[Jim Nugent]

But as to the main quesion, I think the PGA and USGA ought to build their own championship courses. Build 'em to have all the same features they setup historic courses to have. They would be shot-testing, back-breaking, sphincter tightening, unforgivng monsters. They can defend par to their hearts' delight.

Build 4 or 5 of them with a nice geographic spread. Open them to the public when not being used for a tournament. The PGA and the USGA can keep all the event profits.

All with the hope that they will leave historic courses alone.

Any suggestions for who should design these courses? 

[Phil Benedict]

Jim Nugent,

Obviously Rees Jones is the guy to do the Open courses.  I don't think there is an equivalent PGA doctor.

[BCrosby]

Jim -

The designer for my proposed championship rota would need to be someone who combined (a) an almost total lack of architectural imagination, with (b) an inability to grasp even the basics of a strategically designed hole.

I have several candidates in mind.

Bob 

[David Stamm]

Jim -

The designer for my proposed championship rota would need to be someone who combined (a) an almost total lack of architectural imagination, with (b) an inability to grasp even the basics of a strategically designed hole.

I have several candidates in mind.

Bob 

Oh Bob, I can only imagine who those might be!

[Kalen Braley]

Why not just go with Pete Dye?? 

I'm sure he can dream up some wicked stuff and make it a challenge for these guys. He already did so with Sawgrass...

[Chuck Brown]

How about not ever being abel to go back to the Old Course at St. Andrews for an Open?

How about the LA Open no longer being abel to use Riviera?

How about the Masters no longer being able to be played at ANGC?

Shall we have a Masters at a newly-configured TPC at Southwind?  The LA Open at Sherwood?  The Open at the Belfry?

I fully recognize that we have been losing courses that can no longer host majors due to obsolescence.  Prestwick, Merion, Maidstone, NGLA, and I say without hesitation that that is golf's loss.  It is true, to be sure, but I see no benefit in it.  None at all.  I don't derive one penny's worth of benefit if Titleist sells 1 million or 10 million new golf balls.

The equipment manufacturers are continuing to chase distance, etc.  What benefit is there to us?  We gain 5 yards while the tour pros gain 25 yards?

Golf is great because, to paraphrase Geoff Shackelford, its venues are the best, and most delicate, in all of sport.  I'd be thrilled to my toes if, next year, there was a rollback in technology such that they could put Prestwick back on the Open rota.

[David Stamm]

Guys, I want to clarify what exactly I was trying to say by starting this thread. When the setups are all the same, narrow fw's, penal rough, concrete greens, all the stuff we see at a major every year, would it matter if the tournaments where moved from the classics and put on venues that were MEANT TO HAVE THIS SORT OF SET UP TO BEGIN WITH. Obviously, the preservation of the classic courses is of the greatest interest of myself and others, but not by the organizations that vie to have these places host their tournaments. How can I say this? They are the ones that tell these clubs what needs to be done if they want to host the championship and the surgery begins. If they cared about the courses and the links to the past, than the obession of protecting par would not be an issue. Does the game of golf need this symetry of Tiger and others winning at the same clubs that Jones, Hagen, Hogan, Nicklaus etc. did?


Some have mentioned that baseball has Fenway and Wrigley and what that means. Those are not dynamic playing fields. They are all the same they have always been, more or less, for years. The dimensions don't change. In a way, they got it right. They have been able to preserve some of these parks for years by not allowing metal bats to be used rather than force the change of all the parks to accomodate them. By the USGA not doing their jobs in regards to regulating the games equipment, they have dictated that the fileds of play be changed to accomodate golf's "metal bats", the equipment, specifically the ball. Fine, that ship has sailed. Why not have these tournaments on courses that are specifically designed to accomodate the conditions they seem to think is neccessasry to challenge today's players and stop betraying the stewardship they have bequeathed upon themselves of protecting the history of the game which includes the courses from it's illustrious past?

[Phil Benedict]

Sawgrass would be a perfect US Open venue.  Winning score isn't too low but there are some birdie opportunities out there.  Great tension down the stretch.  Of course it's all the water that creates the tension.  That much water would be out of place outside of Florida.

[Jim Sweeney]

Phil:

The courses owned by the City of Baltimore are leased to and run by the Baltimore Municipal Golf Corporation, which is a non-profit. It is very successful. I don't understand why other municipal golf systems have not made similar arrangements. But the point is that the USGA could do non-profit golf if it was set up properly.

