If hosting a major does not require a great GCA, then what does?

« **Reply #25 on:** October 06, 2009, 10:52:53 AM »

Unless you're Merion, Shinny or one of the other upper-echelon East Coast clubs that the USGA is enamored with, you need, in a word, EVERYTHING. You need length. You need difficulty. You need a good tree management program. You need a site with room for a bunch of corporate hospitality. You need cooperation with municipalities that would get involved in transportation, traffic and security issues. You need a cooperative membership. You need to be willing to let them (through an approved architect) tell you that your golf course needs to change X number of greens, remove XXX number of trees, expand your practice facility and just about anything else that you need to accommodate the event.

If you're Merion (just as an example), you don't need to do much of the above, because, well, you're MERION, for Chrissakes.

« **Reply #26 on:** October 06, 2009, 11:53:48 AM »

It looks like most people (here) believe that logistics support is more important than GCA when it comes to hosting a major, and I agree.

However, if that is so, can't you make a logical jump that good/great GCA is not for hosting championships? Isn't good/great GCA all about having fun whether or not you are a tour pro, scratch golfer or a high handicapper? Some people equate great GCA to its ability to host a major event (aka "Championship Course"), but based on our discussion, doesn't that mean bupkas?

« **Reply #27 on:** October 06, 2009, 12:01:08 PM »

Quote from: Richard Choi on October 06, 2009, 11:53:48 AM

It looks like most people (here) believe that logistics support is more important than GCA when it comes to hosting a major, and I agree.

However, if that is so, can't you make a logical jump that good/great GCA is not for hosting championships? Isn't good/great GCA all about having fun whether or not you are a tour pro, scratch golfer or a high handicapper? Some people equate great GCA to its ability to host a major event (aka "Championship Course"), but based on our discussion, doesn't that mean bupkas?

Rich,

I agree with your overall premise and general direction on this one. I think logisitics/profits are more important if people really want to be honest.

But all that being said, I think that any course could host a major if the controlling bodies are willing to sacrifice/be happy with "less". We all know that the majors didn't used to be the grand productions they are now. No tents, no hordes of people, no massive $$$ in the eyes of the people putting on the tourney, etc.

So while what a major is today has become re-defined a bit, it doesn't have to be this way....its just the folks calling the shots don't want to forgoe the "sideshow" for lack of a better word to bring in the extra revenue.

« **Reply #28 on:** October 06, 2009, 12:05:55 PM »

It all comes back to protecting "Par" for the USGA and the members. This is why the British Open is the best spectator tournament of the year...

« **Reply #29 on:** October 06, 2009, 12:11:15 PM »

Quote from: Richard Choi on October 06, 2009, 11:53:48 AM

It looks like most people (here) believe that logistics support is more important than GCA when it comes to hosting a major, and I agree.

However, if that is so, can't you make a logical jump that good/great GCA is not for hosting championships? Isn't good/great GCA all about having fun whether or not you are a tour pro, scratch golfer or a high handicapper? Some people equate great GCA to its ability to host a major event (aka "Championship Course"), but based on our discussion, doesn't that mean bupkas?

I guess it all comes down to whose definition of "great GCA" gets used.

There are probably tour pro's/elite amateurs who would gladly play an Open or anything else at CPC,NGLA,or any other club deemed "un-Majorable".Some would probably even give up the dollars that the required infrastructure brings.But they don't get to vote on the sites.

The circus has gotten too big for it to come to just any town.The players themselves can only go where the tournament is being held.

« **Reply #30 on:** October 06, 2009, 12:15:10 PM »

Sorry Kalen,same general idea but you typed it faster.

« **Reply #31 on:** October 06, 2009, 12:15:23 PM »

No Richard, it doesn't mean bupkus, the theory that you don't need good architecture to hold a US Open is.

There is no way in a million years that the USGA would ever hold an Open at a golf course that was mediocre.

« **Reply #32 on:** October 06, 2009, 12:20:33 PM »

Quote from: Jim_Kennedy on October 06, 2009, 12:15:23 PM

There is no way in a million years that the USGA would ever hold an Open at a golf course that was mediocre.

Jim, I doubt that anyone would disagree with you. What I am trying to get at is, from the architecture point of view, why? What advantage do you get by hosting a major at a great GCA course? I believe USGA followers would say "because we want the winning score to be around par". However, you can do that from almost any decent course with enough length and healthy rough.

Why do you need a great GCA course to host a major?

I've heard reasons related to logistics and marketing, but I have yet to hear a reason related to great GCA for hosting a major.

« **Reply #33 on:** October 06, 2009, 12:24:04 PM »

Jim, they held one at Torrey, so there goes that theory...

