[RJ_Daley]

To my way of thinking, Chuck Brown has the best take on this.

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.

Followed by Tom Doak:

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.

It seems to me that any institution must have its' "touchstones" with historical venues not to mention or leave out traditions of ritual.  As for touchstones of venues, if we can not harken back to the historical places for their sense of what foundational activity went on that we revere in the institution, and evoke in the preservation of ideals as we go forward, then the entire institution looses. I think.

We swear in the President on the Capitol steps.  It would denigrate the institution (even more than Bush has done) if we started swearing in the Prez at the new Washington stadium.  They elect a Pope in the Papal conclave in the Sistine Chapel.  Having the conclave at the Rome Cavalieri Hilton wouldn't cut it.  They re-enact the Battle of Gettysburg every year, on site, then they read the Address, so as not to forget how it all played out and what the sacrifices were that got us here.  These are all touchstones of historical significance.

So, if you want to have golf go the way of other big venue driven sports that are loosing their relational values to the old game ideals, for the sake of maximizing profits in bright new stadia with all the amennities and TPC-like golf course puzzle works, fine.  I think that is where golf is headed due to profit motives of the assoications and tours and the B&I techno onslaught.  But, then when golfers loose their sense of playing propriety and ettiquete, don't care or revere their forbearers ideals in the game, or you see some players juicing, or doing unethical or unseemly things, blame it on the loss of those historical touchstones, IMHO.

[Tony Ristola]

What we would lose is some form of historical comparison and the talk that going back generates. That would be a big loss. Surely the conditions are hugely different, equipment too, but it's always interesting to see the footage and hear the commentary.

It provides perspective, and of course these courses are proven.

Could they find replacements? Surely. With 17,000 courses, there is a group worthy of taking the mantle. New classics. Ugh... much better than Torrey Pines. What we would lose is the rich histoire associated with the old classics (redundant).

I'd asked before... if Pinehurst No.2 were built today, would anyone notice? Not likely.
Winged Foot? Not likely.
Riviera? Not likely.
Southern Hills? Nope.
Baltusrol? Nope.
Oakmont? Hmmmmmm?
Which could be a thread on its own.  What classic courses would be recognized as truly great in today's saturated marketing environment? Courses that would stay in the rankings list for decades... not be hot for a couple years and then be gone. Would raters really be able to recognize the genius of such places when stripped of their rich history?
Merion at 6,500 yards?

[Jim Nugent]

How would the top PGA and Euro golfers do in a 72 hole tournament at Pine Valley?  From the tips, course setup as is, tough pins if you like. 

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Would the game suffer from no longer using the classics?  More importantly, how will the game suffer using Torrey Pines and Chambers Bay? 

Hazeltine, when first used, was a debacle.  What was that? 1970?  The Open went back to Hazeltine and Payne Stewart won, but there seems to be no clamor to go back there.  Now Torrey gets its chance.  The views are great but will it present an appropriate venue?  We will know in a few weeks.  Then the Open comes to Chambers Bay in 2015.  The local discussion about infrastructure and organization has already begun.  Following that we will find out whether an 8 year old golf course really has the chops to hold an Open. 

I have to believe that the reaons the Torreys and Chambers of the world get the tournament is not about the venue as much as it is about being on the West Coast which will allow for east coast prime time TV and that the chances for weather delays in La Jolla or in Tacoma in June are non existent(barring global warming effects). 

This is big business, it is not about the golf course. 

One more thing.  Thank god for HD TV as future generations are going to get a much better look at conditions and architecture with the higher resolutions. 

[Peter Wagner]

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? 

Hi Chuck,

I am in agreement with the sentiment of your post but it is worth noting that the LA Open was not always played at Riviera.  So based on the logic that we both agree on, should we move it back to Wilshire?   



Photo courtesy of Tommy Naccarato.

- Peter

PS.  Hmm, not a tree in sight!  Check out the cars.

