for the week that it is just another tournament.  But that is much harder to do at St. Andrews or Augusta than it is at Valhalla.

By the same token, Jones and Nicklaus and Tiger Woods play BETTER under the pressure of major championships, and all three of them wanted to win at St. Andrews even more than usual.

PS to James:  The Old Course is indeed a par 72, but there are only two par fives.

Tom, there are only two par fives, but there also four or so real short par fours, that long hitters can drive if the wind is not heavy against them.  They give guys like Tiger the same kind of advantage that more par fives would.

[James Edwards]

Jim,

Yes, from the available coverage I watched, Tiger was the only guy I saw drive the 10th?  and consistently got it greenside at the 12th.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:  I did realize when I posted that The Old Course has a bunch of short par-4's which Tiger (and Daly before him) took to their advantage.

I was just pointing out that it's the overall makeup of the course which may give one player an advantage over another.  Reducing it to looking at the total par is oversimplifying the problem to the point of meaninglessness.

James:  I do think, GENERALLY, that great courses produce great champions more often than other courses do, but it is not an infallible science.  Golf is not like tennis ... the best player in the world does not win even 50% of the time, regardless of what course he is playing.

[Brent Hutto]

Well, with a century of data on two of the majors and over a century for the PGA (stroke play) and Masters combined I'd say we have a pretty good bit of data to ground our speculations.

I think George said it well. I'd expect the number of great players among the top ten or so finishers in a major to be something the course can strongly affect. I'd expect that the influence of the course on the actual winner to be diluted by rubs of the green and contingencies of individual experience for the week in question (Crenshaw and Love in the Masters the week Harvey Penick died, for example).

Heck, aside from majors look at the leaderboard that Congressional produced a few weeks ago. Although I must say the presence of Tom Kite, the most notable contender, was probably due to the fact he's played the course a couple hundred times more than some of the younger players in the field. Still, that course certainly seemed to have some effect on bringing US Open type names to the first page of the leaderboard.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: