[Brent Hutto]

This sort of came up in another thread and I thought it was an interesting architectural question. I'm hoping we can discuss golf courses in this thread without getting too sidetracked into debate about the need for rolling back the modern golf ball specification.

Dan Callahan reports that in his experience with Longmeadow (site of last year's US Junior Amateur championship) cunning fairway contours made it surprisingly difficult to overpower that course even at what is considered nowadays to be a somewhat modest total yardage. He also mentioned that cross hazards at the proper distance from the tee can be used to force longer approach shots than the length of a hole might indicate.

Now obviously one way to protect against lower scores at a shortish course is to make the greens devilishly unreceptive and speed the putting up to Stimp 12+. Or you can use the ever-popular expedient of erasing the "Par 5" from a couple spots on the scorecard and penciling in "Par 4" instead. I'm not really asking about how to make good players shoot five over par on a 6,600 yard course but rather what features of a golf course design keep good players from playing driver/wedge too often on an under-7,000 yard classic course.

Put another way, what kinds of classic courses need to add 400 yards to hold a high-level tournament and what kinds can hold their own with modest or no changes in total length?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Good question.  I think there are a number of courses that do stand up well for both low handicappers and pros.  We have to remember that today's pros are so good that they can shoot 63 on most any course.
Myopia Hunt Club comes to mind.  The green sites are just stupendous.  There are a lot of birdies but a bunch of bogies as well.
Musgrove Mill isn't long but low scores are a rarity given the difficulty of the green sites and the need to put the ball on the correct side of the pin.

[Mark_Fine]

Withstanding the modern game is a very nebulous term.  I would venture to say that NO classic golf course would play today as it was intended by the best players in the world.  But that doesn't mean it is bad or obsolete.  Those that do "withstand" the modern game have most likely been tinkered with.  But this tinkering doesn't necessarily make them better either.  At a minimum they have been lengthened (probably more than you realize) and they are surely conditioned differently.  

Mark

[Lawrence Largent]

I second Musgrove Mill if playing firm and fast the fairways become extremely narrow. Trust me from expeirence you need to be on the correct side of the fairway to have a shot to the correct spot on the green.  If you have not played this hidden gem please find a way its not for everybody but if you like getting your brains beat in its definitely for you. Although there is no place to put the added yardage Cherokee C.C. in Knoxville, TN would be brutal with 400 yards added with the greens there I'm not really sure if anyone could finish.

Lawrence

[BCrosby]

Good question.

Sandwich is a good example of how a course of moderate length can deal with the bombers.

What is  unique about Sandwich is that lots of fairways are, in effect, pinched off at a certain distance without resorting to the usual USGA/RTJ gimmicks.

Some by way of cross hazards (the Suez hole, the cross bunker on 18).

But there are a number of other holes where it is the contouring itself that pinches off fairways after a certain distance. Either by way of extreme drop offs (2, 4, 5, 12, 17) dune ridges (8, 9) or sharp turns in the playing corridor (5 again), they effectively mute the advantages of extreme length without resorting to narrow fairways or penal bunkering.

Sandwich is an intersting course. It's fairways would reward close study. The hardest, most interesting driving course I have ever played.

Bob

[Philippe Binette]

Great greens mostly

[Steve_ Shaffer]

See the Canadian Open a few years at Hamilton GC.

[wsmorrison]

Firm and fast through the green, especially with features mentioned previously (contours, bunkers and rough) are a terrific part of the equation.  Perhaps the most significant early step is firm greens and approaches that are not so receptive to approach shots.  This would require proper placement in the fairways for the right angle of approach and thus influence decision making starting on the tee.  I think this would be the first phase I would make sure to enhance if I were concerned with preserving the scoring integrity of a classic course.  

Mark is right though, the players are so good and the equipment is of such a high technology that any course is subject to being played well under par by the day's best golfers.  But the right maintenance meld is key to all golf courses and necessary to provide the intended playing conditions.

Before I would seek any architectural modifications, I would make sure that the maintenance process is ideal for the particular course and let make further determinations after this process has had time to be implemented.

