Players praise shorter courses: Kingston Heath

[Mike_Young]

Steve Eubanks writes a good article here:

http://www.pga.com/news/eubanks/players-praise-older-shorter-courses

[Tom_Doak]

That is a good article.

But, it's important to remember that the good players have NEVER been the ones asking for longer and longer courses.

Those longer courses are being demanded by developers who want to be the big guy on the block -- and many of them are designed by past champions who think today's players look better than they really are.

[Stephen Davis]

This is a fantastic article! I know that the majority of my most enjoyable rounds have been spent on courses that require strategy over length.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike,

Tom Watson once described Ballybunion as a place architect should study before they build golf courses. I 'd say the same applies to Kingston Heath with the added twist that developers should see it as well.

When you see Royal Melbourne for the first time you can appreciate both the property itself and the work that was done there. Kingston Heath is different. I wasn't impressed the property was all that great, but wow the architecture there is exquisite, IMO.

I realize we aren't blessed with Sandbelt soil conditions, but I have always wondered why we can't have a few courses like KH here in the States.

[Mike_Clayton]

It is a good article - the only mistake being that Kingston Heath have added a lot of back tees - 1,2,3,4,6,13, 16 and 18 in the last 3 years and its now over 7100 yards.

The 18th tee went back 25 yards in response to Tiger hitting it with an 80 yard pitch in 2009. I watched Scott pitch into the 420 metre hole from less than 100 yards three days in a row.

[Rob Rigg]

Thoughts:

1) KH isn't a great test for these guys because it is short, it is a great test because the architecture is extremely thoughtful which mitigates the need for added distance. As Greg Norman was quoted as saying - "You have to play KH from the flag position back to the tee"

2) Most "tournament" tracks in the US are devoid of interesting strategic architecture - the courses tend to be fairly straight forward and "penal" in nature - A ribbon of fwy, bunkers around the landing areas, rough on either side, green with a couple bunkers - The shorter a pro plays these courses the lower his score gets and it gets lower quickly

3) As was mentioned - the pros don't care as much about the length of the courses - the tournament committee cares because guys winning with 35 under is taboo

If you look at a course like Desert Forest in Scottsdale - Even top players are challenged playing from the next to tips or next to next to tips because it's all about ball control and the green complexes are quite good. Like KH, it also takes driver out of the hands of pros on many holes. That's an easy way to trim distance from a course (as long as it is not done with washes and other gimmicks).

[John Chilver-Stainer]

One of the quotes from Graeme McDowell in the article.

"I love a golf course that asks you to position the ball off the tee with many clubs as opposed to the modern-day course which is bombs away."

[Pat Burke]

For many reason's, my best competitive golf was played in Australia.
I loved the conditions, courses, and the people.  I always felt that I simply
"fit" well in Australia.
Firm/fast was good for me as I had more fun creating shots.  The greens at places
like RM and Kingston HEath required imagination, especially with the normal winds.

For many these days, there is an over concern about players shooting low scores on great designs.
Of course, much architectural intent is being blown by, by the distances, but
it seems most guys have a lot of fun on these courses.  Maybe for some because they shoot low scores,
but for me, and I hope more of the players, simply because it IS fun.

I really miss my trips to AUS.  Forget worrying about the main tour, lets make AUS the home for a great senior tour
on great courses!!!  Especially if I can play!

[John Cornish]

Course lengths of 'major' professional tournament venues in Australia since 2010.

Hyatt Coolum                   6263 metres   6849 yards
The Lakes Golf Club           6458 metres   7062 yards
Kingston Heath Golf Club   6507 metres   7116 yards
Victoria Golf Club                   6278 metres   6865 yards
Royal Melbourne Golf Club   6331 metres   6923 yards
New South Wales Golf Club   6245 metres   6829 yards
Lake Karrinyup Country Club   6531 metres   7142 yards

[Josh Stevens]

Are you asking the right question?  Perhaps it is not that you lot over there dont have decent courses, but rather you dont use them for tournaments.  Money rules in the US and so for reasons that escape me, you play week in week on second rate tat.

We only have a few tournaments here, there is no prize money, so we may as well put up the best tracks we can.  If nothing else it creates some positive press.

Why is this?  Do the better clubs not want to hold tournaments?  Does the PGA not want to hold tournaments on quality courses?

We have had two tournaments this season to date, both on tracks where the pros were gushing in their praise.  They seem to enjoy it, but I wonder if what it is that makes the pros enjoy it, does not nessessarily make good viewing.  Laying up, and playing thoughtful strategic golf may sound good, but bombing drives makes TV ratings.