What Criteria Renders a Classic Obsolete ?

[Ed_Baker]

I'll preface this thread with an admission that it smacks of being self serving, I apologize in advance.

I'm getting pretty tired of my home course and several other golden age courses in the area being denigrated by low handicap club players for their alleged  lack of length.

I went on a mini rant a few weeks ago when the Mass Open was held at my club and 1 player, the winner, broke par shooting 3 under in a 54 hole event, these were not touring pros, but good regional professionals and top ranked amatuers, not a bad field.

Our club championship was held this weekend the winner shot 73,73,74 that would be 10 over par on the championship card. The runner-up shot 75,75,75 for 225, 15 over par.

I know, to us in the treehouse par is not relevant, but these are the card and pencil guys I'm talking about, and still they talked about hitting wedge in to such and such hole and 8 iron in to another. Dudes !! Nobody scared par !!! What in hell does it matter what you hit in to any green if you keep making bogey. Didn't the golf course just stand the test of time .... again ??

So what is the criteria (criterion) for obsolesence, ?? I must be so damn old I'm missing something, these guys want to add length for what, so they all shoot 80, but they hit 7 iron instead of wedge and that's supposed to make the golf course more relevant? I don't get it.

[George Pazin]

So what is the criteria (criterion) for obsolesence, ??

A fussy, insecure, low-ish handicap membership.

 

[Michael Moore]

An aging membership that has forgotten the blessings that technological change bestowed upon them when they were young.

[Glenn Spencer]

For the US Open- it seems to be logistics, resistance to scoring and the opportunity to 'hit every club in the bag.'

For me, I don't think many of the classics have been rendered obsolete by amateurs and regional professionals, just the Adam Scotts and Tigers of the world. At the same time, scoring is not everything. Yes, I feel that there are some courses out there that are 'obsolete' even though I can't break or usually don't break par on them. My feeling comes from the fact, that I don't believe a championship golf course should be played with a wedge in one's hand all day long. It allows the 'less skilled' player to compete too often. My opinion is that the ability to hit a 5-iron on the green should be considered when playing a championship at the state level or higher. This is the problem in my eyes.

[mike_malone]

 Ed,

    I wonder about this question myself. I don't think the judgement should be based only on how the best players perform on the course. However, that is one consideration. I think the maintenance must match the angled play designed into these classics or they look silly.

   We had a young guy shot 63 last year in the USGA Amateur Qualifier. The course was wet and the greens soft. We need firm greens to protect the integrity of the design.

   This year the firmness has been dramatically better and the course is shining.

     What usually makes these designs obsolete is the homogenizing that comes from parallel to the fairway tree planting and fairway narrowing. This eliminates the originally designed angles of play which creates a target golf course of less length than new courses, thus it becomes obsolete.

[Ed_Baker]

Glenn,
A thoughtful response and I agree that a championship golf course should not be played with a wedge in your hand all day, that is, a national or international caliber championship course. That point, actually is the crux of my argument, for 99% of the players stepping up to the tee on these great old courses they still offer a stern test if score is used as a barometer of success. Many of these courses were designed with multiple half par holes as part of the challenge/charm of the round and in my opinion it's the half par holes that are the object of debate, they were designed as birdie holes for the scratch player way back when and they are still birdie holes for the skilled player. I agree that technology has increased the number of players that have the ability to hit shorter clubs in to the half par holes on a daily basis which is a delight for the 6 to 15 handicap range player and would support your point of the "less skilled player" being able to compete more often, but at the club level, I view that to be an admirable quality of the golf course and makes for a very interesting match play course.

Mayday,
Maintenence meld is most definitely extremely important and as we have discussed on here many times when it is correct, it brings out the best architectural features of the golf course.

I guess my point is, other than touring pro's, aren't these old 6600 yard classics still relevant for even the best players and great fun for all players ??

[Jason Topp]

I think the way to determine if a course is obsolete has little to do with the scores shot and a lot to do with whether the shots one hits are interesting.  My sense is that at the state level, very few if any courses have become obsolete.  At the elite amateur and professional level, one should compare the shots into the green from 250 off the tee with the shots into the green at 300 off the tee and see if they are less or more interesting.  

In a tournament I played last year on a flat 6900 yard 60's era course with big greens and fast fairways, several players hit nothing more than a wedge, except for 2nd shots on par 5's.  What was once considered a long difficult test has become a wedge and putting contest.  Its great fun, but a very different game that does not reward a good iron player much.
 

[Mike_Sweeney]

Ed,

Seriously, send the Mass tournaments to The International and its 8300 Tiger tees for a few years. You, Dave and the others enjoy the course to yourselves. If a few members leave, I doubt you will have problems finding new ones in Newton, MA.

[Glenn Spencer]

I think the way to determine if a course is obsolete has little to do with the scores shot and a lot to do with whether the shots one hits are interesting.  My sense is that at the state level, very few if any courses have become obsolete.  At the elite amateur and professional level, one should compare the shots into the green from 250 off the tee with the shots into the green at 300 off the tee and see if they are less or more interesting.  