The USGA has been offered opportunities to take over golf courses, and each time has declined. Operating golf courses is not part of the USGA's charter. Additionally it is unlikely the USGA wants to compete against municipalities, resorts and daily fee owners for all sorts of reasons. That could change, I suppose. But as long as there are a steady supply of invitations from courses to host the USGA 13 national championships, and there are, it seems unlikely.

Chris Garrett:

I see you are a newbie, and I welcome you. But I have to take you to task on your Olympic/Payne Stewart comment.

You apparently do not know that the man who set up the golf course, Tom Meeks, apologized for that hole location. He said he took a gamble- went against his experience and instincts- and made a mistake.

Yes the USGA makes the Open courses difficult- the intention is that the US Open, our national championship, should be the most difficult test the players face all year. You may disagree with that philosophy, and that's OK.

It is not the USGA's goal to "trick up" the course. When the intent is to put the course on edge, sometimes it will go over the top, as it did at Shinnecock last time around.

That hole location was not an effort to "trick up" the course. It was a mistake. It happens. We learn, and then move on. Look at what is happening now with the graduated rough and pushing gallery ropes back so really wild shots are not rewarded. When we get to Chambers Bay some of the fairways will be 80 to 100 yards wide. From what I read and hear many on this site and elsewhere in golf are very positive about these things and the general direction being taken for the US Open. Let's not continue to debate one hole location in one tournament that was a mistake and has no meaning to the evolution of the USGA and the Open!

In general:

Pinehurst, Oakmont, Augusta, and many other great courses have been continuously modified either by or in the spirit of their founder's vision all through their histories. From gutties to haskels, hickory to steel, sheep to power mowers, rain to irrigation systems, from ex-caddies taking time off from their head pro jobs to golf-a-trons "graduating" from golf "academies," the game changes and courses follow suit. Even if the USGA and R&A rolled back eqipment specs to 1990, or 80, or 70, or 30, golf would still evolve and so would courses. We would always find something to complain about, a fun (for some), though generally useless, exercise. BUt Hootie had it right, it turns out. And I for one, think Donald and Alister and Alfred would have agreed that their courses must change to meet the times, while maintaining each one unique chalenge and tone.

The classics will always remain, I hope, in the USGA's stable of proven Open venues. It would be a disservice to the game to find them lost to Open history, because of what they can teach the golfing public about the game and its lore. Even if they are not the same courses they were on the day they were opened. What course is? And, the players love them.

[Phil Benedict]

Jim Sweeney,

I realize the USGA isn't getting into the course development and operation.  My point in responding to Bob Crosby's post is that I think it could work as a business model.

[Phil Benedict]

Does the game of golf need this symetry of Tiger and others winning at the same clubs that Jones, Hagen, Hogan, Nicklaus etc. did?

Hagen, Nicklaus and Hogan never set foot on Bethpage Black but someone as perceptive as John Kavanaugh considers BB the best Open ever.   Americans don't care that much about history, anyway.

[David Stamm]

Does the game of golf need this symetry of Tiger and others winning at the same clubs that Jones, Hagen, Hogan, Nicklaus etc. did?

Hagen, Nicklaus and Hogan never set foot on Bethpage Black but someone as perceptive as John Kavanaugh considers BB the best Open ever.   Americans don't care that much about history, anyway.

Phil, that's exactly what I was trying to delicately allude to. I agree, I don't think they care either. So what difference would it make? My interest would be that the classics stop getting butchered in the name of history when I'm not sure most care anyway. They don't know the difference.

[Tom_Doak]

Personally, I think it will be a great loss if places like Merion and Oakmont become obsolete as major championship venues.  I have two reasons.

1.  I hardly watch golf on TV at all, but I watch major championships on these old courses intently.  It is the ONLY venue we as architects have to see how much the game has changed over the previous 10 or 20 years since a championship was last played at the given club.  I remember vividly Hale Irwin's approach shots into the last three holes of the Open at Winged Foot in 1974 -- he was hitting 2-irons and 4-woods -- and I remember Davis Love hitting mid-iron approaches to the same holes, and I remember that Phil should've hit 3-iron, 6-iron instead of his driver into the tents.  What better example is there of how the game is changing??  You can't tell a damned thing if they move all the big events to 7800-yard venues ... and maybe that is one reason they're going that way, so the public will be less aware of how badly the governing bodies have screwed up with their lack of foresight and lack of balls.