« **Reply #34 on:** October 06, 2009, 12:32:57 PM »

Richard,

I think it has more to do with history and prestige than GCA, although they sometimes overlap, so great GCA is a byproduct of the decisionmaking process....

« **Reply #35 on:** October 06, 2009, 12:33:35 PM »

Quote from: Richard Choi on October 06, 2009, 12:20:33 PM

Why do you need a great GCA course to host a major?

I don't think you do. I'll say here what I said last summer...the U.S. Open could be played at Ohio State's Scarlet Course. Should it, from a GCA point of view? I don't think so. But, the Nicklaus renovation has produced a very long, tough golf course with deep bunkers and evelated, moving greens. With narrow fairways and deep rough, that course would produce very high scores. It has another course right there for corporate tents, and it's in a major midwest city that would support the event. It may need another, smaller building for logistics. However, I've seen enough U.S. Open tracks to think Scarlet would be what the USGA is looking for.

While it's a nice course, I personally don't think it's in the top 5 in the city of Columbus. However, a major would work there, because GCA is clearly not the USGA's first priority, no matter what they say to the contrary.

« **Reply #36 on:** October 06, 2009, 12:44:38 PM »

Quote from: Jud Tigerman on October 06, 2009, 12:32:57 PM

Richard,

I think it has more to do with history and prestige than GCA, although they sometimes overlap, so great GCA is a byproduct of the decisionmaking process....

I agree, but GCA is usually the first reason they mention when they talk about future hosting sites...

« **Reply #37 on:** October 06, 2009, 01:09:37 PM »

Quote from: Richard Choi on October 06, 2009, 12:44:38 PM

Quote from: Jud Tigerman on October 06, 2009, 12:32:57 PM
Richard,

I think it has more to do with history and prestige than GCA, although they sometimes overlap, so great GCA is a byproduct of the decisionmaking process....

I agree, but GCA is usually the first reason they mention when they talk about future hosting sites...

Richard,

I understand what your getting at, but that kinda talk is just plain ol fashioned propoganda.

Consider the latest Iraq War...

The powers that be said it was about "freedom, protecting America, standing up for values, yada, yada, yada"....but we know better. Its just sometimes you have to craft a message that people will rally behind so the cause isn't rejected. These same concepts are used for these events....the intagibles are always on the forefront because none of these guys want to mention the real driving forces to holding these events with large facilities ....$$$ signs.

« **Reply #38 on:** October 06, 2009, 01:10:43 PM »

Quote from: Richard Choi on October 06, 2009, 12:20:33 PM

Jim, I doubt that anyone would disagree with you. What I am trying to get at is, from the architecture point of view, why? What advantage do you get by hosting a major at a great GCA course? I believe USGA followers would say "because we want the winning score to be around par". However, you can do that from almost any decent course with enough length and healthy rough.

Why do you need a great GCA course to host a major?

I've heard reasons related to logistics and marketing, but I have yet to hear a reason related to great GCA for hosting a major.

Please, your credibility is at risk here.

....and Jud, after your remark about Torrey yours is also suspect!

If you don't have a course with good architecture and/or good history you have nothing. Again, go back and look at every course used by the USGA for the Open. There isn't one course that isn't/wasn't in the top 2% of all the courses in the U.S., and they didn't get there because they were mediocre.

People won't watch an Open on a crappy course, they won't buy tickets to a crappy venue, no one is going to plan a summer trip around attending an Open at a crappy course, no one is going to buy merchandise from Crappy Creek CC, no one is going to watch Crappy Creek on TV, the networks aren't going to give the USGA any serious money for the rights to show the CrappyCreek CC on TV.

Please, stop the silliness.

« **Reply #39 on:** October 06, 2009, 01:16:37 PM »

Jim,

I agree with you, except for your opinion about the GCA at Torrey. However, if Tiger and Phil were punching it out late on Sunday afternoon, I think the networks wouldn't really care where they were playing....

« **Reply #40 on:** October 06, 2009, 01:19:58 PM »

Quote from: Jim_Kennedy on October 06, 2009, 01:10:43 PM

Quote from: Richard Choi on October 06, 2009, 12:20:33 PM

Jim, I doubt that anyone would disagree with you. What I am trying to get at is, from the architecture point of view, why? What advantage do you get by hosting a major at a great GCA course? I believe USGA followers would say "because we want the winning score to be around par". However, you can do that from almost any decent course with enough length and healthy rough.

Why do you need a great GCA course to host a major?

I've heard reasons related to logistics and marketing, but I have yet to hear a reason related to great GCA for hosting a major.

