[Kalen Braley]

Given that we were 1 missed putt away from having one of the best playoffs known to modern golf...a 5 way playoff that would have included Steve Stricker, Ernie Els, Padraig Harrington, and Tiger Woods..oh yeah and the party spoiler Slocum. We can now forget Torrey Pines for only giving us a one horse and one pony (Rocco) playoff...this would have been the mother of all playoffs.

Doesn't this now suggest that Liberty National must have some of the best architecture in the world to lead to this result?

Discuss!!

[David Stamm]

Doesn't this now suggest that Liberty National must have some of the best architecture in the world to lead to this result?

Discuss!!

No. It doesn't mean anything.

[mike_malone]

 Your argument died when Slocum won.

[David_Elvins]

No doubt it is good architecture but not Great.  For great architecture you would need a six person play off that included Tiger, Harrington, Norman, Nicklaus, Palmer and TEPaul. 

[Adam Clayman]

Anyone can build a hard golf course.

How great is that?

Awhile back, there was a comment made about people's opinions and whether someone felt their opinion was better than someone else's.
This week I had two people, on different days at different courses opine to me about how they feel about two of the best prairie courses. The first opinion came from a guy who loves Bayside and yet HATES Wild Horse. When asked why the dislike, the justification was as expected, "Because the greens won't hold a shot".
The other opinion came yesterday from a life long elderly golfer who can still get it around pretty well. Out of the blue he mentions he got to play Sand Hills last month and how in no way did he feel it was the tenth best course in the world. He made reference to seeing the list. I assumed it was in the clubhouse or pro shop in Mullen. I asked him how many courses on that list he had played. The answer..."none". But his justification was that there was no way because it wasn't like a Doral in Florida with water and palm trees. 

It is scary how easily our minds can be brainwashed into thinking something. Sort of like those new Ford commercials were the guy dressed in Blue, complete with cap, tells us all how Ford quality is better than Toyota, Honda etc. Scarrry.

[Phil_the_Author]

Adam,

Your statement, "It is scary how easily our minds can be brainwashed into thinking something. Sort of like those new Ford commercials were the guy dressed in Blue, complete with cap, tells us all how Ford quality is better than Toyota, Honda etc. Scarrry..." is so spot on!

A good friend who, until last night, I respected with having ahealthy respect for and understanding of architecture said that Liberty is a "Linhks" course. Not links-style, but actual links! He uses as proof the following:

Sir Walter Simpson was a 19th century Scottish philosopher and the author of the 1887 book "The Art of Golf". The book is said to be the first to contain photographs of golfers in action on the links and is considered a classic especially among the Scottish. He defined "links" as such, "The grounds on which golf is played are called links, being the barren sandy soil from which the sea has retired in recent geological times. In their natural state links are covered with long, rank bent grass and gorse. Links are too barren for cultivation: but sheep, rabbits, geese and professionals pick up a precarious livelihood on them."

Donald Steele, a well-known modern English architect and author of Classic Golf Links of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, defined "links" this way, "My definition of links is the strip of land which links the sea with more fertile land, often set amongst dunes. The best terrain for golf is sand and that kind of land has minimal agricultural value -- which makes such places ideal."

By the way - I think that Liberty National stretches the definition of a "links course" about as far as you can take it, but it IS built on inks land, even though that isn't a term that is applied in the US.  The land WAS shaped by winds and water - but to make it usable, it had to be covered over.  My problem with calling it a true links course is the American reliance on target golf and playing the ball through the air instead of along the ground like you find with UK links courses.  It is soft, muddy, and manufactured - looks more like a cross between Doral and a water park from the air to me.  Links soil isn't muddy - it is sandy.

My friend brought this up on a golf radio show during which he stated that this was a hot topic with the media at Liberty National and that the vast majority believed and referred to it as a true links...

[Jim Franklin]

Doral better than Sand Hills is easily the first time I ever heard that statement and downright scary.