In a tournament I played last year on a flat 6900 yard 60's era course with big greens and fast fairways, several players hit nothing more than a wedge, except for 2nd shots on par 5's.  What was once considered a long difficult test has become a wedge and putting contest.  Its great fun, but a very different game that does not reward a good iron player much.
 

This is a great point, the courses that were designed to be long at the time are the easier ones today. The greens are not as tricky and the nuances are not there. The classics that Ed speaks of are still classics for the most part. They are vastly more succeptible to the 'real' low round by an amateur, but for the most part, par will stand up, 9 times out of 10 if the weather cooperates. An amateur can screw up with a wedge, a pro can't.

[George Pazin]

I think the way to determine if a course is obsolete has little to do with the scores shot and a lot to do with whether the shots one hits are interesting.  My sense is that at the state level, very few if any courses have become obsolete.  At the elite amateur and professional level, one should compare the shots into the green from 250 off the tee with the shots into the green at 300 off the tee and see if they are less or more interesting.  

In a tournament I played last year on a flat 6900 yard 60's era course with big greens and fast fairways, several players hit nothing more than a wedge, except for 2nd shots on par 5's.  What was once considered a long difficult test has become a wedge and putting contest.  Its great fun, but a very different game that does not reward a good iron player much.
 

This is a great point, the courses that were designed to be long at the time are the easier ones today. The greens are not as tricky and the nuances are not there. The classics that Ed speaks of are still classics for the most part. They are vastly more succeptible to the 'real' low round by an amateur, but for the most part, par will stand up, 9 times out of 10 if the weather cooperates. An amateur can screw up with a wedge, a pro can't.

Unless that wedge is at a course like Oakmont, Shinnecock, Augusta, etc.

I hate the "what club did someone hit into a green" test more than I hate the "can we keep par relevant" test.

Jason, the one flaw I find in your thinking is that too many people, pros included, may not score well even hitting wedge on every par 4, yet that doesn't stop them from complaining and changing the course, even when it's defending itself quite well from wedges. Too many people assume any wedge is interesting, and a 7 iron is automatically more interesting.

Take something like the 18th at Augusta. It doesn't seem like many people made birdie to win there back when Tiger, Phil and Co. were hitting half wedges into the green. Yet they stretched it to 465 or whatever, and Phil wins with a birdie, hitting 3 wood 8 iron, as does Tiger the following year in the playoff, same clubs if I recall correctly.

[JSlonis]

Ed,

Your's is a thoughtful question.  I found the remarks made by that professional concerning your course to be poor, and quite unprofessional at best.

Due to the fact that I'm a big GCA buff, and I play in quite a few events myself during the summer, I'm always eager to hear the "comments" of some of the other players about a particular course or about a particular setup.

I usually cringe when I hear the majority of comments.  If a guy were to say that a course was now obsolete, and that it is way too short now, he better damn well have shot something under par.  I recently heard a golfer, who will remain nameless, make some similar remarks about a local Philly course.  After checking the scoreboard, and noticing ironically that he had barely broken 80, I casually mentioned that perhaps he needed the course to be even shorter and easier than he already thought it was.

My game is not good enough to ever say that a particular course is obsolete.  "Obsolete" is a strong accusation.  I have no problem saying that certain courses have been hurt by technology, or that technology has rendered certain holes easier.  In saying this, I would be simply stating that the course's original shot values have been compromised.  Whether I can take advantage of the easier shot values during a certain round, is a totally different discussion.

It's no great revelation to say that many of the great classic courses have been rendered more defenseless in this age of technology, but to go as far as to proclaim them obsolete, that's a big jump, and in my view, you better have the game, and the scores to back up the claims.  IMO, I haven't seen any amateurs or local PGA Pro's with games good enough to make that claim.

[Mark_Fine]

Ed,
Obsolete is a poor choice of words.  A better way to think about a course might be to look at how it "held up" from the perspective of the orginal architect.  What would Ross think about how the course played now vs. what he envisioned in the original design?  Obviously that is a tough question to try to answer.  Architects like Flynn (and many other Golden Age designers) realized that length was going to become an issue in the future and felt their courses would need to be stretched to rediculous lengths to maintain their design intent for the better golfers.  If a course like yours is still challenging the best players at a length similar to what is once was, then either architect's like Flynn were wrong or the course was tricked up or changed in some way to maintain the challenge.  As you well know, uping the green speeds on older courses alone can often times more than make up for lack of length.  Unfortunately, sometimes the greens can get goofy when rolling super firm and fast.  Narrowing fairways and growing thick rough can also add shear difficultly but this creates one dimensional design, not what the architect intended.  

I'm not sure what answer (if any) you were looking for but those are just a few quick thoughts.

[Jason Topp]

George - I think we are largely in agreement and I certainly am in agreement with Ed.

These are some interesting data points from my course (6566 yards, par 70, built in the 20's) from a recent event in which handicaps generally average around 2, but range from the best players in the state to 8 handicaps.

