The Golf Course as opponent

[Kyle Harris]

Most consider golf a sport. To me the notion of sport indicates that some opponent has the ability to impede the direct progress of the player in the game or action of the sport.

I think the most fun and desirable designs put the golf course squarely in this role.

Contrarily, when maintenance or design takes away the golf course's sporting chance to fight back I find the course dull and banal. This is the equivalent to the hunter fencing in his prey before the shot, or worse, tying it up.

For the purpose of advancing good design and the concept of golf as a sport, it is imperative that at some point the golf world embraces the notion that on a certain day, the golfer may be placed in an impossible situation by simply teeing the ball up on a particular hole. This fact is not unfair or undesirable, it is sporting.

Too often, the essence of fairness and fun are bastardized into meaning possible and easy. How often are the sporting advantages that the golf course possess rendered useless or non-existant by setups that fail to utilize the full design of a green or hole? How often do maintenance practices preclude that contours too severe should be eliminated, taking away a fundamental challenge the original design intended?

This was most recently exemplified at Medinah this past weekend, where a similar result could have been garnered by parametrizing a scoring system based on ball striking on a driving range, and then holding a seeded match play putting contest based on the results of that score.

We saw what happens when a golf course loses it's sporting chance. Bunkers became havens for recovery, angles of attack became nonsense with the only real penalty for firing right at a flag being a short side miss into gnarly rough. A challenge, which again, could have been simulated off the golf course.

Golf is losing its sporting way with setups and championships like this. It's high time to take stock of our values, and just what skill sets make up a "championship golfer."

[Kyle Harris]

So let's take stock in these values.

What do you think the championship calibre golfer should be capable of?

How should the golf course examine these capabilities?

[Adam Clayman]

What do you think the championship calibre golfer should be capable of?

It's my observation that the pampered nature of PRO golf, as it relates to the courses maintenance, is not anywhere near the same game, as we mere mortals are asked to overcome.

Playing from crap lies, on clumpy ground would be more taxing on the pro. Both physically and emotionally.

Having perfect conditions throughout the course does not test these guys very much. And clearly, having them repeatedly recover from the same condition also tests little. i.e. long rough surrounds.

[Jordan Wall]

Kyle, I dont think maintenace is the problem.

The winning scores were (I think, off the top of my head)
Masters: 280 (-8)
U.S. open 285 (+5)
British 272 (-18)
PGA 272 (-18)

At Augsta there is almost no rough yet players had a more difficult time on this course then 2 of the other 3 majors (and Augusta isnt really supposed to be a US Open anyways).  The way the course was set-up, I think angles were challenged, especially with such bold green complexes.  Without these tough, windy greens, I dont think Augusta would have been much different then Medina or Hoylake, where the greens are a lot less severe.
At the US Open, the rough is so thick and where angles are so important to having a good shot, the long rough makes for a good setup.  If WF played to it's normal par-72 the scores would have been right around par, which is IMO where scores should be.  But think about it, WF has nasty greens to.
Now, Medina and Hoylake dont really offer much with defending par with their respective greens.  For this reason many more putts were holed and scores went a lot lower, and because more putts had less break angles didnt really need to be challenged.  Tiger Woods hitting long irons into almost every hole yet still blowing away the field proves this IMO.

In the end, I do not think maintenace or course setup is really the problem.
I mean, these guys are so good that scores are going to be somewhat low one way or another.
I think the real thing that makes some major courses better than others is bolder greens and green complexes.
As showed by the toughest two majors this year, we need more of them to challenge these guys...

[Kyle Harris]

Jordan and Adam,

What makes those guys so good?

What should be considered good?

How would architecture and setup challenge your opinions on what is good?

The attempt is to determine just what it is we are challenging in tournament golf and how the golf course and course setup defines those values.