Please, your credibility is at risk here. ....and Jud, after your remark about Torrey yours is also suspect!

If you don't have a course with good architecture and/or good history you have nothing. Again, go back and look at every course used by the USGA for the Open. There isn't one course that isn't/wasn't in the top 2% of all the courses in the U.S., and they didn't get there because they were mediocre.

People won't watch an Open on a crappy course, they won't buy tickets to a crappy venue, no one is going to plan a summer trip around attending an Open at a crappy course, no one is going to buy merchandise from Crappy Creek CC, no one is going to watch Crappy Creek on TV, the networks aren't going to give the USGA any serious money for the rights to show the CrappyCreek CC on TV.

Please, stop the silliness.

Jim,

I couldn't disagree more. Its the title of having a "major" and all the games best that drive people to attend....the venue like a Pebble is just the icing on the cake!

I can gurantee that if they held the US Open at Thanksgiving Point here in UT, which is more than capable of doing so, the event would be well attended. I'm not saying TP is a crappy course either, because its far from it, but its by no means a course that is on anyone's radar outside of GCA.com.....and even thats debatable.

« **Reply #41 on:** October 06, 2009, 01:25:43 PM »

Quote from: Jim_Kennedy on October 06, 2009, 01:10:43 PM

If you don't have a course with good architecture and/or good history you have nothing. Again, go back and look at every course used by the USGA for the Open. There isn't one course that isn't/wasn't in the top 2% of all the courses in the U.S., and they didn't get there because they were mediocre.

Jim, you are wrong here. When Hazeltine hosted US Open, it did not have ANY history and it got severely panned by players/reviewers.

And I am not sure that Torrey Pines would fit that bill too if it did not have the views.

« **Reply #42 on:** October 06, 2009, 01:30:10 PM »

And to Kalen's point, I would have a very hard time arguing that Torrey Pines is a superior course to Thanksgiving Point - a very fine layout.

For my local example, Sahalee and Pumpkin Ridge have hosted PGA, WGC, and other USGA tournaments but never got any serious bite on US Open, why? Usually the reason given is that GCA is not good enough, but to me that just doesn't hold water.

« **Reply #43 on:** October 06, 2009, 01:44:05 PM »

Richard,
One 'possible' example does not prove your point, and Hazeltine had some history, iit hosted the US Womens Open in 1966.

You two guys can offer up Thanksgiving Point as an unknown course with architecture that rivals Torrey Pines all you wish, it just helps prove my point that if you don't have history you better have top-caliber GCA.

« **Reply #44 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:17:04 PM »

Quote from: Jim_Kennedy on October 06, 2009, 01:44:05 PM

Richard,
One 'possible' example does not prove your point, and Hazeltine had some history, iit hosted the US Womens Open in 1966.

You two guys can offer up Thanksgiving Point as an unknown course with architecture that rivals Torrey Pines all you wish, it just helps prove my point that if you don't have history you better have top-caliber GCA.

Jim,

All it does is confirm what I already said in post #14.. its about politics and connections and popularity much more so than actual "architecture"

« **Reply #45 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:30:00 PM »

Kalen,

There are a number of considerations, form infrastructure to population to politics and popularity.

All I am saying is this: there are two core considerations, history or architecture, and everything else is secondary.

« **Reply #46 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:34:51 PM »

Jim, I don't think you are getting my point.

I understand that they consider to history and architecture.

My question is why do they even bother with architecture other than for marketing? Because it has very little to do with actual play.

« **Reply #47 on:** October 06, 2009, 02:58:18 PM »

Do you think the good folks at the USGA want to look like total morons, which is what they'd look like if they didn't use courses with an architectural or historical pedigree for the US Open?

I rest my case.

« **Reply #48 on:** October 06, 2009, 03:06:06 PM »

Again, you are saying GCA is for marketing. We get that.

« **Reply #49 on:** October 06, 2009, 03:11:46 PM »

Richard,
Please, use the brains that God gave you. No one, players included, would stand for the USGA choosing a piece of crap to host the Open.

The architecture and/or the history are what makes the tournament to begin with

News:

tlavin

Richard Choi

Kalen Braley

Jud_T

JMEvensky

JMEvensky

Jim_Kennedy

Richard Choi

Jud_T

Jud_T

David Whitmer

Richard Choi

Kalen Braley

Jim_Kennedy

Jud_T

Kalen Braley

Richard Choi

Richard Choi

Jim_Kennedy

Kalen Braley

Jim_Kennedy

Richard Choi

Jim_Kennedy

Richard Choi

Jim_Kennedy

An Error Has Occurred!