[BCrosby]

Any added difficulty to greens - whether by way of firmness, contouring or pin placements - will by definition increase the advantages of approaching those greens with a more lofted club, n'est ce pas?

Don't defenses to the bombers begin and end with finding creative ways to deal with the problem in the fairway or on the tee?

Bob

[Kyle Harris]

In addition to firm and fast conditions, I think the amount of angles that have been preserved from the original design has something to do with a course's resilency to "modern" play.

The narrowing of corridors and shrinking of greens, IMHO, has lead to the bomb it and dart it method of play. Make the better half fight for angles and squeeze every corner out of a hole and you have a tougher test.

[T_MacWood]

I'd say there are three characteristics that help: tricky greens/green complexes, undulating ground and wind.

The make up of the course can also make a difference--fewer par-5's and more par-3's is a good formula.

[Sean_A]

I like the ideas Kyle and Tommy Mac's have offered up.  Especially F&Fand less par 5s-more par 3s.  I am not sure if Kyle is thinking the same I am, but the idea of angles where a player needs to shape the ball for distance, especially off the tee.

Ciao

Sean  

[Kyle Harris]

Sean,

That's part of it.

I also include such things like preferred angle of approach is from the outside of a dogleg, such that misexecution is punished by a tougher lie, a worse angle, a further approach or a combination of all three.

Any sort of feature that pushes play to the edges of the corridor and makes the hole longer by optimum play.

[Jason Topp]

The TPC at Sawgrass manages to consistently produce interesting tournaments despite relatively short length.  I think the factors that help are:

1.  Generally tight fairways at an angle to the tee.
2.  Punishing rough
3.  Very good par threes
4.  Great par fives with relatively wide fairways that can be reached in two but require precise shots to do so.
5.  Difficult greenside shots
6.  Some shots with real pucker factor to them.

These factors are quite different that what is generally held up as the ideal on this site.  I do not think it is an ideal course because it is a bit of a torture chamber for the poor player.  Nonetheless, it makes for an interesting theater for the tournament at a relatively modest yardage.

[BCrosby]

The question is not what will protect classic courses from low scoring generally. If that were the question, then toughen up the greens by all means. Implement the USGA/RTJ set up manual.

The question is why some classic courses stand up better than others against long hitters. I submit that it is not because they have tougher greens. Toughening the greens will only be to the advantage of big bombers. They will be hitting shorter, more lofted approaches. Toughening greens may increase overall scoring but they will only serve to enhance the relative advantages of being longer v. being shorter.

Why some classic courses stand up better than others has almost nothing to do with their greens. The answers lie elsewhere.

Bob  

[Brent Hutto]

I'm enjoying this discussion very much. As always, my temptation is to categorize things and in this case the three main categories are: 1) fairway contours and firmness, 2) green contours and speed/firmness and 3) selection of hole lengths and pars.

I always think of Sandwich (as set up in the Open I watched on TV a few years back) as the poster child for the use of fairway contours and firmness to provide tee-shot challenges. Longmeadow as set up for the US Junior Amateur was perhaps a less in-your-face but still effective instance.

Would the recent US Amateur at Merion be a shining example of the use of green contours and speed/firmness? Or perhaps Brora on the day of the round Sean was recounting is a more obvious example given that the course looks so wide-open and "easy". How about Winged Foot, isn't that supposed to be a place where you can't miss on the wrong side?

Here's a finer point to consider. Is there a difference between green complexes (combined with angles from the fairway assuming those aren't eliminated by stereotypical US Open narrowness and rough) that are just plain hard versus those that are super-hard if you approach or miss the green but playable from the correct side? I'd think that Shinnecock during the US Open was more of a "just plain hard" set of greens whereas Merion's reputation is more along the lines of offering double-bogey from the wrong side and birdie or par from the correct side.

