[Patrick_Mucci]

daily member play and competitions, with very little in the way of adjustment * ?

I recently played Seminole with some members and in a competition.

In both cases, the course was FUN to play, although, the pressure of playing in the tournament was significanlty  increased by the increased speed of the greens, the hole locations, along with two non-adjustable factors,  the wind and the pressure of medal versus match play.

Play was held on successive days, so course and climatic conditions were almost identical.
The course probably played shorter during the competition, yet it seemed to rise to meet the enhanced  quality off the field by some mild tweeking

There was no need to grow the rough, no need to narrow the fairways and  no need to lengthen the course in order for it to present a challenge to the better player.

Simply moving the hole locations and slightly speeding up the greens seemed to be all the tweaking that was needed.

Can it therefore be said that the better the golf course the less tweaking is needed in order to transition the course from daily  member play to a course that can conduct a  competition that presents a more than adequate challenge for the better golfer ?

[Mike_Young]

Yes, that is one of the marks....IMHO

[JMEvensky]

Wouldn't it depend on the skill level of the competitors?

Using Seminole as example,would most of their membership enjoy putting the greens at the speed maintained for the Coleman on a daily basis?

I would think the difference between daily member maintenance and the maintenance tweaks required to test elite players is huge at most courses.

The extent of tweaking required to test elite players would render a course unplayable for most memberships."Fun" would be the last adjective you'd hear.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wouldn't it depend on the skill level of the competitors?

NOT at all,  The competitors are similar golfers

Using Seminole as example,would most of their membership enjoy putting the greens at the speed maintained for the Coleman on a daily basis?

I don't think ]You don't understand the question

I would think the difference between daily member maintenance and the maintenance tweaks required to test elite players is huge at most courses.
That's my point, at Seminole very little in the way of change is required.

The extent of tweaking required to test elite players would render a course unplayable for most memberships."Fun" would be the last adjective you'd hear.
That's not true at Semionole, and, I don't think that's true at PV, ANGC, GCGC and many other courses.

Isn't that a characteristic of a great course, that very little in the way of amemdmemts has to be made ?

[Bill_McBride]

All a function of green speed enhanced by hole locations?

[Patrick_Mucci]

All a function of green speed enhanced by hole locations?

I think it's much more than that.

There's a tournament at Seminole that has a field composed of diverse handicaps, all competing on an equal footing.
Golfers who are + 1, +2 and +3 compete with golfers who are 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18.  Yet, there's not one complaint that the course is playing too hard or that it's unfair, no matter what the wind, green speed or hole locations.

I think it starts with wide fairways and large greens.

[Gary Slatter]

The National Golf Club north of Toronto is one great course (#1 in Canada most of the time) that can host any event any day, without changing much on the course that the member's don't enjoy every day.   
The Old Course is another that hosts many tournaments without changing a thing.  The OPEN is their exception.  For the Women's British Open they didn't change a thing, other than filling in more divots the Sunday before.

I agree with your premise.

[RJ_Daley]

I can see and understand the premise.  I think it is valid in some cases that daily presentation is equally effective for elite presentations, and that it is highly dependent on daily speed of greens being generally aimed at higher speeds that the daily maintenence can tolerate considering rounds played, and contours of the greens to speed ratio.  Also, I think that the width of fairways in combination to angles and terrain contours are part of good architecture that allow everyday to be elite competition effective. 

But, I also think that turf species and cultivars for greens surrounds and roughs and HOC and climate, along with numbers of rounds per day all play a role in allowing everyday maintenance and presentations to be equal to presentations for elite players. 

Yes it is the mark of a great course in terms of architecture, but also it is a mark of other factors including how it can be realistically maintained to last for everyday usage.

[John Gosselin]

All a function of green speed enhanced by hole locations?

I think it's much more than that.

There's a tournament at Seminole that has a field composed of diverse handicaps, all competing on an equal footing.
Golfers who are + 1, +2 and +3 compete with golfers who are 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18.  Yet, there's not one complaint that the course is playing too hard or that it's unfair, no matter what the wind, green speed or hole locations.

I think it starts with wide fairways and large greens.

From the stories I have herd about Seminole and what they do with complainers I can understand no complaints.

[David_Madison]

Yes, absolutely, positively. The less you have to do to a course to transition it from member play to tournament play, the better the architecture. If all it takes is to raise the competitors' blood pressure is to tweak the tees and cups, maybe roll the greens if that's not the norm for day-to-day play, and put a trophy on a table near the first tee along with computer generated scorecards, then you have something that's likely pretty good all the time. Baltimore CC (Five Farms) might be the best I've seen lately in this regard - - wide fairways with flyer length rough, big greens with lots of neat cupping opportunities, and plenty of teeing flexibility.

[Mike Hendren]

Agree.  Exemplified by  Ross' hard par / easy bogey philosophy.

I'd like Tom Doak to weigh in as I believe his work reflects this dynamic.

Mike

[TEPaul]

"Can it therefore be said that the better the golf course the less tweaking is needed in order to transition the course from daily  member play to a course that can conduct a  competition that presents a more than adequate challenge for the better golfer?"


Patrick:

I suppose you could say that but you probably aren't considering something about Seminole and that is the fairly slight difference in maintenance and set up there for daily member play and competitions even like the Coleman is a fairly recent thing in Seminole's history. By fairly recent I mean that when the Coleman was first created (around 1990) essentially that maintenance program that was used for the Coleman was just kept for daily membership play, and it's been that way for about the last twenty years.

But what was the course and its maintenance program like for daily membership play and for tournament play before 1990 and the beginning of the Coleman? Patrick, it was sort of like night and day! And please don't tell me I don't know because I do. I played that course a lot from about 1975 until 1990 and then I played in about the first four Colemans.

