Greenbrier, Macdonald-Raynor & the birdie fest at the elite level

[Carl Rogers]

Has the Architecture of Macdonald-Raynor proven unable to withstand the onslaught the modern game at the elite level?

Sadly, I think so.

[Tom_Doak]

The Greenbrier was built to be a resort golf course.  It's not like they are playing National, or Mid Ocean.

Also, relatively few Macdonald courses have been significantly lengthened over the years, because those clubs don't aspire to professional tournaments.  If you let Rees Jones put in tees all over National, it would be plenty challenging for the pros, even with its width.  However, I would likely be driven to kill myself for having mentioned the possibility .

The one Raynor course I know is plenty hard for most people is Camargo.  They use it for US Open or US Amateur local qualifying rounds every year, and no one ever tears it up.

[Phil McDade]

Carl:

Last year's qualifying rounds for the US Amateur were held at Erin Hills and Blue Mound G&CC, a faithfully maintained Raynor. It's very flat, for the most part, but with some tough greens, and a course where precision mattered more than length. Stats from those two rounds:

Erin Hills: par 72, 7,729 yards -- played to an average of 75.106.

Blue Mound: par 70, 6,667 yards -- played to an average of 71.647.

So, yes, EH played tougher, but I'd argue the USGA had to push it to 1,000 yards longer than BM to do so. My sense is that the long-hitting amateurs were a bit perplexed about how to attack a course as short as BM.

Not the pros playing the course, of course, but some very good amateurs.

[PCCraig]

Phil,

I played Blue Mound before the US Am was played there and thought out loud that the young guns would go really low there, mostly because it was so short (by modern standards) and the greens weren't overly severe. I was pretty surprised that the stroke average was over 70, but then again I don't know how hard it was set up. I suppose you could make any course brutal by growing the rough, stimping the greens up to 12-13, tucking every pin, etc...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Carl,

As Tom indicated, LENGTH is the critical element, not the architectural features.

An example might help you understand what's happened to these great courses.

The 11th at NGLA is a wonderful double plateau hole with a blind tee shot over a hill down into a swale that ends with a steep berm flanking a road that bisects the hole.  For a century, golfers hit driver or 3-wood or utility wood or long iron to ideally position themselves for their approach shot over the berm (usually blind).  A prevailing wind is at the golfers back, making it difficult to hold the left and back plateaus when the hole is cut there.  The fairway is very wide pre and post road.  It slopes down and left, pre, and is relatively flat, post.

Today, long amateurs and pros FLY that road, leaving the lob wedges into that green, a very difficult green to approach from the tee side of the road.

Another example is # 17, a 375 yard down hill, often downwind hole, with an intervening hill/convex bunker complex fronting the green,
Today, long amateurs and Pros are driving that green.

I doubt that CBM contemplated play of that nature.

If I drive my ball 300 it radically changes the play and ability to score on that golf course, since it hasn't been lengthened like Shinnecock,WFW, Merion, Baltusrol, BPB and others.

CBM-SR-CB didn't design their courses with 300+ drives and 150 yard wedges in mind.
Remember too, that the sand wedge and Lob wedge hadn't been invented when they were designing their gems.

[Tom_Doak]

Carl,

As Tom indicated, LENGTH is the critical element, not the architectural features.

An example might help you understand what's happened to these great courses.

The 11th at NGLA is a wonderful double plateau hole with a blind tee shot over a hill down into a swale that ends with a steep berm flanking a road that bisects the hole.  For a century, golfers hit driver or 3-wood or utility wood or long iron to ideally position themselves for their approach shot over the berm (usually blind).  A prevailing wind is at the golfers back, making it difficult to hold the left and back plateaus when the hole is cut there.  The fairway is very wide pre and post road.  It slopes down and left, pre, and is relatively flat, post.

Today, long amateurs and pros FLY that road, leaving the lob wedges into that green, a very difficult green to approach from the tee side of the road.

Another example is # 17, a 375 yard down hill, often downwind hole, with an intervening hill/convex bunker complex fronting the green,
Today, long amateurs and Pros are driving that green.

I doubt that CBM contemplated play of that nature.

If I drive my ball 300 it radically changes the play and ability to score on that golf course, since it hasn't been lengthened like Shinnecock,WFW, Merion, Baltusrol, BPB and others.

CBM-SR-CB didn't design their courses with 300+ drives and 150 yard wedges in mind.
Remember too, that the sand wedge and Lob wedge hadn't been invented when they were designing their gems.

Never mind the sand wedge and the lob wedge ... steel shafts hadn't been invented when Macdonald and Raynor were busy!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

True.

And, forget steel shafts, what about graphite shafts and driver clubheads the size of tennis racquets ?

When you think about the equipment in 1907-11 and how that course, with little in the way of amendments, has provided an enjoyable challenge for over a century, it's truely astounding.

Looking at today's tour event, they're playing # 8, the Redan at 217 yards.

NGLA's plays at 197 from the red tees and 177 from the green tees and it usually has a prevailing wind at your back.

At 217 the announcer indicated that some were hitting 5-irons.

[Carl Rogers]

So, for a tour player, the Cape par 4 is 520 yards long with a 285 yard carry?
What is the length of the OM Cape?
Does next month's PGA at Kiawah offer a variation of such holes?

[Mac Plumart]

Has the Architecture of Macdonald-Raynor proven unable to withstand the onslaught the modern game at the elite level?