2.  For non-architects, the classic venues are touchstones to the history of the game, the kind of thing that gets people really interested in golf.  Every time an Open was at Oakmont or Merion, we would get a history lesson about Hogan and Jones and Trevino and Nicklaus.  But who is going to become captivated by the history of golf this year with the Open at Torrey Pines?  Absolutely no one.

P.S.  The Open at Bethpage Black was the greatest ever, only for people with a memory of less than ten years.  I guess that includes John K.

[John Moore II]

Tom Doak-I agree with your last line about Bethpage. For some reason, I find a course where players are unable to reach the fairway on holes is not the best course to test a players game.

--I feel the 1999 Open at Pinehurst was better and had far more drama coming down the stretch than any other Open I can remember from the past 10-15 years.

[Phil Benedict]

Bethpage Black had a unique vibe because it's public.  Let's see if Torrey Pines can match it.  My guess is it will different in the way California is different from NY (or Huckaby from Mucci).

[John Kavanaugh]

I only say Bethpage was the finest modern US Open because it did the most for the greatest number of golfers.  I just believe that the international reach and tournament drama provided by the design of Torrey will do even more.

[Phil_the_Author]

Phil,

You stated that, "Hagen, Nicklaus and Hogan never set foot on Bethpage Black but someone as perceptive as John Kavanaugh considers BB the best Open ever..."

Those three may have never had the pleasure and privilege to play the Black, but let's see some of those who have.

In 1938 Sam Snead set the course record with the first round under par when he shot a one under par round of 70. Two years later, in an exhibition match against Byron Nelson just 6 weeks after he lost the PGA to Byron in a playoff, he would match that course recvord with another 70. Unfortunately
Nelson set a new course record with a 69.

"Lighthorse" Harry Cooper, Jimmy Hines, Paul "Little Poison" Runyon and many other of the great names of the game fromthe 1930's to 50's played there regularly.

In the late 1980's to 1990's, with the senior Tour (as it was called then) alive and populated by many of the great players in history, the Monday of tournament week found a large contingent playing the Black rather than Meadow Brook.

Golf Digest once asked a number of major figures in the game to send them their list of what they considered the 10 greatest golf courses they ever played. Dave Marr included the Black.

Phil, American golfers may not have a real sense of the history of the game, but I think you need to brush up on your history of Bethpage and the Black...

[Chris Garrett]

Chris Garrett:

I see you are a newbie, and I welcome you. But I have to take you to task on your Olympic/Payne Stewart comment.

You apparently do not know that the man who set up the golf course, Tom Meeks, apologized for that hole location. He said he took a gamble- went against his experience and instincts- and made a mistake.

Yes the USGA makes the Open courses difficult- the intention is that the US Open, our national championship, should be the most difficult test the players face all year. You may disagree with that philosophy, and that's OK.

It is not the USGA's goal to "trick up" the course. When the intent is to put the course on edge, sometimes it will go over the top, as it did at Shinnecock last time around.

That hole location was not an effort to "trick up" the course. It was a mistake. It happens. We learn, and then move on. Look at what is happening now with the graduated rough and pushing gallery ropes back so really wild shots are not rewarded. When we get to Chambers Bay some of the fairways will be 80 to 100 yards wide. From what I read and hear many on this site and elsewhere in golf are very positive about these things and the general direction being taken for the US Open. Let's not continue to debate one hole location in one tournament that was a mistake and has no meaning to the evolution of the USGA and the Open!

Jim,

Thank you for the welcome.  Don't worry about "taking me to task," that is what we are here for and the reason that quality discussion comes about.  I'm fully aware that Meeks offered an apology after the Open at Olympic.  You mentioned yourself the condition of the greens at Shinnecock.  The greens and run-offs at Pinehurst in 1999 were much along the same lines until damp weather eased the playing conditions.  Also mentioned in this thread were the forced carries at Bethpage.  These are just some examples.

As you state yourself, the USGA's goal is to create the toughest test of golf that they can.  Sometimes, often times, they push the envelope too far.  The USGA has, for all intensive purposes, been hell bent on protecting Old Man Par.  In creating the toughest and most difficult test of golf that they can, the USGA squeezes the life right out of these old classics.  By narrowing the fairways, growing deep, thick rough, and stressing the greens, much of the strategic merit (i.e. the heart and soul of what makes them great) is lost.