[wsmorrison]

Thanks for reigning us back in on topic, Bob.  One thing that has helped some classic courses remain a challenging test of all-around golfing skills is the designing in of elasticity.  MacKenzie and Flynn (as may have Tillinghast among others) wrote about designing room for lengthing courses as necessary over time.  Flynn especially wrote about his concerns for technology and predicted courses would eventually have to be 7500 to 8000 yards in length to test the supreme players.  Unfortunately this has allowed to come true.  Courses like Shinnecock Hills, Mill Road Farm, Philadelphia Country and others were designed with room to move tees back.  Huntingdon Valley, Shinnecock and Philadelphia Country are nearly maxed out but these courses remain stern tests of golf for a wide variety of players up to the very best.

[Brent Hutto]

The question is not what will protect classic courses from low scoring generally. If that were the question, then toughen up the greens by all means. Implement the USGA/RTJ set up manual.

As always Bob can be counted on to keep our focus upon the question at hand. I agree with his sense that hard, fast, contoured greens with the pins tucked are more of a universal way to protect par. My primary interest in starting this thread was the use of ways other than sheer length or forced carries to challenge the driving game.

You know, in other discussions we've mentioned the technique of making a short course play longer by having upslopes in the tee shot landing areas. I wonder to what extent one could keep the fairway level in the landing zone of an average to short hitter and then start a pronounced upslope that continues far enough that even the longest drives can't carry up on top. That way if a drive were hit, say, 300 yards the approach would be a wedge or short iron from an upslope while the drive hit 260 yards might be a long iron or fairway wood from a level lie. Not that this totally equalizes the field (and not that you'd want to take away all the advantage of driving length anyway) but at least it's the opposite of being able to bomb it to both a shorter shot and an easier shot.

[John Goodman]

The question is not what will protect classic courses from low scoring generally. If that were the question, then toughen up the greens by all means. Implement the USGA/RTJ set up manual.

The question is why some classic courses stand up better than others against long hitters. I submit that it is not because they have tougher greens. Toughening the greens will only be to the advantage of big bombers. They will be hitting shorter, more lofted approaches. Toughening greens may increase overall scoring but they will only serve to enhance the relative advantages of being longer v. being shorter.

Why some classic courses stand up better than others has almost nothing to do with their greens. The answers lie elsewhere.

Bob  

But what about Pinehurst #2?  Gotta be the greens, right?

[mike_malone]

 Doesn't Westchester hold up well year after year? I haven't been there yet in person , but I wonder if the elevation changes coupled with the angles are key elements.

[Dan_Callahan]

Brent,

The upslope in the fairway is what does the trick at Longmeadow. Although many of the holes don't feel as though they are playing uphill, the tee shot seems to always land in an upslope, negating roll.

In other places, well thought out doglegs limit the degree to which you can safely bomb a driver. Finally, there are a few holes (the par 5 on the front and a few par 4s) where the fairway runs out close enough to the tee that using a driver isn't possible. Normally, I don't like having the driver forced out of my hands, but I didn't mind much at Longmeadow—these holes were spaced pretty evenly.

Surprisingly, I didn't find the greens to be tricky at all. Some of the short par 3s were tough, but when you are hitting a wedge into them, they should be.

A final factor at Longmeadow is the somewhat untradtional hole yardages. There are only two par 5s, and one of them is very short. Two of the par 3s are very short (in the 130-yard range) and a fourth was about 170 I think. There are also two or three short par 4s. That means that the remaining par 4s are pretty long (for me, anyway—one after the other was 420-450 it seemed like). Add some undulating fairways in the landing zone and you are constantly hitting 5-irons into greens that in some cases have some pretty intimidating bunkers (the 9th, for example).

All in all, a very stiff test that you wouldn't expect if you simply looked at the course's total yardage.

[Scott Cannon]

I grew up in classic course-lackingTexas. I did work in Westchester for a few years and got to play many great classics. The Foot  Westchester, Shinny, Quaker,Bethpage, Fishers, Maidstone, Baltimore CC, and the west coast Olympic, LA North, etc. Obviously the bulk of these couldn't handle the "modern power game" (can I add an extra point?) "of the touring professional" All of these courses gave me quite a run.

