Pete Dye must be sooo proud

[Jason Thurman]

If you have to think about it, then it's not dramatic or suspenseful.

My understanding of Streamsong is that the property has very little of its original natural state left. I'm not sure why you think it's ok for a golf course to feature ponds created by a guy working for Mosaic, but not ok for a course to feature ponds created by a guy working for Pete Dye.

This thread isn't about the quality of Florida golf. It's about the quality of TPC Sawgrass within the context of this year's tournament and how satisfied Pete Dye must feel about his design. If building an excellent golf course on 415 acres of swampland so crappy as to have been purchased for a single dollar doesn't qualify as a great golf course engineering achievement, I'd love to know what you think does. Your boy Ben Crenshaw calls it a "darn good golf course," and your boy Tom Doak calls it an 8.

When you consider the state of the intial land, the cost to acquire it, the intent of the design, the resulting course, and the quality of the tournament it produces year in and year out, it's hard for me to believe the PGA and Pete Dye could've hit a bigger home run. It sounds like you think you could've done better. I'd love to know what you would have suggested instead.

[Garland Bayley]

The course was designed to be a test for pros and host the PGA Tours yearly tournament.  I don't see how you can argue it hasn't done a great job at doing just those things.  In fact, the only thing that it probably needs is more length now (which is another matter entirely).

The fact remains, the only true hazard for professionals is water.  These guys are getting up and down from bunkers at roughly 60%.  I'm guessing if 17 was surrounded by sand instead of water, not a single guy out there would be intimidated by it.

16, 17 and 18 are as good as finishing holes as there is on the tour.

If the only "true hazard" for professionals is water, why did C&C restore Pinehurst #2 to native tufts of grass in sand waste areas for rough. Do you think every lie there will not cost even a bit of a stroke.

Besides getting up and down from bunkers at 60% is much better than getting up and down from ponds at 0% when it comes to tournament drama.

[Jim Sherma]

Shouldn't they be ashamed. The 17th allows no recovery shots, thereby taking the drama out of the tournament, and giving everyone the idea that lots of ponds on a golf course is OK.

Too bad the PGA Tour had to locate their home offices in Florida, home of the Doak 0.
What could be one of the greatest tournaments turns into a ball rinsing exercise.

For historical accuracy it does allow one recovery shot... from the bunker. My memory is not this good, but I did sit through the retropective on the tournament coverage showing with Lenny Mattaice's blow up from the bunker after dunking it once already. Nasty hole, but fair on tour at the distance, although another 20 yards might be fun to watch, not necessarily play.

[Tom Culley]

Where's my eye-roll icon...

Ah, there it is. This forum needs a good WTF emoticon.

Hopefully the collective GCA arteries have not hardened to the point where every hole in every championship in the world must be amenable to play with a putter from tee to green.

Angelo Spagnolo eventually tried to play 17 with his putter... he still put one in the drink!   

[Josh Tarble]

The course was designed to be a test for pros and host the PGA Tours yearly tournament.  I don't see how you can argue it hasn't done a great job at doing just those things.  In fact, the only thing that it probably needs is more length now (which is another matter entirely).

The fact remains, the only true hazard for professionals is water.  These guys are getting up and down from bunkers at roughly 60%.  I'm guessing if 17 was surrounded by sand instead of water, not a single guy out there would be intimidated by it.

16, 17 and 18 are as good as finishing holes as there is on the tour.

If the only "true hazard" for professionals is water, why did C&C restore Pinehurst #2 to native tufts of grass in sand waste areas for rough. Do you think every lie there will not cost even a bit of a stroke.

Besides getting up and down from bunkers at 60% is much better than getting up and down from ponds at 0% when it comes to tournament drama.

Your second point is exactly why water puts so much pressure on these guys.  There is 0% chance of them recovering.  It makes the 1st shot a much bigger deal.  With a tournament on the line and 130 yards, its amazing the pressure that comes from the 17th.  I don't think that's the case if its a green surrounded by a waste area.

Why #2 works, is the fact that the native and waste areas do extract a 1/2 to full shot penalty but it adds up over a round.  It doesn't culminate with a potential round changing penalty resting on one simple wedge.

[noonan]

For a pro - how hard is a shot at the middle of the 17th with a wedge in their hand?

Trying to aim at the left shelf, right shelf, or the back of the green is when they have issue.

I played the 17th twice - and I have never missed with a 9 iron in my hand  - and at best I am a 7.

But I aimed for the middle of the green.