[RJ_Daley]

Even though I strongly believe that an event of the magnitude of the National Open should not abandon the classic and historic old venues, I don't think it is an absolute proposition.  In my post above, I may have given the impression that I don't believe that new great golf courses that are in sympathetic design to the features and strategies of the old classics where the open has been held, can't be built anew.  When a great one comes along, it should be added to the rota.  I just don't think the older classics that can and do still hold the event should be abandoned, as we don't abandon our old touchstones of history.  

IN that regard, I do think that the B&I has moved the needle so much that the game is caught between two eras, and the powers that be who set the courses up are nearly stuck in the mind frame of the typical narrowed FW fast but not so undulating greens, etc.   They had resisted that model to some extent at Pinehurst #2 and thus were able to bridge the gap between the torture chamber bowling alley rough infested set up, and the more classic course that #2 is.  They will have one more opportunity to do an atypical set up with Chambers Bay.  In my mind, the advent of CB is a homage to a classic links-like course that gives the USGA a chance to reach back to classic era golf with the presentation on something brand new, and built for the crowds etc.  It seems to be a bridge between the TPC model and the older classic seaside venue, even if the features are manufactured, not natural to the site.

There are obviously new courses that we can think of that have classic qualities that we would like to see the National Championship contested upon.  You know all the usual suspects.  But, they are for the most part built in remote locations, don't have the grounds or infrastructure, etc.  They tend to be either wealthy small membership enclaves, or the Bandon Resorts, Sand Hills, Ballyneal remote of the country.  So, the respect for the classic design and presentation is there with some archies, but the realistic ability to hold the toon-a-mints are not there.  

In my mind the jury is still out on the Erin Hills selection.  That is a definite wait and see...  It has many facets that I think still need analysing.  Is it an homage to classic era golf? aaaah I'd say at this point not so much,  more study is necessary for me to make a fair opinion.  

[Steve Lang]

 

The game would not suffer.  Some people's mental health would suffer, that they are no longer members of or associated regionally or financially with the nexus major sites of "the game of golf."  It was one thing 50-100 years ago.. but not anymore, there are many venues that could host important tourneys like the US Open.. but will they ever be allowed to?  It appears, only as appeasement, here.. here's some scraps most-of-america ..

No one is saying that the Masters will ever change venue, but when its name changes to The Viagra Masters, maybe it will be time..

Certainly the Olympics have survived moving out of Greece..  establish the playing field and let the competitors compete.  The fans will come.. the game will have new life, new memories and experiences that will sustain it.

I could care $0.02 whether Merion, Oakmont, Oakland HIlls, or Winged Foot ever host another US Open..  fore!

[JESII]

How would the top PGA and Euro golfers do in a 72 hole tournament at Pine Valley?  From the tips, course setup as is, tough pins if you like. 

There are several wedge shots for those guys, so plenty of birdies, but the par fives are three shotters so there will be no easy birdies...my guess 8 or 9 under if the course is real firm, and high teens if it's soft...

[Sean_A]

East Lake, a course I know well, has suffered because it is unable to extend fw's to their normal widths solely because it hosts the Tour Championship. Not to mention a number of greens and tees that have been relocated or changed over the last 15 years solely to toughen the course for the pros.

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.

Bob

 

Bob

There is no need to invent new major championship venues.  The old ones are plenty happy to alter theirs to suit the purpose. 

I think it would be a shame to eliminate the old courses from the rota because these are practically the only ones I will watch.  On the other hand, I would hate to see other clubs go the way of Oakland Hills.  Some good changes and some bad ones.  The reason the changes aren't all good is because clubs seek out extra yardage or accomodating stupid fast greens almost in isolation of what makes courses good and golf interesting.

I wonder how folks feel about the UK major venues.  They seem to have constantly changed themselves and with much less noise from the peanut gallery.  Sure, some folks have belly ached about TOC and Hoylake, but at least some of these changes made Hoylake BETTER imo. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()