[Kenny Baer]

It means NOTHING.  I get so sick of people....the media typcially...clamoring on about a course because of who wins.  IT IS PURE LUCK OF THE DRAW.  If iTiger is playing well that week he will win; it has nothing to do with the golf course's greatness.  If the best player's in the world happen to be playing their best that week then the tournament will have an exciting finish; whether it is on the goat track muni or Pine Valley. 

I think this argument went totally out the window when Tiger won at Southern Hills in 07; the argument going in was that it wasn't his kind of course....although he finished 9th in the 01 US Open....why did he finish 9th??? Was it the arch that he just couldn't solve???  NO, if anyone remembers that tournament he played poorly; especially the first 2 rds.  I also remember someone on this board talking about how he struggles at Wing Foot; well he struggles at Wing Foot because in the 2x he has played a tournament their he played poorly; believe it or not when Tiger plays poorly he struggles.

I would argue that shorter courses offers the shorter players a better chance but that is all that the course effects in regards to who will win the tournament; who plays the best will win 99% of the time; occasionally a very lucky break can happen but not often.

[John Kirk]

I disagree with Kenny Baer to a degree.  I don't think the winner of each tournament is random event.  I think Kalen has a point.  Whether or not this indicates that Liberty National possesses good architecture is a different subject.

I don't have time to argue this out carefully, but I might suggest that the media and cognoscenti may not understand what is or is not "Tiger's kind of course".  Besides, it is random to a extent, but I'd say there are courses where Tiger has a 35-40% chance of winning, and others where his chances are 20-25%. 

[Jerry Kluger]

From all appearances and comments from the announcers, it appeared that the course was designed to play firm and fast but it played just the opposite.  Does that mean that courses should play soft in order to have the best players at the top of the leaderboard - I think not.  It was more that the best players rose to the top but a dark horse came out of nowhere to win - and what does this prove concerning the architecture - nothing.  The guy made a clutch putt and in the end I do not believe that Mr. Slocum or Mr. Yang will ever be enshrined in the hall of fame - but this is what happens in golf where you are playing against the field and not just one opponent like in tennis.

[Phil_the_Author]

"in the end I do not believe that Mr. Slocum or Mr. Yang will ever be enshrined in the hall of fame..."

Jerry, I guess you haven't taken a look at wgho acutally IS in Golf's Hall of Fame and then reralized who is NOT...

Especially Mr. Yang may have a very good shot at getting in one day...

[Jerry Kluger]

Philip: Mr. Yang may be recognized for his accomplishment as the first Asian born player to win a major but I do not see him as a player who will win enough events, including majors, to be enshrined. 

[Kenny Baer]

I disagree with Kenny Baer to a degree.  I don't think the winner of each tournament is random event.  I think Kalen has a point.  Whether or not this indicates that Liberty National possesses good architecture is a different subject.

I don't have time to argue this out carefully, but I might suggest that the media and cognoscenti may not understand what is or is not "Tiger's kind of course".  Besides, it is random to a extent, but I'd say there are courses where Tiger has a 35-40% chance of winning, and others where his chances are 20-25%. 

I by no means think it is a random event; it has to do with who plays best.  The golf course makes little difference in who wins; and if Tiger wins that does not mean it is a good golf course.  I would bet that Tiger would win at the same exact rate at every golf course in the country of a certain length.  Some players who do not hit it as far will not be able to play as well at some courses related to their competition, I would agree with that.  So maybe on a shorter course Tiger might possibly not win as often because more players could possibly win but the arch has nothing to do with the quality of player who wins the golf tournament.  Would you agree with that.

[Niall C]

I only saw a little bit of the golf and didn't see the finish yesterday but from what I saw on Sky in the UK, and from what the commentators were saying, the course had been significantly lengthened from previous days with tees pushed back and and pins located at the back of greens. For all intents and purposes it was like a new course, and one which obviously suited the bigger hitters.

The commentators all said before Tiger tee'd off that bhe would have a good chance of making up 5 shots on the leader. Given that one of the leaders, Goydos I think, was a notoriously short hitter, I wonder if anyone else thought that perhaps the course had been rigged to get Tiger back up their and boost some ratings, or am I just being paranoid ?