I think the ones that have held up to the "touring pro's" have no homes on the course. That allowed plenty of tree growth and to some degree takes some of the more aggressive lines away from the bombers. I also think a lot of the older courses green complexes have such a tilt to them. Built back in the day, they had sooo much tilt for a higher cut to make them quite slick. Now you cut them down to...what is it?..a 1/6th of a inch or so, you end up with quite a challenge.
Look at Winged Foot, if you miss a bit right or left and those deep bunkers kill you. If you are a bit long to protect from that miss, you are praying for a 2 putt. If you are 8 feet to the right or left pin high, do you take some of the break out and risk blowing it by 12 feet, or do you throw it up the hill and let gravity take it to the hole?
 
As a side note, I played a very small course in Mamaroneck the starts with a par 5. It is a down hill tee shot, then the land works back up a pretty large slope. Good players can hit a wood or, if the really crank it, a long iron. They had George Bayer would hit his drive into the slope an play a pitch into the green. The long game is not new...just more guys doing it.  

[Brent Hutto]

A final factor at Longmeadow is the somewhat untradtional hole yardages. There are only two par 5s, and one of them is very short. Two of the par 3s are very short (in the 130-yard range) and a fourth was about 170 I think. There are also two or three short par 4s. That means that the remaining par 4s are pretty long (for me, anyway—one after the other was 420-450 it seemed like). Add some undulating fairways in the landing zone and you are constantly hitting 5-irons into greens that in some cases have some pretty intimidating bunkers (the 9th, for example).

Under my category #3 earlier we may be on to something here. Having several short Par 4's on a course means several holes that most players consider "birdie holes" unless they're exceptionally penal or something. For long hitters nowadays, even a 400-yard hole will be a "birdie hole" if the green is reasonably large and not too contoured.

Thinking in terms of half-par holes, how much easier is a hole where you can drive the ball to within 20-30 yards of the green (for example most 350-yard holes for Vijay Singh) versus a hole that's driver/sand wedge (maybe that would be a 430-yarder for Vijay)? A good player can certainly make his share of birdies hitting a sand wedge approach from the fairway, leaving aside the occasional eagle chip-in I'm not sure he makes a lot more birdies playing 2-iron/wedge or driver/long chip.

So given a constant course length of, say, 6,700 yards maybe one way to preserve challenge for long hitters is to split the Par 4's into several 320-350 yarders and as many as possible up over 450 yards. We might imagine a "birdies versus length" graph that is somewhat flatter in the range from 350-430 yards where an additional 20-30 yards doesn't really pose much additional challenge.

Dan also mentions very short Par 5's. There could be the same effect where once you get to a threshold where the shorter hitters have trouble reaching the green (maybe 530 yards or so on most Tour courses) and the big hitters are playing driver/5-iron there's not much cost to anyone of adding another 30-40 yards so you can segregate the three-shotter into always reachable ones around 500-540 yards and monster ones of 580 yards or more.

[BCrosby]

John -

Tougher greens will increase overall scoring averages but they will also increase the relative advantages of the big bombers. (Which is the problem I thought we were trying to address.)

Trying to hold an approach at PII is always going to be easier with a pitching wedge versus a 6 iron. And that comparative advantage only increases as you make the greens harder and firmer.

If you want to make the playing field more level, you come to the counter intuitive conclusion that greens ought to be soft and flat. As opposed to greens at PII or ANGC, people hitting six irons into soft and flat greens will at least have a chance getting it close to the pin or one putting.

At least in theory, flat and soft greens will diminish somewhat the advantages of length. On the other hand, making them hard and contoured will work only to the advantage of the long hitter.

In short, if you really want to rein in the advantages of pure length, you gotta look at places other than greens.  

Bob

[Brent Hutto]

In short, if you really want to rein in the advantages of pure length, you gotta look at places other than greens.  

I agree. Tricky greens (and I purposely did not use the word "tricked-up") are a way to preserve so-called resistance to scoring. Bob correctly understands my original question as having to do with preserving the enjoyment of classic courses by a range of players including big hitters rather than guarding against lower scoring by the entire field as distance increases.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()