[Garland Bayley]

Here's my point. Suppose Sergio and Tiger had come to the 17th with tied, and leading by a at least a couple over everyone else. Sergio dunks one (or in this case two) and makes double (or worse). It's over. Sort of a slam bang, thank you ma'am finish. I prefer the longer slowly rising crescendo to a climax at 18, and perhaps beyond if they are able to delay our gratification.

[Jason Thurman]

Sure Garland. But knowing the risk of missing the target, suppose Sergio jams one to 5 feet like he did in the playoff a few years ago and takes the lead on a hole fraught with such peril. Then, he must play the 18th with even more peril to seal the deal, while Tiger has to get bold one hole ahead on his approach shot. #goosebumps

Or suppose that Sergio rinses his ball on the 14th tee instead, taking himself out of contention, with Tiger staying dry and cruising to a 3 shot lead by the time he reaches 17. But let’s imagine that Tiger hits that awful shot from the 14th tee on the 17th tee instead, and makes double-bogey. Suddenly, a tournament that was over is now back in doubt as the lead is cut to one and Lingmerth stands with a wedge in hand on the 71st hole while Tiger faces two treacherous shots to get home on the 72nd. On your ideal dramatic course, Tiger just gets up and down for par or bogey at 17 and continues his back nine coronation. #boring

Your whole argument is contingent on one swing Sergio made on the 71st hole this year. Sergio had a bad 17th hole, so the tournament's drama hit its crescendo on the 71st tee instead of on the 72nd green. Ergo, you say the course removes drama. That's just preposterous. The course provided a stage capable of producing anything from a good to a mind-blowing finish. The players, using that canvas, gave us a great finish. It's not the course's fault that Sergio didn't hit a shot that made the 72nd hole the most dramatic on the course. Ultimately, to get a transcendent tournament, you need the players and the course to combine. No course can guarantee a transcendent tournament every year. Still, Sawgrass consistently produces a great one and is capable of delivering a transcendent one. Name another course where the outcome is so consistently in doubt on the 71st hole year after year.

[Garland Bayley]

... Name another course where the outcome is so consistently in doubt on the 71st hole year after year.

All of them. And they are still in doubt on the 72nd hole.

[Doug Ralston]

The course was designed to be a test for pros and host the PGA Tours yearly tournament.  I don't see how you can argue it hasn't done a great job at doing just those things.  In fact, the only thing that it probably needs is more length now (which is another matter entirely).

Are you mad? The last thing this particular tournament needs is turned into a drive and goudge because you have to hit driver on every hole. I loved watching these Pros play position and sometime try to take a risk to gain not so much lenth as access to a better landing area. This tournament was more about architecture than the Masters ever is. Length is what is most does NOT need!

Doug

[Matt Kardash]

The course was designed to be a test for pros and host the PGA Tours yearly tournament.  I don't see how you can argue it hasn't done a great job at doing just those things.  In fact, the only thing that it probably needs is more length now (which is another matter entirely).

Are you mad? The last thing this particular tournament needs is turned into a drive and goudge because you have to hit driver on every hole. I loved watching these Pros play position and sometime try to take a risk to gain not so much lenth as access to a better landing area. This tournament was more about architecture than the Masters ever is. Length is what is most does NOT need!

Doug

It doesn't need a ton of length, but some holes could use some. Most players weren't even hitting any drivers. Tiger was hitting 1 driver per round, the rest were 5 woods. Pete Dye didn't have in mind 5 wood 8 iron when he built the 14th.

[Doug Ralston]

Exactly. This is just the course that brings a lot of great ball-strikers who do not necessarily have great length right back into contention. Since everyone gets to play with a chance to perform, it is the best possible venue IMHO.

Doug

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's my point. Suppose Sergio and Tiger had come to the 17th with tied, and leading by a at least a couple over everyone else.

Sergio dunks one (or in this case two) and makes double (or worse). It's over.

 Sort of a slam bang, thank you ma'am finish.

I prefer the longer slowly rising crescendo to a climax at 18, and perhaps beyond if they are able to delay our gratification.

Would # 17 or # 18 at Pebble Beach be more to your liking in your example ?

How about # 16 and # 17 at Cypress Point ?

Or, the OB at # 18 at Merion ?

# 18 at Balturol ?

# 15 and # 16 at ANGC ?

Per your criterion, dunk it in the water or hit it OB and the tournament is over.

The notion that a tournament should only be decided on the 18th green or 18th hole is absurd.
Actually, it's beyond absurd, it's moronic. 

