Another architect's dilema

[Patrick_Mucci]

Archie,

While I agree with you in terms of "tournament" play, how do you transition the golf course back to "normal" play ?

In every case, remnants of the strangulation effect remain for decades and decades, becoming the new norm.

[Ian Andrew]

Pat,

You build it for the members and change the conditions for the professionals.

Shinnecock's greens are the best example I can think of - if the speeds are up, getting pins to the edges is frightening.

If you run them normally, the greens are tough but fair.

You have to build a course that flexes with a change in conditions.

If you build it too long - then it doesn't set up well or provide a reasonable walk for the shorter players.

Length has turned out to be a defence that doesn't work - look at the last FEdex events on excessively long.
The renovations did nothing to change the scores - particularly at Cog Hill.

[archie_struthers]

 

You know Pat not a lot of courses hold professional events ...so there are what 40 in the whole country that have to deal with the transition back to member play......however if someone is really serious about getting the ball rolled back

    don't think anyone in the hierarchy on tour would be  too interested in change  , which really makes the fight next to impossible ...meaning they won't change the course set-ups  etc  etc 

...strangling the long but wild hitters would work !  Moreover it's a cheap fix and wouldn't involve the legal expense of doing it by force....but who can convince the decision makers to change the game  ...  however the amateur circuit just might get teh ok given the age of the decision makers ,,,and  not needing TV's ok

just let the rough grow and make them hit it straight    ...  they'll come crying to reign in the ball and cut the grass

[Tim Gavrich]

How much slower were WFW's greens back when a 2-iron was needed to approach the 18th?  I would assume that they were substantially slower.  It is much more difficult to hit a 2-iron into an undulating green running at 12 or 13 on the Stimpmeter (as I have read WFW's greens run nowadays) than even greens running at 9 or 10.  At 6 or 7, assuming roughly equivalent contour, it's much easier still.

No matter whether or not we roll back the ball or go to the logistical and financial hassle to lengthen golf courses so that members can brag that Tiger had to hit 5-iron or 6 iron into a green rather than 8-iron, the game is different now and it's never going to be like it was "in the beginning."  Is that a bad thing?  I don't know; I certainly wasn't around in the 20s or even much of the 80s.  The bottom line is that if you made it so players have to hit 2-irons into WFW's 18th green today, the shot will be MUCH more difficult than it was in the era of slower greens.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How much slower were WFW's greens back when a 2-iron was needed to approach the 18th? 
I would assume that they were substantially slower. 

You  should know what happens when you "ASS U ME.
You're wrong about WFW's greens in 1974 and the most recent Open.


It is much more difficult to hit a 2-iron into an undulating green running at 12 or 13 on the Stimpmeter (as I have read WFW's greens run nowadays) than even greens running at 9 or 10. 


That's also not true.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's incorrect.
The greens at WFW didn't run anywhere near 13 at the last Open.

In my most recent visit to WFW, armed with a putter, the greens were running close to 13 and many greens were uncupable at the traditional Open locations.

This is prompting some, both in and out of WF to promote the idea of disfiguring WFW's greens in the name of reclaiming hole locations lost due to increased speeds.  This heretical architectural alteration is what naturally occurs when you keep increasing green speeds.
It would be a travesty to remove the enormous character of those greens in the name of accomodating increased green speeds.

At 6 or 7, assuming roughly equivalent contour, it's much easier still.

How can you claim that the greens for the 1974 Open stimped at 6 and 7, that's absolutely absurd.

No matter whether or not we roll back the ball or go to the logistical and financial hassle to lengthen golf courses so that members can brag that Tiger had to hit 5-iron or 6 iron into a green rather than 8-iron, the game is different now and it's never going to be like it was "in the beginning." 


You're missing the point.
Why should Tiger Woods or anyone else get a pass, an exemption from having to hit long irons into challenging greens ?

Greens are structured to accept a "concept" shot.  As an example, # 1 at NGLA was not structured to accept a low trajectoried approach from 200 yards.  It was meant to accept a lofted approach from a close distance.  The same for # 6 at NLGA.
However, # 10 and other holes at NGLA were designed to receive long irons or woods.
There's a correlation between distance and green structure, ie, the 7th at PB.

Is that a bad thing? 

Of course it's a bad thing, it thwarts the architectural intent, the inherent values of the hole.

I don't know; I certainly wasn't around in the 20s or even much of the 80s. 
The bottom line is that if you made it so players have to hit 2-irons into WFW's 18th green today, the shot will be MUCH more difficult than it was in the era of slower greens.

