[Patrick_Mucci]

At the recent USOPEN at BPB, some of the tour players visited and played nearby golf courses.

Many, if not most of the members following these groups were impressed by the quality of the play, by the best golfers in the world.

Typically, when the round was over, members inquired about the merits of their course and what the pros thought could be done to improve it.

Not surprisingly, comments were made that the courses needed to be lengthened, that they needed to have more memorable, LONG par 4's.

Keep in mind that some of these fellows were carrying their drives 300+ yards, rendering par 5's as modest par 4's.
520 yards may take most three good shots, but the best players in the world are capable of driver/4-iron, or better.

Some members said, well, if the best players in the world think we need to lengthen our golf course, then we should do so, ASAP.

Bear in mind, that tour quality players usually show up to play these courses the day after every third lunar or solar eclipse.
But, the damage has been done, the seed planted in the membership, and the idea takes on a life of its own.

So, if you've been foolish enough to let them in  ,
What's the next line of defense  

How do you undo the Masters influence coupled with advice to go LONG ?

Should GCA participation be required for all board and green committee members ??

[Dave_Miller]

Pat:
You are so right.  Do not let them in.  
How many courses are ruined by this type of thinking.  More length, more length, more length.  
Of course the Pro's will say this.
But the course is for the members not to please a few tour pros who will never come this way again.
While everyone wants their course to be highly thought of it is absolutely frightening when amateur architects start talking in the grill room and the next thing you know in come the bulldozers, etc., etc.
Just hope these people learn and don't get in positions of authority.
GCA as a requirement for green committee members I would endorse whleheartedly.

Fairways and Greens,

Dave

[ziggy]

Given that most of these guys think Dr. Mackenzie was a proctologist, I wouldn't worry overmuch.

How are you Pat?

Best,

Rick

At the recent USOPEN at BPB, some of the tour players visited and played nearby golf courses.

Many, if not most of the members following these groups were impressed by the quality of the play, by the best golfers in the world.

Typically, when the round was over, members inquired about the merits of their course and what the pros thought could be done to improve it.

Not surprisingly, comments were made that the courses needed to be lengthened, that they needed to have more memorable, LONG par 4's.

Keep in mind that some of these fellows were carrying their drives 300+ yards, rendering par 5's as modest par 4's.
520 yards may take most three good shots, but the best players in the world are capable of driver/4-iron, or better.

Some members said, well, if the best players in the world think we need to lengthen our golf course, then we should do so, ASAP.

Bear in mind, that tour quality players usually show up to play these courses the day after every third lunar or solar eclipse.
But, the damage has been done, the seed planted in the membership, and the idea takes on a life of its own.

So, if you've been foolish enough to let them in  ,
What's the next line of defense  

How do you undo the Masters influence coupled with advice to go LONG ?

Should GCA participation be required for all board and green committee members ??

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

Do memberships listen to celebrity or reason ?

[Jeff Mingay]

Essex G&CC in Windsor, Ont. hosted the Canadian Senior Open last week and, in my opinion, Tom Kite made some very irresponsible comments following his pro-am round about the course being outdated. He said bunkers aren't in play and need to be moved downrange (not in play for who?) and several holes should be lengthened (why? Essex sets up perfectly for the club's membership.) Kite even claimed he knew Donald Ross, Essex' architect, would do so if he were alive today -- move bunkers and lengthen holes.

Well, of course, the following day, Kite's comments come out in the newpapers and I hear a number of Essex members attending the tournament questioning Bruce Hepner's master restoration paln for the course in light of Kite's comments. "Why does Hepner want to put bunkers 200 yards off the tee back in? Tom Kite says they're not in play."

"Why is Bruce against moving the green back at the 501 yard par 5? We can gain 30 yards there, and Kite says we need more length."

Again, Essex sets up perfect for the club's membership at 6,703 yards par 71. In the club's 100 year history, the pros have visited three times. Should Essex listen to Tom Kite and attempt to set up the course for players of his ability? Logic suggests the answer is "no".

But Pat's right. The real answer is to keep the pros away. I still contend that Deane Beman was on to something with his TPC Stadium course idea. Let the pros play in 8,000 yard long "stadiums" so we can leave classic courses like Essex alone, for the average players -- players of all ages, gender and abilities -- to enjoy.

[Evan Fleisher]

Very well said Jeff!

If people would only realize exactly whay you said...why set-up/destroy these courses so that the smallest percentage of the golfing public, who visits these courses once in a blue moon can play it?

fuuuughetaboutit!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

The issue of length takes on a life of its own, especially when a name touring pro touts the addition of length as the primary method for improving the course.

As you said, for who ?

Interestingly enough, I've never heard a touring pro suggest that a course should be restored to its original design, obliterating all the quilt like changes fostered by green committees, boards and presidents over the years.

Adding length, while retaining the design integrity of a hole is a worthwhile consideration, but looking at length alone, as the criteria for improvement of a hole and the golf course can't be a favorable direction.

Yet, its tough for "a member" to go toe to toe with a recognized world class golfer on this issue.  But, somewhere along the way someone has to ask why length would benefit the hole, and who would benefit ?

Couple a touring pros statement with a point in the direction of ANGC's recent work, and it's a tough argument for a member to win.