A tough, difficult golf course (or course set-up) is not synonymous with a good test of golf, especially when the character of the course disappears.  My hope is that the USGA begins to convert to a mission of identifying the best player in the world, rather than challenging the players with the toughest test that they can find.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

I agree with all of your points. For those and other reasons major tournaments will continue to be held at historic courses for the foreseeable future. That's the way the world of golf works.

David is presenting, however, an interesting thought experiment. Which is, if you are going to set up these historic courses with narrow fw's, greens that stimp at 12, knee deep rough, new trees, etc., (a) how much of the flavor of these historic courses are we really getting? and (b) if the overridding goal of the USGA, the PGA and ANGC is to clamp down on scoring, why bother mucking with historically important courses?

Because if clamping down on scoring is your goal, there are much better ways to achieve it. You could play these events on purpose-built golf courses. It would be a win/win. Such courses would serve as better clamps on scoring and there would be less damage done to important courses.  

These purpose-built courses would also be very, very dull affairs. And that illustrates pretty graphically the point of David's thought experiment. Under current setup philososphies, you are dumbing down or eliminanting many of the very features that make these courses the best courses in the US.

There is two hard and one easy solutions to the problem. The hard solutions are to keep mucking around with historic course or build these special tournament courses. The easy solution is to change setup philosophy.

Bob      

[John Kavanaugh]

Could someone please explain to me why Pine Valley continues to maintain and lengthen their course to modern championship standards when they hold no USGA or PGA championships?  What makes you think other great classic courses would not follow their lead even if they bowed out of the rota?  I believe that members only allow changes that they desire and I for one love playing them.

[Phil Benedict]

Philip,

I had no intention to denigrate the Black, merely to point out that it had no major championship pedigree prior to 2002.

In point of fact I think Bethpage's history is far more compelling than the typical private club that hosts US Opens.  The Depression era origins; Robert Moses; the years of decline followed by the renewal spearheaded by the USGA. 

[Ken Moum]

Could someone please explain to me why Pine Valley continues to maintain and lengthen their course to modern championship standards when they hold no USGA or PGA championships? 

That's an interesting question.

How much has Pine Valley actually lengthened the course?

It's still under 7,000 yards from the back tees I think.

Augusta is almost 7,500.

Torrey is 7,600

Bethpage is 7,366

Ken

[TEPaul]

David:

I missed this thread of yours (is there any question why? ).

Your question on your initial post is a wonderful one and one that probably should be considered in a long-term and very fundamental way.

Even if some of us or most of us have probably had some issues in one way or another with some of the things the R&A and USGA do and have done, I think we should recognize that those two "amateur" organizations have more control of various aspects of a world-wide sport than any other major sport in the world. I think the reason they still have that and probably will for the foreseeable future is they truly have done a masterful job of preserving and promoting this thing about the game most people might call "tradition". At least they've both done a masterful job of promoting and preserving the "idea" of it.

I don't think there is any question that if they decided to completely drop all those old fashioned classic courses that have held so many US Opens over the years that a truly important link with the past and with American golf's tournament "traditions" would be lost and gone. I think they certainly realize that.

But the one who may be the most interesting that way and particularly why, I think could be Tiger Woods, even if it's not likely he will ever actually discuss all his feelings about that.

I'll get into why I say that some other time.

[Phil_the_Author]

Ken,

Bethpage Black is 7,366 but it has NEVER been played from that distance a single time.

That figure is arrived at by using the far back tee on 15 which was put in for the Open and then they decided that the hole would be unfair from there. It has never been used in competition nor regular play. Also, it includes the OLD championship tee on 7. Instead of a 500 yard par-4, as in 2002, that tee makes the hole measure 600 yards.

In addition, the 9th has a new back tee that will first be used in the Open... maybe. Also, the 13th has been lengthened by some 65 yards to 660. That hole will PLAY a bit shorter than the distance...

And yet the course can be so penal that it PLAYS far longer than 7,366 from the tips...

[Steve Kline]

Could someone please explain to me why Pine Valley continues to maintain and lengthen their course to modern championship standards when they hold no USGA or PGA championships? 

That's an interesting question.

How much has Pine Valley actually lengthened the course?

It's still under 7,000 yards from the back tees I think.

Augusta is almost 7,500.

Torrey is 7,600

Bethpage is 7,366

Ken

JK - let me know when PV cuts their fairway widths in half, moving greens and flattening greens because there won't be enough pin placements at Open speed. The problem is that the USGA doesn't always make minor modifications.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()