Yes.  But this isn't surprising.  Technology has moved forward non-stop, but these courses are standing still.  People want to restore these classic courses back to their original state, but the game isn't the same.

What I find fascinating was that reading the yardage book at Chicago Golf Club (a MacDonald course redesigned by Raynor), I found that it said this redesign was brought about by CB MacDonald himself as he thought his original design was not holding up to the
advances in the game of golf. 

If CBM got it in the 1920's...why can't we?

I believe the design principles still work...they just need to be advanced to be at the  same level of the modern equipment.  Distance, pitch, bunker depth, etc.

[Wade Whitehead]

190-yard nine irons at The Greenbrier today.

Beljan hit wedge on 18 and carried it about 170 yards.

WW

[Jim_Kennedy]

I'm not so sure that it hasn't withstood the onslaught.

The winning totals for every 4 round Tour event, minus the majors, for this season are 13, 16, 15, 15, 7, 13, 12, 16, 13, 16, 14, 9, 19, 14, 11, 14, 11, 12, and 9 , the average being 13.1.

Not too shabby.

[David Harshbarger]

I'm not so sure that it hasn't withstood the onslaught.

The winning totals for every 4 round Tour event, minus the majors, for this season are 13, 16, 15, 15, 7, 13, 12, 16, 13, 16, 14, 9, 19, 14, 11, 14, 11, 12, and 9 , the average being 13.1.

Not too shabby.

I'm with you, Jim.  The international stars aren't here in droves, but Tiger, Furyk,Stricker, Mickleson, Webb are here, and there have been some nettlesome holes.  Looks like to me they are playing hard.

[David Lott]

The seniors at Fox Chapel pretty much proved that length overcomes the other qualities of of a first rate course, as least as far as resistance to scoring is concerned. I don't know how long Joe Daley is but the top 10 at FCGC was full of seniors who can still carry it. The flat bellies would stomp the old girl even more bloody.

But a large part of me says "so what?" The majority of players at FCGC play from tees too long for them, not too short. It's still a great golf course, even if a small number of players can overpower it. Anyway even back in the day the Fox Chapels of the world weren't trying to be super difficult for most golfers, just super good.

Let the courses who want to chain elite players to par do what Augusta and Oakmont do--require all contestants to play defense on the greens all the time. Of course this may be an even greater desecration, but it doesn't keep Augusta and Oakmont out of the top tier.

[David Lott]

I'm not so sure that it hasn't withstood the onslaught.

The winning totals for every 4 round Tour event, minus the majors, for this season are 13, 16, 15, 15, 7, 13, 12, 16, 13, 16, 14, 9, 19, 14, 11, 14, 11, 12, and 9 , the average being 13.1.

Not too shabby.

Ted Potter, Jr: Missed 9 of 16 cuts in 2012. Winnings $176k. Minus 16.

So why are Tiger and Phil no longer in the building? They must not be as good as Ted Potter. Not this week anyway.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim, David H - I had exactly the same thought. Since when (is it since the USGA went crazy with their defence of par?) has the fact that 20 or so of the very best players in the world/the best of all time  (out of 150 of the best players in the world/the best of all time) can shoot 4 rounds in the mid to high 60s meant that the course has become unviable and/or uninteresting as a field of play? 

Peter   

[Jim_Kennedy]

David Lott,

The cut line stats could be revealing. For instance, at the Traditon held at Innisbrook the cut was -1 and the cut at the Farmer's, held at Torrey Pines was -2.   Greenbrier's cut was -1.   

 I'm not going to take the time to do any more, but I think you get my drift.

[Jason Thurman]

A lot of Golden Age courses are like high end steak dinners: balanced, pleasing, and ultimately gratifying.

Tour pros are like Joey Chestnutt and Takeru Kobayashi. Extraordinarily gifted competitors programmed to achieve the best score possible.

Chestnutt and Kobayashi could have a steak dinner eating competition, but it would be ugly and mildly offensive. There's no shame in keeping fine dinners and fine, sporting courses in the hands of their target audience.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Has the Architecture of Macdonald-Raynor proven unable to withstand the onslaught the modern game at the elite level?


Yes.  But this isn't surprising.  Technology has moved forward non-stop, but these courses are standing still.  People want to restore these classic courses back to their original state, but the game isn't the same.

What I find fascinating was that reading the yardage book at Chicago Golf Club (a MacDonald course redesigned by Raynor), I found that it said this redesign was brought about by CB MacDonald himself as he thought his original design was not holding up to the
advances in the game of golf. 

If CBM got it in the 1920's...why can't we?

Because many, if not most, courses are land locked, they simply don't have the land to add sufficient yardage to offset the advances of the I & B

I believe the design principles still work...they just need to be advanced to be at the  same level of the modern equipment.  Distance, pitch, bunker depth, etc.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Lott,

I think the answer to the question, "so what ?" lies in the fact that the NCAA driving stats indicate that the next generation is hitting it even longer than the PGA Tour Pros, and that distance, incredible distance is no longer an anomaly but a trend amongst younger golfers.

My nephew, less than half my age by 7 years, hits the ball about 90 yards ahead of me when I hit it pretty good, and I don't think I'm short off the tee.

His generation of good golfers all hit it long.
Even mediocre young golfers are hitting it big.

So, as course remain static, increased distance will ameliorate the challenge, and that can't be good for the game and those wonderful classic courses.