Niall

[Bart Bradley]

Kenny:

I think I understand your point, but don't fully agree.

Can't architecture favor certain types of shots over others?  If so, can't a course favor one player over another? ..even if it has nothing to do with length?  

Take the following example:

If a course's architecture strongly favored a player who draws the ball on most tees and most approaches, would Bruce Lietzke have had the same chance to win as a course that strongly favored a fade?

Same thing goes with greens...some people hit better lobs, some people hit better chip and runs...architecture will determine which type of shot will produce the best results thereby giving certain shot types (and the players adept at those shot types) the advantage.

Even Tiger plays some types of shots better than others....what makes him great is that he has all the shots and can hit them all with a high proficiency....but I guarantee that with close analysis, he will execute certain types of shots at a higher rate than other types.

Bart

[Garland Bayley]

I disagree with Kenny Baer to a degree.  I don't think the winner of each tournament is random event.  I think Kalen has a point.  Whether or not this indicates that Liberty National possesses good architecture is a different subject.

I don't have time to argue this out carefully, but I might suggest that the media and cognoscenti may not understand what is or is not "Tiger's kind of course".  Besides, it is random to a extent, but I'd say there are courses where Tiger has a 35-40% chance of winning, and others where his chances are 20-25%. 

Since Tiger has won just under 42% of the events he has entered in the last 5 years, I am curious which courses his chances are 35-40%, and which courses his chances are 20-25%.

The only course I can think of him having a record of trouble with is Riviera.

[Adam Clayman]

Can't architecture favor certain types of shots over others?  If so, can't a course favor one player over another? ..even if it has nothing to do with length?  

Take the following example:

If a course's architecture strongly favored a player who draws the ball on most tees and most approaches, would Bruce Lietzke have had the same chance to win as a course that strongly favored a fade?

Same thing goes with greens...some people hit better lobs, some people hit better chip and runs...architecture will determine which type of shot will produce the best results thereby giving certain shot types (and the players adept at those shot types) the advantage.

Even Tiger plays some types of shots better than others....what makes him great is that he has all the shots and can hit them all with a high proficiency....but I guarantee that with close analysis, he will execute certain types of shots at a higher rate than other types.

Bart

Bart. Your wonderful point extends to the maintenance meld too.

Many of the Players that are currently considered the best may not be, if a complete reliance on aerial assault were removed.

Seeing long balls hit into those small green sections yesterday, leaving ball marks as deep as the balls width, made me wonder if it had rained that morning.

[Kenny Baer]

Bart,

I agree with most everything you said; I was not making myself clear.  I was trying to say that a golf courses worth is not in any way determined by who wins a professional tournament on the course.  I believe the thread raised the question "that because we were 1 putt away from a great 5 way playoff isn't LN a great course?" The very same thing could have happened at some dump. 

At the highest level I think it matters much less than at your level  ...not my level.... ; (haha) I am trying to say the best player, or the player who plays the best that week, is going to win whether it is on one of the greatest courses in the world or a dump.

[Kalen Braley]

I thought I would paste this in from another thread...

I think Gib pointed out some really good things. I would also add when April rolls around everyone loves to talk about ANGC and its architecture and how it gives us the great finishes.  Based on this past weekend, it certainly seems LN stands up very well under the same circumstances given the epic finish we had/almost had.

Gentlemen,

I must be missing something. Judging by his upbraiding of LN, Shackelford could obviously see something in his Malibu bungalow that I could not seated next to my father in front of a new high-def flat screen.

The putting surfaces - though severe - looked wonderfully interesting. By extension, I thought the mow-outs and chipping areas introduced all sorts of challenging possibilities and cannot grasp why everyone is piling onto something so totally different than the mind-numbing sameness inflicted on the golf television viewing audience.

I'll go one step farther. Looking at the rolls, folds and contours of the greens, I commented that they looked similar to the small but complex putting surfaces at C&C's Chechessee Creek in South Carolina. If those greens had been designed by Mackenzie, everyone would be fawning over the daring collage of seemingly contradictory movements.

