[Jud_T]

Guys,

This is getting a bit silly. There is Architecture, there is History, there is prestige, there is exclusivity, there are Public courses. these are all different things! Hello?!

[Kalen Braley]

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

Jim,

I agree in part here, but its only the history of the tournament itself thats give the US Open its name and prestige.  I agree that one component that helped develop this legacy was the quality of courses played.

But in this modern enviroment, its no longer the specific courses that matter near as much as the legacy of its winners, and how these courses are set up, and who we get to watch duke it out to win a major.  When people think US Open, they think a tough setup and a tournament chock full of Hall of Fame past champions and the best players in the world.  The venue played is far down on the list of what people think....especially to a non GCA person.

But I won't deny that an epic venue helps...its just far down on the list of what makes the US Open what it is today.

[Wade Whitehead]

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

A better-designed golf course presents a better test.  The entire purpose of a major (and, indeed, any event) is to identify the best player through the best possible test.

What am I missing here?

WW

[Jud_T]

I think they're looking for difficult golf courses that have some history and all the acoutrements necessary as opposed to great architecture as it's typically defined here.  They're not coming to Lawsonia or Shoreacres anytime soon.....

[Kalen Braley]

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

A better-designed golf course presents a better test.  The entire purpose of a major (and, indeed, any event) is to identify the best player through the best possible test.

What am I missing here?

WW

Whitehead,

I agree in concept...

But when the rough is grown high.
And the fairways are massively narrowed.
And ridiculous long tees are added.
And greens stimped to insane quick speeds.

Isn't a lot of the original architectual intent of these top notch courses then removed?

Just about any decent course could be setup to "preserve par".  Make the greens quick enough, and the fairways narrow enough, and have every hole played from the tippy tips, and I guarantee no one will break par on half the courses right here in the Salt Lake City area.

[Richard Choi]

ding, ding, ding!!!

[Jim_Kennedy]

I hope you two (Rich and Kalen) brought the sunscreen with you, there's no shade out there in left field and I don't think either of you will be back for a while. 

[Chris Cupit]

In 1976 the US Open was held at the Atlanta Athletic Club for one reason--Bob Jones wrote a letter in 1970 or 1971 on behalf of his club asking that his club be considered as a host.  He never played the course and when he wrote the letter the front nine may not have even been built.

Anyway, the course was two distinct nines.  The front nine was the last of the 36 holes added and it is fair to say it was a huge pasture.  There were staked trees very much in play and the "trees" on the front were laughable and many pines were between 6' and 12' tall.  The opening holes had lengths of 470, 455 and 470 all becuase there was absolutely nothing else to them.  Long holes bordered by thick bermuda rough was pretty much it.  The bunkers were "mickey mouse ears" or figure eights you would see on a bad Florida course from the 1970s.
The front nine was really bad.

The back nine was cut  through older pine trees and was considered better but it still contained two holes that made Hazeltine's old 17th seem brilliant.  The tenth hole was a short dogleg right that was downhill to a blind landing area that sloped away toward the rough.  The green was a small perched thing on a knob with a huge curvey bunker in front that was larger than the green.  The green was almost impossible to hold.

The 11th hole was a 470 yard par 4 that was almost a 90 degree dogleg left where the fairway ran out around 270 yards!  It was a blind lay up (even back then) to what the club described as a "garden area".  From the garden area you hit way downhill to a green surrounded by bunkers.  (a lake was added on the right but I think that was later for the 81 PGA).  The more I think about it, the hole may have doglegged more than 90 degrees back to the left!  It was an awful hole.

Thankfully Jerry Pate hit a magnificent shot on 18 to win by two strokes.

The course has gone through half a dozen changes since then and is much improved but everyone would be shocked by the immaturity of the course in 76.  Hard to say no to Mr. Jones but it is very fair to say the course was mediocre even when compared to any private club in Atlanta at that time (and that's not saying much).  They had 36 holes, tremendous facilities, an eager membership and that letter from Mr. Jones.  They did not have much of a course back then.  I think Joe Finger did the front nine and I will find out who did the back.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Thanks for that accounting Chris, it has a first-hand ring to it.  So it seems that AAC falls into the history category, i.e. one of the very few (perhaps one/two others) in the modern rota of Open courses that could be seen as less than stellar. 

Some might like to see this as politics, but that's too small of a word when it involves Bobby Jones. It's definitely history.

 

[David Stamm]

Make room for me Richard and Kalen, I'll be joining you in left field.



What was it that Dave Hill said of Hazeltine? "How did you find the course?" he was asked. "I'm still looking for it," he shot back.

"Somebody ruined a good farm," he added. "A monkey is as good as a man out there.

"The man who designed this course had the blueprints upside down. All the greens slant away from you."


I'm sorry , Jim, but no one is saying that a "piece of crap" (your words) would work just as well for a major. Great architecture means very little if the set up stifles it. Some of these courses reputations, such as Torrey, AAC, Hazeltine and Medinah (sorry Ryan), have been made because majors have been played on them, not because the greatness of the design demanded that the USGA or PGA hold their tournaments there.