That's not true.
Where are you coming up with the nonsense that WFW's greens were much slower in 1974 than at the last Open ?

But, let's go back a little further.
Are today's greens softer or firmer than those 40-50 and 60+ years ago ?

Try holding a firm green with a 2-iron versus today's sponge jobs.

[JMEvensky]

I too would like to see Tiger Woods hit driver,2 iron into 18 at WFW.However,that would mean a significant percentage of players would have to hit driver,fairway wood.It would also mean that for more than a few players,18 would be an unreachable 4-par.Don't know if that's good or bad.

We always look at the length disparity between elite players and the hoi polloi.There's plenty of length disparity on the PGA Tour.

[Tim Gavrich]

Apologies for fudging inaccurate green speeds at Winged Foot then and now.  I've never had the pleasure of playing there.

How fast were the greens when the course opened?  How about in 1974?  What about the last US Open at WFW?

If it is the case that the greens are faster now than they used to be, then my original statement still holds: that it is more difficult to control an iron shot into a faster green, all else equal.  I can't speak about relative firmness as I am only 20.

I agree with you that wanting to compromise some bold green contours in order to accommodate increasing green speeds is not good.  I love greens that run between 10 and 12, depending on contour.  Any faster and things get out of hand.

In order to restore the shot values at WFW, How much would you lengthen the course by?  Would that compromise the flow of the routing to an injurious extent?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I too would like to see Tiger Woods hit driver,2 iron into 18 at WFW.However,that would mean a significant percentage of players would have to hit driver,fairway wood.

What's wrong with that ?

What did Corey Pavin hit into # 18 at Shinnecock when he won the open ?   A fairway wood ?

Why shouldn't tournament players have to hit long irons and fairway woods into par 4's, just as the architect originally intented ?

It would also mean that for more than a few players, 18 would be an unreachable 4-par.
Don't know if that's good or bad.


Isn't length part of the examination of a players skills, especially a player competing in a major ?
Why was it a good thing to have the best players hit long irons and fairway woods into par 4's a few decades ago, but bad today ?

We always look at the length disparity between elite players and the hoi polloi.
There's plenty of length disparity on the PGA Tour.

Do the stats substantiate a substantive difference in length amongst PGA Tour players ?

[Chris Cupit]

I apologize if this point has been made but the course also played very firm and shorter in 1929.  The old pictures of Jones' victory for example shocked me as to how open the entire property was.  On 18 in the final round Jones' drive (with almost no trees down the left and I assume very firm conditions) ended up OVER the last hill leaving him just a pitch to the green which he uncharacteristically pulled left of the green.  He made the famous 12 foot putt and then soundly beat Mr. Espinosa by 20 or more strokes the next day (after asking the USGA to please delay the tee time a bit so Mr. Espinosa could attend Sunday morning mass)

Anyway, original intent is tough to determine but the suggestion of destroying some of the finest greens in the world for the sake of one championship is sad. 

FWIW I think Nicklaus putted off the first green in the '74 open (a four putt) so I assume the greens were still pretty quick even then--maybe 10-11?  I know Nicklaus has been quoted as describing Winged Foot as the hardest US Open course he ever played--by a good margin. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Apologies for fudging inaccurate green speeds at Winged Foot then and now.  I've never had the pleasure of playing there.

Tim, if you ever get the opportunity, take advantage of it.
I think there may be an event, tangetially related to GCA.com, that could present that opportunity to you next year.

How fast were the greens when the course opened? 

I can't answer that because I was born two weeks after the course opened.

How about in 1974? 
What about the last US Open at WFW?

Last Tuesday I knew the answer to those questions, but, alas, at my age I forget things too easily.
Last Tuesday the greens were at about 13, but, remember, it's almost November, not the second week in June.
Last Tuesday, in a discussion occuring on the 1st green, informed sources indicated that the greens were not anywhere near high speed during the last Open.  I'd say there wasn't much of a disparity between the 74, 84 and 06 Opens.  Remember, mid June is not an optimal time to get the greens to warp speed, especially on greens as sloped as WFW.

If it is the case that the greens are faster now than they used to be, then my original statement still holds: that it is more difficult to control an iron shot into a faster green, all else equal. 

But all else isn't equal.
You have higher trajectories, higher spin rates, square grooves and other factors.
Green speed has little to do with holding a green with a shot struck by the best player/s in the world.