But because a bunch of sniveling Tour Prophylactics had a hard time reading them (read: ran into something that interrupts their parade of 3's and 4's), suddenly everybody wants to horsewhip Tom Kite and Bob Cupp. One can only imagine what Tiger and rest of the circus clowns would do if confronted by #1 at NGLA.

The golf course is not perfect, but I thoroughly enjoyed watching the event and feel that anytime a former garbage dump can be turned into something that rivets my attention on television, that is a good thing. Normally, I would rather pound nails into my sack than watch a regular tour event, but look at the star power atop the leader board. Anybody here not interested in seeing a playoff with Tiger, Ernie, Stricker and Paddy?

We were one putt away, which is all you can ask for. If the golf course is so capricious, why did the cream rise to the top? Tour guys generally hate Pete Dye and Mike Stranz courses, yet everyone with taste loves them.

It looks to me like the scorecard and pencil players are offended at the unusual nature of the golf course and would rather snooze through the "Who Gives A Sh*t Open in New Orleans presented by a company named after a city in Switzerland.



             

[John Kirk]

I disagree with Kenny Baer to a degree.  I don't think the winner of each tournament is random event.  I think Kalen has a point.  Whether or not this indicates that Liberty National possesses good architecture is a different subject.

I don't have time to argue this out carefully, but I might suggest that the media and cognoscenti may not understand what is or is not "Tiger's kind of course".  Besides, it is random to a extent, but I'd say there are courses where Tiger has a 35-40% chance of winning, and others where his chances are 20-25%. 

I by no means think it is a random event; it has to do with who plays best.  The golf course makes little difference in who wins; and if Tiger wins that does not mean it is a good golf course.  I would bet that Tiger would win at the same exact rate at every golf course in the country of a certain length.  Some players who do not hit it as far will not be able to play as well at some courses related to their competition, I would agree with that.  So maybe on a shorter course Tiger might possibly not win as often because more players could possibly win but the arch has nothing to do with the quality of player who wins the golf tournament.  Would you agree with that.

Hi Kenny,

Thanks for responding.  My latest theory is that courses with greater overall difficulty reduce Tiger's chances of winning.  But it's obviously more complicated that that.   I actually believe the modern Augusta National, at 7500 yards, tends to favor shorter, straighter hitters.

[Carl Rogers]

How did this thread evolve into Tiger's winning percentage on what course?

To get back to the thread title ... my observations about Liberty National back nine would be the following:

- the risk - reward over the lake par 5
- the drivable short par 4 with water right & a gimme lay up
- the short tight to the wetlands par 3
...
- the baballing parkland stream
- 'native grassed' areas
- chipping areas sometimes & rough in other spots around the greens
- rolling 'links' fairways
- mounds
- steep cirlicque bunkers

fairly standard smorgasbord of all the design trends of the last 15 years, ho-hum

The non-straight forward green slopes seems a plus to me

Am I wrong?

[Dan Herrmann]

Carl - you're absolutely correct.

BTW - did you like that tee shot on the back nine that required a tee shot to clear a iron fence?    Obviously, it wasn't a factor for the pros, but it sure looked like crap.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl - you're absolutely correct.

BTW - did you like that tee shot on the back nine that required a tee shot to clear a iron fence?    Obviously, it wasn't a factor for the pros, but it sure looked like crap.

Dan,

There are public access easements through the property.

The same public pathway exists at Bayonne, although it doesn't appear as intrusive.

Take a look at google earth to understand how the fence impacts play.

[Adam Russell]

I thought I would paste this in from another thread...

I think Gib pointed out some really good things. I would also add when April rolls around everyone loves to talk about ANGC and its architecture and how it gives us the great finishes.  Based on this past weekend, it certainly seems LN stands up very well under the same circumstances given the epic finish we had/almost had.

Gentlemen,

I must be missing something. Judging by his upbraiding of LN, Shackelford could obviously see something in his Malibu bungalow that I could not seated next to my father in front of a new high-def flat screen.