Wind was about 10-15 MPH that day, about normal for our area and the pins were in their regular rotation.

http://www.minneapoliscityleague.com/2006/Week4/06Week4_Results.html

The average score per hole ranged from .4 to .9 over par.  There is really no water in play on the course and only one hole has OB that is a serious threat.  Included among the toughest holes are two that are almost always a wedge - 13 (345 yards) and 10 (337 yards) as well as a par five that is under 500 yards (5th).  Those holes played as tough as the holes considered tough on the course, the 8th (457), 9th (420 - uphill) 17 (387), and 18 (437).

I was suprised at those numbers and tracked a few of my rounds and found that my numbers were about the same.  I really score about the same on all of the holes on a regular basis.
   

[Tom_Doak]

Ed:  The real danger is that if you lengthen the golf course, then those same guys will complain that the 5th green is not fair for a 6-iron approach shot and needs to be flattened.

[Mike_Sweeney]

It's your choice whether or not to hit a loaf-a-bread-on-a-stick off the tee.

Bill,

Are you saying that in a GAP event, "screw the score" and you would hit three wood or less off the tee for architectural integrity?

[Craig Sweet]

Ed Baker..."So what is the criteria (criterion) for obsolesence, ??"

Obsolesence is a MYTH!!

[Ed_Baker]

Thougtful responses gentlemen, thank you.

Mark Fine,

Actually, the master plan is in it's 10th season and with the tree removal,fairway widening and green expansion (reclaimation of original footprints) the original angles have been largely restored. But.... tricked up ?Maybe, the greens were designed for much slower speeds but they weren't any faster than we normally play them for the Mass. Open and we used the member-member pin positions. There is no question that if you hit the ball in the wrong spot on the greens it's impossible to two putt, but... if you have a short iron in your hand a good player should hit in the correct spot,no?

Tom Doak,

You are correct about the 5th green sir and the same guys that are advocating adding length most definitely would and will complain, because they are winning the add length campaign, it's only a matter of time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ed Baker,

I think TV, winter vacations and lunacy amongst the membership are the real culprits.

Everyone seems to forget that their course is a course for the members, NOT the PGA TOUR PROS, but, somehow, they think, that in order for their course to achieve credibility or notoriety in local/regional/national golfing circles, that it has to be diabolically difficult, and that usually translates to more distance, faster greens and deeper, denser rough.

There's an element within every club that feels that their golf course must mimic what's seen on TV every week, difficult golf courses that challenge the best players in the world.

I pointed out the exact same thing that you did when some wanted to lengthen a course that I'm very familiar with, AND, they wanted to make it more difficult, they wanted to increase the slope.

I pointed out that NOONE has broken par in qualifying for the club championship in over a decade, that a score of 8 to 10 over usually qualifies for the club championship, so, who are we trying to make the golf course harder for ?

When golfers vacation in Florida or the West, they meet other golfers from other clubs/areas.   Suddenly, bragging rights about how difficult their home course is, is the topic for discussion.  Armed with this newly acquired nonsense, they rush home to fuel the "difficulty" race, insisting on added length, faster greens and deeper, denser rough.

The cause takes on a life of its own, and led by golfers who can't break 90 or certainly 80, the club embarks upon a project to "beef up" the golf course.

It's insane.

Golf should be a challenging journey, requiring thought, that produces fun, not a survival of the fittest contest.

Sadly, most clubs have lost their way.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

I'll preface this thread with an admission that it smacks of being self serving, I apologize in advance.

I'm getting pretty tired of my home course and several other golden age courses in the area being denigrated by low handicap club players for their alleged  lack of length.

I went on a mini rant a few weeks ago when the Mass Open was held at my club and 1 player, the winner, broke par shooting 3 under in a 54 hole event, these were not touring pros, but good regional professionals and top ranked amatuers, not a bad field.

Our club championship was held this weekend the winner shot 73,73,74 that would be 10 over par on the championship card. The runner-up shot 75,75,75 for 225, 15 over par.

I know, to us in the treehouse par is not relevant, but these are the card and pencil guys I'm talking about, and still they talked about hitting wedge in to such and such hole and 8 iron in to another. Dudes !! Nobody scared par !!! What in hell does it matter what you hit in to any green if you keep making bogey. Didn't the golf course just stand the test of time .... again ??

So what is the criteria (criterion) for obsolesence, ?? I must be so damn old I'm missing something, these guys want to add length for what, so they all shoot 80, but they hit 7 iron instead of wedge and that's supposed to make the golf course more relevant? I don't get it.

Ed -

Your golf course is obsolete when people stop hinting for invitations to play...(And I'm not hinting/please don't misinterpret)

We have a "Nice members' course" that was once ranked as high as #3 in the state.  Now we can't even get raters to come see it as it is not the "New Flavor of the Year."  So, if the raters won't come (Or even worse, they schedule then cancel at the last minute), you're obsolete in the veneer of sneer of today:  "Been there, done that, have the Golf shirt to prove it!"

The above is fine by me.  I'd rather be a lot less popular in the rankings and less requested by governing organizations/charity outing events.  We have a ten year waiting list, and I'd rather see the people who went through the vetting process get to play more than the $500 a head one day wonders who tear the place to pieces...

Oh, we're 6,750 from the tips...

JWK