[john stiles]

I agree with Jeff's endorsement of TPC 'stadiums' for professionals and have posted before that the USGA should also avoid having the men's US Open at any 'new' classic venues.

USGA is up to their neck in subtly or not so subtly changing classic courses through the years. Thankfully, there  is something of a US Open rota.  Maybe USGA should build US Open stadiums.

This isn't just about the professionals as even the better amateurs are hitting well past any bunkers at many classics.  The better amateurs end up being committee chairman, club presidents, etc.   I am afraid many classic courses will fall under the knife sooner or later.  Some at this site may not be aware but the better amateurs / club members are bombing it past bunkers and hazards.

It is still coming back to reeling in the ball and limiting technology.

Then, I get my new Golfweek with all the ads about new balls and my renewal for the USGA in the same day.  Then, I see one of those damnable Titleist NXT ads about the golf ball.  Then you hear or see posted how much money the USGA makes from the men's US Open and the remember the recent USGA maximum head size fiasco.

However,  when I pay my USGA dues,  I will be sending some more 'hope' to the brains in blue.  

John Stiles

[Jeff Mingay]

You might be onto something John, in that if the USGA continues to allow the golf ball to travel farther and farther they'd be well-advised to built their own "US Open Stadiums". What's the alternative, on the verge of 350 yard teeshots?

[john stiles]

Jeff,

When you consider the number of PGA events, senior PGA events, 'big' time college events, the 'better' amateur events, etc. and the fact that most courses only host one large event per year,   the number of courses involved is quite large.  You could also consider that tournaments move after several years for a variety of reasons bringing more courses into the picture.   The pressure for lengthening, repositioning bunkers and greens continues even though many classics have already been restored.

While many tourneys have been moved to modern courses, there is also the effect of courses trying to keep up with their neighbors (competition).

If you keep the old tees and just build new tees or extend old tees,  you can probably keep the strategy of Tillinghast, Raynor, Macd, MacK, Ross, et al.   You start moving bunkers, greens, etc. and the course architecture can be lost.

The grandkids will tire of hitting 9 irons and wedges all of the time and flying over the hazards when they become golfers.

The benefit (!?) of the 'long ball' and technology  IS  moving down the ladder to 'lesser' players.  Keeping the pros away may help for a brief time.  A periodic adjustment by the USGA for the  'The Ball'  would be better.

Best wishes for Bruce Hepner and Essex,
John Stiles

[Patrick_Mucci]

John STiles,

You raise a valid point, that the exposure to the better players is broadening, thus the isolation or immunity factor is diminishing.

But, when touring pros visit, a quantum leap takes place.

Members who struggle to reach a par 5 in three are shocked to see these fellows do it with a drive and 8-iron.

Somehow, they translate this to: their course is inadequate.
And, work needs to be done now to bring it up to a new competitive level.

It seems that it would boil down to "The Ball" and "Implements" but as time goes by, doubt and disappointment increase on my part.

[Dave_Miller]

Pat:
I'm afraid a lot of memberships would listen to celebrity and not necessarily reason.  
Many times I have heard people tallking about changing golf courses for what they think would be a good idea with no clue as to why, the history or the reason for why something was done a particular way.
I earlier told of an incident where, on a plane returning from the Masters, I overheard a conversation between two people who wanted to change a golf course.  This conversation had as a common theme that the changes would; A- Fit their game and B- Some Tour pro had played there and made similar comments.  When I asked what Club they belonged to I was shocked to hear they were talking about one of the great layouts in Pennsylvania.  
Too many amateur member/architects take something said to them by a tour pro as gospel and this isn't always the case.
Best
Dave

[Tony Ristola]

Jeff, great first post.

Is this John Stiles of Cabo fame?

[Joel_Stewart]

I agree that these tour players are in a league of their own butttttt have to argue that many people including these really young high school kids can really hit it a long way.  The point being its not just tour players who are long, and they are accurate as well.

I don't have an answer, just making a point.

Pat:  What happens when it becomes common place to hit 3 wood on the 1st at GCGC (on to the green) and 8 iron on #2? When do you take action?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joel,

I hit 8-iron at # 2 frequently.
As to # 1, the risk reward with the spine, bunker and right side rough remain, though the ability to navigate to the green with a 3-wood diminishes the impact of some of the features.

I think the short holes will retain their architectual merit/challenge better than the medium to long holes.

I'd like to see # 5 with more greenside bunkering, and I think the 6th and 8th tees could be lengthened from their current location.

Fortunately, GCGC usually gets a fair wind, which can be a significant factor in playing/defending the golf course.

GCGC also has its share of full or partial fairway cross bunkering.  # 4, 5?, 8, 9, 10, 11?, 13, and 15.

The course has resisted scoring very well over the years, but, that could all change if the distance trend continues.

[Tim Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Your topic is fresh in my mind.

Yesterday I followed a professional golfer, someone good enough to have won a couple majors, play a world ranked course from tees over 7,000 yards.

Today I played at one of the great 6,000 yard venues, Dooks.

Based on what I saw, I'd say it would be far better to keep elite players off the classic courses.  Clearly, they play a totally different game.

If anyone really thinks the golf technology arms race makes any sense, I'd recommend a visit to Dooks.  It might be only 6,000 yards, but the game doesn't get any better.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()