The putting surfaces - though severe - looked wonderfully interesting. By extension, I thought the mow-outs and chipping areas introduced all sorts of challenging possibilities and cannot grasp why everyone is piling onto something so totally different than the mind-numbing sameness inflicted on the golf television viewing audience.

I'll go one step farther. Looking at the rolls, folds and contours of the greens, I commented that they looked similar to the small but complex putting surfaces at C&C's Chechessee Creek in South Carolina. If those greens had been designed by Mackenzie, everyone would be fawning over the daring collage of seemingly contradictory movements.

But because a bunch of sniveling Tour Prophylactics had a hard time reading them (read: ran into something that interrupts their parade of 3's and 4's), suddenly everybody wants to horsewhip Tom Kite and Bob Cupp. One can only imagine what Tiger and rest of the circus clowns would do if confronted by #1 at NGLA.

The golf course is not perfect, but I thoroughly enjoyed watching the event and feel that anytime a former garbage dump can be turned into something that rivets my attention on television, that is a good thing. Normally, I would rather pound nails into my sack than watch a regular tour event, but look at the star power atop the leader board. Anybody here not interested in seeing a playoff with Tiger, Ernie, Stricker and Paddy?

We were one putt away, which is all you can ask for. If the golf course is so capricious, why did the cream rise to the top? Tour guys generally hate Pete Dye and Mike Stranz courses, yet everyone with taste loves them.

It looks to me like the scorecard and pencil players are offended at the unusual nature of the golf course and would rather snooze through the "Who Gives A Sh*t Open in New Orleans presented by a company named after a city in Switzerland.



              

I think this idea that this course's architecture is more worthy of praise because it almost produced a memorable playoff based solely on the merits of its architecture is asinine. Is Turnberry less of a course architecturally because Cink crashed onto the great list of champions that had risen to the top in previous Opens? Is Olympic not a good design based on its U.S. Open winners? Let's not forget Slocum was a hole-out and a bunker rake save away from being irrelevant in this contest. Architecture is just one factor to the end result.

I have yet to see anyone offer an honest assessment of what Liberty National is - an expensive, very tough pedestrian layout. Just because the course stands out on TV from the Bay Hills of the world does not mean it has some pedigree to its architecture. I give Cupp credit for having the guts to go small and severe with the set of greens, and I think this was the reason it was so hard to score. The multiple breaks fit nicely to a private club where members can have years to study, and this was the highlight of the golf course for me. The par-3 14th was dynamite and any course would like to have it in their rotation. But there is a serious lack of connection to the course, and LN feels placed into the landscape. I detested the chipping areas, which all seemed to either be concave or have some sort of half-pipe element to them. No variety in stance, just up or down. They were essentially bunkers, but exacted an even worse penalty in the sense that most all were lined with drains and played soggy. Honestly, the course is on top of 4' of sand and you can't make it surface drain? The grassing lines lacked any sort of thought to how the curve of the land would make the set-up appear - on the par-5 6th I saw three different heights angled in different directions. From the tee box nothing stood out from the rest of the course in any way as to suggest any architectural challenge (14 excepted). The bunkers styles ranged from pseudo-MacK to 80's Dye to circular disks, and there is so much stuff (water courses, rock walls, stone-lined channels) that it's sensory overload and the architecture has no chance to shine. You would think by chance one of the shapers would make the rolls go in a different direction, but no, they're all twenty yards apart in succession and perpendicular to the hole. There's no rhyme or reason for most of the design decisions, just add in whatever the majority will like and go with it.

I like the idea of turning a blight into something that will impact that local community, but with a blank canvas and essentially a blank slate, it's a missed opportunity. It's already three years old and any tweaks should be in the ground already. Raynor had the same chance this team did and came up with The Lido, Fazio got a similar blank site and gave us Shadow Creek. LN just does not generate any sort of interest for me..

[Damon Groves]

Doesn't this now suggest that Liberty National must have some of the best architecture in the world to lead to this result?

Discuss!!

No. It doesn't mean anything.

Exactly. How does the finish order have anything to do with the architecture of the course?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()