[Jim_Kennedy]

That's baloney David, and you seem smart enough to know it. Throwing my words back at me does not make you 'right' ? The implication all along has been that any ordinary run of the mill "piece of crap" could hold an Open as long as it was lengthy, tight and in possession of slick greens.

The list of US Open courses are nothing if not a collection of exceptional architecture and/or history making venues, but I can see why you fellows have to disregard this, the premise you all are backing falls apart when faced with the facts.

You should ask Dave "I quit more golf tournaments than I entered" Hill to join your triumvirate out in left field (he's still living, isn't he? ).  While you're out there you can all figure how many more mediocre golf courses have held the Open. Right now you are at less than a handful out of the scores that have done so. Maybe if you get up to 10% junk you'll have something to continue with. Until then I suggest you know which way the wind is blowing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Richard Choi,

What is "GREAT architecture" in the context of challenging the greatest players in the world, the PGA Tour Pros ?

Once you define it, we can debate it.

[Dan Boerger]

In defense of Torrey Pines ... while the routing may not be all that inspired, I thought the green complexes offered some excellent variety. Since so much of the professional game (all our golf I suppose) is determined from 100 yards in, it's a good test for the players and a good choice for majors.

[Jud_T]

ok-here's the list of all the u.s. open courses past and future:

http://golf.about.com/cs/historyofgolf/a/usopencourses.htm

how many are truly great layouts and how many are good to very good courses that have had their reputation polished up significantly primarily due to their inclusion here?

[Tom_Doak]

The reason most major championships are held on great courses today is that they are going back to the same courses they played 50-75 years ago, when great golf course architecture -- i.e., providing a test of shotmaking ability DID matter.

It doesn't matter anymore.  The pros now are so long off the tee that even a stupid 8,000 yard course doesn't really test them in that way, and the equipment has changed so much they all just hit the driver straight.  Plus, people's attitudes about architecture and fairness are so out of whack that some people are even willing to accept Torrey Pines as "great" architecture.

As Pete Dye told me 25 years ago, these pros would play in a parking lot for $5 million.  And people would still watch.  And some guys would even decide it was great architecture!

[Dan Boerger]

Tom - Interesting comments ... When the US Open is held at Merion in 2013, the nuance of that course, in large part, will exist well below the long and straight tee shots of today's professionals. If par (or should I state sub par) is what one wants to protect from the professional ranks, length may be the best and last line of defense.

[Kalen Braley]

The reason most major championships are held on great courses today is that they are going back to the same courses they played 50-75 years ago, when great golf course architecture -- i.e., providing a test of shotmaking ability DID matter.

It doesn't matter anymore.  The pros now are so long off the tee that even a stupid 8,000 yard course doesn't really test them in that way, and the equipment has changed so much they all just hit the driver straight.  Plus, people's attitudes about architecture and fairness are so out of whack that some people are even willing to accept Torrey Pines as "great" architecture.

As Pete Dye told me 25 years ago, these pros would play in a parking lot for $5 million.  And people would still watch.  And some guys would even decide it was great architecture!

Tom,

I guess this means you've joined us in left field too!!   

I agree here whole-heartedly and the part I concur with the most is that it really doesn't matter.  Majors are about the event, the spectacle of it all, and most important seeing the big dogs compete to get another notch in the belt.  The course really is just an after-thought....and the more space to erect tents and other revenue generating booths/areas is likely the biggest concern....and lo behold that is exactly what we are seeing with just about every pick for these venues.

[Jud_T]

It's getting a bit crowded out here in left field.....

[JESII]

Does anyone think the finish at Winged Foot a few years ago was something other than great architecture?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Hopefully the three (or is it four) of you will enjoy the finish at Mediocre Meadows in the near future. 

[David Stamm]

Does anyone think the finish at Winged Foot a few years ago was something other than great architecture?

You mean the bank shot Mickelson shot off the hospitality tent?

[Jud_T]

I think last year's open is a good case in point.  Probably one of the most entertaining opens ever, with Tiger winning in a playoff on one leg, at one of the worst open courses ever in terms of GCA.

[David Stamm]

I think last year's open is a good case in point.  Probably one of the most entertaining opens ever, with Tiger winning in a playoff on one leg, at one of the worst open courses ever in terms of GCA.

And that's precisely the point. Have great moments happened on the greatest courses? Of course. There have been too many to mention. Have great moments happened on  medicore courses? Yes. TW at Torrey, TW and Bob May at Valhalla, Irwin's 50 ft bomb to force a playoff (at 45 years of age!) at Medinah, Toms laying up and making the putt on 18 to beat Phil at AAC, etc, etc.

[Richard Choi]

Richard Choi,

What is "GREAT architecture" in the context of challenging the greatest players in the world, the PGA Tour Pros ?

Once you define it, we can debate it.

Pat, that is what I am trying to find out. Many people define great architecture as "a course that can host a major". I am trying to find out exactly what that means as from the left field out here (it is actually pretty nice here with a lawn chair watching the crowd), to me, almost any course of length and rough can host a major.

I am trying to figure out if we can take out "can't it host a major?" as one of the qualifier for judging GCA on any golf course.

[Jud_T]

here you go guys, rees jones course currently sale:

http://www.echelonliving.com/sites/images/834/Echelon_GolfCourseLayout.pdf

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()