I will never forget my first Coleman----I could just not believe it was the same golf course I had known so well and the odd thing was it really didn't even look different. What they did is just really firm up those greens and souped up their speed bigtime and they used some really tough pins----a whole lot of front ones on the most sloping back to front greens.

What Seminole really did is just change their membership culture in the last twenty years regarding the challenge of the course for daily membership play.

The one who was originally responsible for it was my third cousin, Barry Van Gerbig who created the Coleman and who took the course into a whole different maintenance management and set up mode. And right around the same time guess who took over as the head pro from Saucon Valley's Jerry Pitman? Bob Ford from Oakmont did. That alone ought to tell you something about how and why the membership culture for supreme daily challenge changed.

Oh and I forgot, right around that same time (about 1990) Barry Van Gerbig brought in a ton of new members many of which were really good players. At first the membership didn't understand that and fussed about it but they got over it, because frankly most all those good players he brought in are really good guys but at the time that old line membership didn't know that and at first didn't understand it.

The first Coleman is where I first saw what I now call the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" (IMM). I didn't completely understand its component parts and its effectiveness for challenge, and a pretty fair challenge until I saw it again about 6-7 years later at the National Singles Tournament at NGLA.

I see that Aronimink's super John Goesselin posted on this thread. In my opinion, if anyone on here or actually anyone out there anywhere completely understands this subject and more----HE DOES!

But THAT is probably a subject for another time. In my opinion, what Aronimink did this year for the AT&T tournament compared to daily membership play is a message that has just got to get out there to American golf. It just might be the most intelligent and realistic message golf course maintenance and setup could possible hear, at this point!

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Can it therefore be said that the better the golf course the less tweaking is needed in order to transition the course from daily  member play to a course that can conduct a  competition that presents a more than adequate challenge for the better golfer?"


Patrick:

I suppose you could say that but you probably aren't considering something about Seminole and that is the fairly slight difference in maintenance and set up there for daily member play and competitions even like the Coleman is a fairly recent thing in Seminole's history. By fairly recent I mean that when the Coleman was first created (around 1990) essentially that maintenance program that was used for the Coleman was just kept for daily membership play, and it's been that way for about the last twenty years.

So it's your belief that Ben Hogan was wasting his time practicing at Seminole in preparation for The Masters ?

But what was the course and its maintenance program like for daily membership play and for tournament play before 1990 and the beginning of the Coleman? Patrick, it was sort of like night and day! And please don't tell me I don't know because I do. I played that course a lot from about 1975 until 1990 and then I played in about the first four Colemans.

Your introduction to the course lags mine by about 15 years

I will never forget my first Coleman----I could just not believe it was the same golf course I had known so well and the odd thing was it really didn't even look different. What they did is just really firm up those greens and souped up their speed bigtime and they used some really tough pins----a whole lot of front ones on the most sloping back to front greens.

The Coleman conditions also went over the brink when some tried to defend par by making the course goofy.
When one of the best players at Seminole, a seasoned amateur and member, six (6) putts the 18th green, you know the conditions were over the top

What Seminole really did is just change their membership culture in the last twenty years regarding the challenge of the course for daily membership play.

The one who was originally responsible for it was my third cousin, Barry Van Gerbig who created the Coleman and who took the course into a whole different maintenance management and set up mode. And right around the same time guess who took over as the head pro from Saucon Valley's Jerry Pitman? Bob Ford from Oakmont did. That alone ought to tell you something about how and why the membership culture for supreme daily challenge changed.

Almost every course in the Universe increased green speeds between 1975 and 1990 and subsequent

Oh and I forgot, right around that same time (about 1990) Barry Van Gerbig brought in a ton of new members many of which were really good players. At first the membership didn't understand that and fussed about it but they got over it, because frankly most all those good players he brought in are really good guys but at the time that old line membership didn't know that and at first didn't understand it.

There are other opinions, including member opinions, on that subject that I won't discuss on this thread.

The first Coleman is where I first saw what I now call the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" (IMM). I didn't completely understand its component parts and its effectiveness for challenge, and a pretty fair challenge until I saw it again about 6-7 years later at the National Singles Tournament at NGLA.

I see that Aronimink's super John Goesselin posted on this thread. In my opinion, if anyone on here or actually anyone out there anywhere completely understands this subject and more----HE DOES!

But THAT is probably a subject for another time. In my opinion, what Aronimink did this year for the AT&T tournament compared to daily membership play is a message that has just got to get out there to American golf. It just might be the most intelligent and realistic message golf course maintenance and setup could possible hear, at this point!

TE, I think you're missing the point, which is, that Seminole and select other courses don't have to substantively alter their course in order to transition if from daily member play to competitive play

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Your last post is a great example why there is no good reason for me to discuss this kind of thing with you. The gist of your post is an attitude that seems to be just arguing for argumentation's sake. I know what happened at Seminole through those years because my Dad belonged to that place for maybe thirty years and he was on the board and he saw it and heard it all first hand. Did you ever have that kind of experience with the history of Seminole?

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

I'd agree with the premise if you changed the Subject to "one of the marks" instead of just "the mark". 

For arguments sake, is a corollary of the premise, and your Seminole example of it, that any course that is good for member play, and that can also tweak the green speeds and adjust pin positions to make the course stand up for competitions, a great course.

One of my home courses makes for a fair to significant challenge for the membership on a day to day basis with modest green speeds and relatively benign pin positions.  But with rolled greens and slightly higher green speeds and some slightly more challenging pin positions, it provided a stiff test for the Monday qualifier for the Canadian Open.  No other tweaking was done.  They didn't even play all the back tees.  The qualifying scores were 68's and 69's.  I doubt many on here would describe it as a great course, but it has your mark on it.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()