"The course doesn't favor any particular style of play"

[Eric_Terhorst]

Phil Mickelson said words to that effect about TPC Sawgrass the other day.

My questions are:

Is this a virtue in a course designed specifically to host tournament golf? 

Other than rewarding precision, do the big-time tourney courses that are also widely admired, like ANGC, Winged Foot, Merion, "favor a certain style of play" or not?

Do courses regarded as top-notch which do not often host "best golfers in the world," like Pine Valley, the courses at Bandon, or San Francisco have this characteristic? 

Is this a characteristic of all great courses--after all, to avoid boring or repetitive play, different challenges on different days are preferred, yes?

Thanks to Ran for the new format, and thank you for your comments!

[Adam Clayman]

Eric, It's an interesting posit. I'm not sure I'd agree with it completely because there are several holes that are constricted by trees. ( I have not seen the newest iteration). Dye sure does deserve a lot of credit for producing designs that rarely can be pigeonholed. In the case of TPC, the general use of trees is different than the Dye courses I'm familiar with, such as BWR. The difference could be described as penal versus strategic. Again, all generally speaking.

I'm not a fan of the look of the newly added water features. But, for some reason, the linear nature of the zero plane and sharp edges juxtaposes nature perfectly.

[Tom_Doak]

It's a generic compliment ... any architect would love to hear that. 

I'm not sure it's actually true of any course; there is always some architect bias creeping into the equation.  On the other hand, I'm not sure it isn't generally true of most courses.  Unless you've got 250-yard carries off the tees, the player at the top of his game tends to fare well on most any course.

[Garland Bayley]

Doesn't what Lefty said simply mean that Pete asks the player to bend it nearly an equal number of times to the left and to the right? I doubt he meant that the person with very low ball flight is equal to the person with very high ball flight on this course.

[Phil McDade]

I doubt he meant that the person with very low ball flight is equal to the person with very high ball flight on this course.

Yet "short" players (relative to their peers at the time) like Peete, Kite, Elkington (twice), Price, Janzen, Leonard, Sutton, Perks, Funk, and Ames have all won the Players at the TPC course. Most of these guys -- Price, Leonard, Peete, Elkington for sure -- would be considered (again, relative to their peers) low-ball flight players. (The Golf Channel  yesterday actually had a neat shot-by-shot comparison of the ball flights at the 17th of Tiger and Leonard, paired together, contrasting how different their ball flights were.)

[Garland Bayley]

Phil,

Notice I wrote very low ball flight. You will not find a professional golfer that would qualify as having a very low ball flight. Super Mex had a low ball flight, and said he couldn't compete at Augusta, because of it. I wonder how he would do at Sawgrass, since Pete asks the player to move it both right and left. Lee could turn it left, but clearly did not like to.

A person with a very low ball flight would meet his doom at the 17th, having to hit much more precise shots just to keep them dry.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Eric,

Great question but hard to answer. I agree with the comment that TPC forces certain shots, but balances them well.  And, despite the 17th, most greens allow the run in, although I have always wondered if the bumpy contours in front discourage it more than the opening encourages it. For the tour pro, its probably not a big discussion point.  I also think the course is one of the best testaments to Pat M's threads about how angles make a course more challenging.

We have had the "options" discussion before.  I personally believe that a hole with unlimted options can't be too strategic because there probably isn't penalty for picking any option.  However, a course like TPC that favors different types of shots over 18 holes while demanding (or gently suggesting at any rate) certain types of shots on individual holes is a lot better test of golf and more interesting.

[Phil McDade]

Phil,

Notice I wrote very low ball flight. You will not find a professional golfer that would qualify as having a very low ball flight. Super Mex had a low ball flight, and said he couldn't compete at Augusta, because of it. I wonder how he would do at Sawgrass, since Pete asks the player to move it both right and left. Lee could turn it left, but clearly did not like to.

A person with a very low ball flight would meet his doom at the 17th, having to hit much more precise shots just to keep them dry.

Garland:

But Eric's original post focused on tournament courses, and particularly the big-name tourneys. I've never played TPC, and from the looks of it, it relies a lot on water and forced carries for a lot of its defense, which has never been one of my favorite architectural traits on tournament courses. But. I do think TPC has developed as a course in which both the short and long hitters can win the Players Championship (Norman, when he was really long relative to his peers, Couples twice, Tiger, Duval, Sergio -- all long by any measure), and I've always thought that's a virtuous trait in any course.

[Carl Rogers]

If Cekja (spelling?) is any measure, the course is a hit the fairway style of play.

[Andy Troeger]

Garland:

I've never played TPC, and from the looks of it, it relies a lot on water and forced carries for a lot of its defense, which has never been one of my favorite architectural traits on tournament courses.

Having played it--I don't feel this is as accurate as it would appear on TV--at least the forced carry bit. There are a few--the 4th, 9th, 11th, and 17th, but that's not an extreme amount IMO. Even the water, which is present on just about every hole in some form, isn't in play as often as it appears especially for the professionals. A great deal of the impact of the water is psychological and leads to a lot of other tricky difficult situations coming from the greens and the rough. You see a lot of guys mess up the 16th bailing away from the water, ditto #14 and #18 by driving into the right rough. On #14, it would take a really awful drive for one of those guys to hit it in the water--its a lot more evident on the 18th. Now, I'm not saying there's not a lot of water in play, but I think it gets overplayed a bit due to the finishing three holes.

As mentioned, the variety of winners shows some versatility in terms of the golfers themselves and the golf course.

Garland,
I think most courses favor at least a moderate ball flight. There's a lot more trouble at most places on the ground (rough, bunkers, water, etc) than in the air, so something very low with signficant run-out would seem to be inherently harder. Courses in very windy locations are probably the exceptions to that. The ability to modify the height of a shot is a test that I think is fair to test.