[Adam_F_Collins]

... of professional tournament play?

If so, how?
If not, why?

[A_Clay_Man]

If any course deserves to be critique in the context of pro tourney golf it is Sawgrass. Affirmative that it has held up, but I haven't seen the changes. How? By repeatedly requiring precision, shot after shot after shot.

In the context of the rest of the golfing world, a steady diet of Sawgrass would cause the less tolerant to give up the game. IMO

[Tony Ristola]

It's held up, but I'd like to see them go back to its original theme, as a not so manicured, hard and fast design.

[Phil Benedict]

In recent years the set up has gotten really tough.  High, thick rough plus those small greens which weather permitting are firmer than the normal tour set up.  Target golf for sure.

The question is whether the original intent was for the course to play so tight.  The rough prevents the errant drive from running into the trees, eliminating the recovery shot.  

Architectural intent gets thrown out the door when it comes to the set up of a course for signature professional event, whether it's the Masters, Players or US Open.  The only big events which exercise some restraint are the Open Championship and the PGA.

[CHrisB]

The question is whether the original intent was for the course to play so tight.  The rough prevents the errant drive from running into the trees, eliminating the recovery shot.  

Architectural intent gets thrown out the door when it comes to the set up of a course for signature professional event, whether it's the Masters, Players or US Open.  The only big events which exercise some restraint are the Open Championship and the PGA.

Phil,
If architectural intent was thrown out the door at Sawgrass, it was to make the course easier than the architect originally intended. Pete Dye built this course specifically as an over-the-top test for PGA Tour pros, and if anything they have cleaned up a course that was rough-around-the-edges.

The TPC at Sawgrass should be applauded as a course that holds up well against the modern game, while still allowing any type of player to win. Look at the last dozen or so winners:

2005 Fred Funk
2004 Adam Scott
2003 Davis Love III
2002 Craig Perks
2001 Tiger Woods
2000 Hal Sutton
1999 David Duval
1998 Justin Leonard
1997 Steve Elkington
1996 Fred Couples
1995 Lee Janzen
1994 Greg Norman
1993 Nick Price

How diverse is that?!?

[Phil Benedict]

Chris,

The course had extremely hard edges early on (and the pros hated it) but it was softened up from the mid-80's to early '90's; hence Norman shooting 24 under with old technology.  He won by a lot but I think the tour has toughened up the course set up since then.  It's a little bit of a US Open style set up with the rough being a key feature.

Tiger says that the way the fairways twist and turn tends to take the driver out of the long hitters hands, so they end up hitting their approaches from the same places as the shorter hitters who can still hit driver.  Makes it a second shot course.

To be honest with you, I have no idea what Pete Dye's original intent was.  Did he intend for high rough and tight fairways to be a key feature of the tournament course?  Finchem was on with some suckup from NBC on Sunday and the thing they focused on in discussing the course was the rough.

[Kerry Gray]

I watched an interview with Pete a couple of years ago when the rough was getting ridiculous and he said it was not his intent.
He used 18 as an example that he preferrred it cut down so missplaced drives would run into the trees on the right as he intended. Now the rough saves them from being blocked out. Many of the greens open up from the front so the pros can often get it on the green from the rough. Rarely do they worry about flying a bunker/water and holding the green from the rough. Their are exceptions like #4.
I would like to see it hard, fast and cut short to see how much trouble it gives the pros.
Seems too often they just want to grow rough to penalize errant shots. How long before every week we will be watching a US Open set-up?
Kerry

[Jason Topp]

My guess based on playing the course once:

1.  The par fives are short enough that most people can reach them with 2 good shots, depending on wind.

2.  Many of the par fours have pinch points which require a real accurate drive if the long hitter is going to hit driver.  Thus, some of the distance advantage is negated.

3.  The fairways on the par fours seemed really narrow to me.  Combined with deep rough and significant penalties for wayward drivers, players are likely to play conservatively off the tee.

4.  Good, varied par threes.

I was surprised at how short the course is.  Nonetheless, it does seem to be a model venue for allowing many types of players to win and does so without the boredom of a typical US Open.

[Kerry Gray]

My guess based on playing the course once:

1.  The par fives are short enough that most people can reach them with 2 good shots, depending on wind.

2.  Many of the par fours have pinch points which require a real accurate drive if the long hitter is going to hit driver.  Thus, some of the distance advantage is negated.

3.  The fairways on the par fours seemed really narrow to me.  Combined with deep rough and significant penalties for wayward drivers, players are likely to play conservatively off the tee.

4.  Good, varied par threes.

I was surprised at how short the course is.  Nonetheless, it does seem to be a model venue for allowing many types of players to win and does so without the boredom of a typical US Open.

Jason,
I found the fairways really interesting. Many are constructed with what I could best describe as an "offset" at or near the usual landing zone. #1 for example, the fairway goes around the bunker running up the right hand side. #2 changes direction left at the water hazzard. So the tee shot on #1 favours a fade and #2 favours a draw. It is very balanced throughout. The player who can work the ball has a distinct advantage.
I think Pete Dye's fairways at TPC are some of the most intesting I have seen.
Cheers.
Kerry

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()