I can't speak about relative firmness as I am only 20.

I don't talk about my relative's firmness either, only TEPaul will discuss his relative's firmness, and he doesn't like that relative.

The words "Mid-June" and "Firm" may be relatively exclusive, even at championships in the Northeast.
At  age 20, the concept of "firm" greens may be a figment of your imagination, a golfing myth of sorts.
You hear a lot of talk about it, but, you rarely see it, especially in the summer months.
Watching PGA Tour events on TV this year I was struck by how many approach shots "stuck on a dime", and in many cases, the pitch mark was clearly visible.  The belief that the Open venues are showcase for rock hard greens is a fantasy, not a reality.

I agree with you that wanting to compromise some bold green contours in order to accommodate increasing green speeds is not good. 
I love greens that run between 10 and 12, depending on contour.  Any faster and things get out of hand.

WFW's greens were at 13 last week.
However, when trying to hole a putt from below the hole on # 1, with the hole at approximately the mid-point of the green, many putts simply rolled off the green.  Even at 11-12, putting the greens at WFW is an incredible challenge, in some cases equating to goofy golf.
That's why there's a movement afoot by irresponsible lunatics ( I know, that's being redundant) to commit architectural suicide and FLATTEN those great, unique, character laden greens.

Lastly, if you had played WFW you'd understand how the back to front slope in many of those greens promotes the acceptance of an approach shot, even an approach shot with a long iron or fairway wood, just ask the amateurs who play it and have to hit those clubs into those greens every day.

In order to restore the shot values at WFW, How much would you lengthen the course by? 

If you dialed back the I&B, no additional length would be needed.
 
Would that compromise the flow of the routing to an injurious extent?

Adding additional length is a/the problem.
Obviously # 18 is about maxed out unless you altered the angle of attack off the tee and intruded into the corridor of play on # 12 and # 17.

Older courses get disfigured in order to accomodate the best players.
Now more than ever, the TPC concept of creating a "tournament" course seems a prefered alternative, rather than ruining or altering a wonderful old course.

If I was the dictator of tournament golf in the U.S., I would want the "Champion" to have passed the test that exams his playing skills, and that examination includes hitting long irons and fairway woods into par 4's, not on every hole, but, on a few holes.
If you don't present that examination, if the best players never have to hit long irons and fairway woods into par 4's, then you've failed in structuring a THOROUGH examination.

I've played WFW in competitions where every competitor had to hit long irons and fairway woods into par 4's.
It was a given.
Why shouldn't the best players in the world, in their quest to win a major championship, have to take that same test ?

[JMEvensky]

I too would like to see Tiger Woods hit driver,2 iron into 18 at WFW.However,that would mean a significant percentage of players would have to hit driver,fairway wood.

What's wrong with that ?

What did Corey Pavin hit into # 18 at Shinnecock when he won the open ?   A fairway wood ?

Why shouldn't tournament players have to hit long irons and fairway woods into par 4's, just as the architect originally intented ?

It would also mean that for more than a few players, 18 would be an unreachable 4-par.
Don't know if that's good or bad.


Isn't length part of the examination of a players skills, especially a player competing in a major ?
Why was it a good thing to have the best players hit long irons and fairway woods into par 4's a few decades ago, but bad today ?

We always look at the length disparity between elite players and the hoi polloi.
There's plenty of length disparity on the PGA Tour.

Do the stats substantiate a substantive difference in length amongst PGA Tour players ?

For me,as someone who only watches them play on television,there's nothing wrong with players hitting fairway woods into 4-pars.

The argument frequently turns on Tiger Woods being the personification of all PGA Tour players as regards length.There are players who are not Tiger Woods-long,nor really long by most decent player standards.I'm guessing you know this as well as I,irrespective of either of our's definition of substantive disparity.

I think designing holes solely to force Tiger Woods to hit driver,2 iron would be just another bad solution.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you look at the driving distance of the PGA Tour players you'll note that Tiger isn't that much longer than many others.

So, the question remains, why shouldn't the better players have to hit long irons and fairway woods into par 4's ?

[Tim Gavrich]

If you look at the driving distance of the PGA Tour players you'll note that Tiger isn't that much longer than many others.

So, the question remains, why shouldn't the better players have to hit long irons and fairway woods into par 4's ?

Why must they in order for it to be a good test, especially if many of them end up hitting one or two long irons or fairway woods into par 5s?  Why must it be in order to make par, rather than to merely make "4"?