[Josh Tarble]

The course was designed to be a test for pros and host the PGA Tours yearly tournament.  I don't see how you can argue it hasn't done a great job at doing just those things.  In fact, the only thing that it probably needs is more length now (which is another matter entirely).

Are you mad? The last thing this particular tournament needs is turned into a drive and goudge because you have to hit driver on every hole. I loved watching these Pros play position and sometime try to take a risk to gain not so much lenth as access to a better landing area. This tournament was more about architecture than the Masters ever is. Length is what is most does NOT need!

Doug

Doug,
Like Matt said, it doesn't need a ton of length, but IMO to be a true test, it must require these guys hit a driver on at least a couple par 4s.  Those guys were hitting 5 and 3 woods off the tee on every hole.  But for the most part, I do agree with you.  I love having to see them shape shots...part of the reason I love the Harbor Town tourney.

[Patrick_Mucci]

... Name another course where the outcome is so consistently in doubt on the 71st hole year after year.

All of them. And they are still in doubt on the 72nd hole.


It has more to do with mathematic probability than the architecture.

You should know that

[BigEdSC]

Being a member out at TPC Sawgrass, and reading the posts on this, I've got a pretty good eye on this.  I went to the tournament on Thursday and watched the final round on Sunday.  One thing that everyone here assumes is that the set up of the golf course is static.  The tees are moved quite significantly back and forth from day to day.  Over the tournament, #8, the tee was moved from 231 yards to 200 yards, to a small green.  #9 played from 583, and I believe that the tee was moved up on Sunday to 540.  The par 5 greens are quite small and it takes a damn good swing to hit the green in 2.  #14 on Sunday played about 2/3 of the Players tee, not all the way back.  #17, I watched the first group come through on Thursday.  It was playin 124 to a front pin, which I think is the easiest pin.  The first person to hit, Ken Duke, hit it into the water.  I forget who else in the group also hit it into the water.  But at 124, I think that it plays between clubs for a lot of the guys. 

Then #18, when you move the tee up, then you bring the trees alongside the right side into play.  It forces you to hit a draw on the hole with something other than a driver, without you over cooking it with a hook.  I noticed a lot of the pros hitting right into the trees, without any chance of recovery.  How many times have your heard a better player make the remark on your golf course or another golf course saying " this hole would play a lot better if we had to play from "back there" meaing the back of the back tee." and meaning " just let me hit driver, because I can't reach the trees, pond, etc. that are located through the fairway.

just this last statement, if you didn't watch the tournament, and just listened to Tiger's remarks afterward saying that he hit the ball great and played great all week, you would of assumed that he probably shot -20 or so.  For him the hit the ball as well as he did, and to shoot -13 shows me that more length isn't needed for the golf course.

[Mike Hendren]

In my opinion Dye is a genius.

Bogey

[noonan]

Being a member out at TPC Sawgrass, and reading the posts on this, I've got a pretty good eye on this.  I went to the tournament on Thursday and watched the final round on Sunday.  One thing that everyone here assumes is that the set up of the golf course is static.  The tees are moved quite significantly back and forth from day to day.  Over the tournament, #8, the tee was moved from 231 yards to 200 yards, to a small green.  #9 played from 583, and I believe that the tee was moved up on Sunday to 540.  The par 5 greens are quite small and it takes a damn good swing to hit the green in 2.  #14 on Sunday played about 2/3 of the Players tee, not all the way back.  #17, I watched the first group come through on Thursday.  It was playin 124 to a front pin, which I think is the easiest pin.  The first person to hit, Ken Duke, hit it into the water.  I forget who else in the group also hit it into the water.  But at 124, I think that it plays between clubs for a lot of the guys. 

Then #18, when you move the tee up, then you bring the trees alongside the right side into play.  It forces you to hit a draw on the hole with something other than a driver, without you over cooking it with a hook.  I noticed a lot of the pros hitting right into the trees, without any chance of recovery.  How many times have your heard a better player make the remark on your golf course or another golf course saying " this hole would play a lot better if we had to play from "back there" meaing the back of the back tee." and meaning " just let me hit driver, because I can't reach the trees, pond, etc. that are located through the fairway.

just this last statement, if you didn't watch the tournament, and just listened to Tiger's remarks afterward saying that he hit the ball great and played great all week, you would of assumed that he probably shot -20 or so.  For him the hit the ball as well as he did, and to shoot -13 shows me that more length isn't needed for the golf course.

Spot on!

[Tags:]

Tags: