News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Will par win at Merion?

Is that the ultimate architectural goal?
It's all about the golf!

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Should all architecture be designed around the defense of par for professionals? Absolutely not! Not even some architecture.

What did MacKenzie say regarding the greatest good for the greatest number?

MM



"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
The vast majority of players and golf clubs are not influenced by nor benefit from the professional game (Exception of the club pro) therefore it would be silly for any GCA to design a course for such a customer base with the professional game in mind.

Jon

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
The vast majority of players and golf clubs are not influenced by nor benefit from the professional game
Jon

Seriously?  So we're building 7200 yard courses with forced carries presented with graduated rough and rough inside bunkers and runups for Mr. and Mrs. Havencamp?
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jon,

I think everyone is influenced by the professional game, always have been. Not only in golf but in almost all sports.

Would/should defense of par be a goal of golf course architecture? the USGA thinks so.
It's all about the golf!

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
William,

With respect, are your #@%(@@# crazy?  LOL

If there is one trend gca should move away from, its for designing for that 0.1% who actually never show up to play at Tiddly Links.  What we should take from this weekend is that commerical by JN talking about how he is moving up a tee to make golf more fun.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Chris DeNigris

  • Karma: +0/-0
William,

With respect, are your #@%(@@# crazy?  LOL

If there is one trend gca should move away from, its for designing for that 0.1% who actually never show up to play at Tiddly Links.  What we should take from this weekend is that commerical by JN talking about how he is moving up a tee to make golf more fun.

So wouldn't the real objective of current gca be to design a course that challenges all levels of players? Obviously, a bit of a rhetorical question.

William- I wouldn't imagine there have been many (any?) courses designed solely with the Tour player in mind. But that's different from designing a course that could be set up to provide that challenge when warranted and then be "normally" be set up to accommodate the other 99.9% most of the time. As Jeff and JN say...just move it up a bit and things get a lot easier.

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
William,

With respect, are your #@%(@@# crazy?  LOL

If there is one trend gca should move away from, its for designing for that 0.1% who actually never show up to play at Tiddly Links.  What we should take from this weekend is that commerical by JN talking about how he is moving up a tee to make golf more fun.

no doubt, LOL
It's all about the golf!

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Chris,

So would defense of par for all players depending on length of the tees played be the architectural goal?
It's all about the golf!

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
William,

With respect, are your #@%(@@# crazy?  LOL

If there is one trend gca should move away from, its for designing for that 0.1% who actually never show up to play at Tiddly Links.  What we should take from this weekend is that commerical by JN talking about how he is moving up a tee to make golf more fun.

no doubt, LOL

That's BS. Jack is moving up because his ego can't stand being beaten up by high scores. The average player is constantly being beat up by high scores. Moving up to make golf more fun has no meaning to him. The average player plays and gets beat up because he loves the game. The average player thinks these egomaniacs should quit and take up tiddly winks if their egos can't take golf anymore. They didn't love the game, they loved the massaging of their egos. Unfortunately, golf is controlled by a bunch of egomaniacs so they come up with programs like Tee it Forward that have no meaning to the average guy. The longer the course the more chances the average guy will have to hit that one pure shot that he will rehash at the 19th hole. The egomaniacs will talk about how they could have gone really low if they hadn't hit those 3 stinkers.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Chris DeNigris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Chris,

So would defense of par for all players depending on length of the tees played be the architectural goal?

William,

I'm a little confused by your thread and your above question..

Golf like all sports involves offense and defense. The course and it's features provide the defense. It's just the degree of the severity of the defense that's in question and what the current objectives are.

For the US Open it's simply max defense and the set up (not the inherent architecture IMO) that dictates how this is accomplished.

How do you design a course without defense of par?

Anthony Butler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Some courses were specifically designed for the professional game.  PGA West and a number of the TPC courses starting with Sawgrass come to mind. Although based on recent tournament results at these venues, they don't defend par against the PGA Tour's best very well. What's interesting, however, is that courses designed for a style of play and equipment the original architects could hardly have imagined often provide a more difficult test once they are reconfigured  to play at the same yardage as the newer courses.
Next!

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Chris,

The question of designing for all levels of players is a good one.  There has always been the presumption that this was the case, but I believe as time goes on, that theory will change, because its harder to do so.

One case in point is that with active senior communities becoming popular, these courses could easily omit the 7000 yard tees as a waste on the target audience, recognizing that on a day like Father's Day, perhaps a few younger whipper snappers might have to play a bit shorter than they truly want when visiting dear old Dad.  Is that extra real estate worth it for a few days a year?  Depends (oooh, bad senior joke there.....) on how much the course thinks the tee sheets will be filled with outside play.

Ditto with many municipal courses, where the goal might be to increase junior participation, etc.  Just as restaurants have moved mostly from general menus to attract all tastes to specialty Mexican, Italian, etc., I believe golf courses will tend to do the same.

The pro game still provides resistance, and Merion will add to that.  No reason other than history not to have about 50-75 TPC tournament venues at 7500 yards, with tent space, infrastructure, etc. and let most of the rest tip out at 7250 max, with even more courses tipped out at the 6800 yards that the lower 99% would be comfortable playing, and maybe up to half the courses tipping out at 6300 yards that 55% of golfers prefer to play.

As to rough, that can always be grown one week a year.  Bunker placement can consider defending par, but for most courses, it should consider speed of play (good by, front right green side bunkers!), looks (trying to preserve the tradition of golf with attractive, but rarely used bunkers) etc.

Boring to the purist?  Sure.  Targeted to the masses?  Sure, but also giving the customer what they want, no?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
The vast majority of players and golf clubs are not influenced by nor benefit from the professional game
Jon

Seriously?  So we're building 7200 yard courses with forced carries presented with graduated rough and rough inside bunkers and runups for Mr. and Mrs. Havencamp?

Jud,

the question was SHOULD not IS!!! As the average player (18 to 24 handicapper) has a game that does not resemble in anyway that of a tour player nor has said average player gained much in the way of the so called equipment improvement the answer has to be no.

William,

Par will not win at Merion as the real/true par for the course is 73 not 70. Just because vanity is making the USGA say the par is 70 does not alter this fact.

Jon

BHoover

  • Karma: +0/-0
Easy question to answer -- No, architecture should not have that as a goal.

Different answer perhaps if one steps into the shoes of the tournament director and course setup decision maker.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
So wouldn't the real objective of current gca be to design a course that challenges all levels of players? Obviously, a bit of a rhetorical question.

William- I wouldn't imagine there have been many (any?) courses designed solely with the Tour player in mind. But that's different from designing a course that could be set up to provide that challenge when warranted and then be "normally" be set up to accommodate the other 99.9% most of the time. As Jeff and JN say...just move it up a bit and things get a lot easier.

No.  The real objective of current gca is to design a course that allows all levels of players to have fun.  That includes adding some challenge for the best players -- but defending par at all costs means it will be no fun for anyone.

Growing deep rough around the course and "moving up a tee" won't do crap.

Instead of moving up a tee, all we need to do is cut the rough back for everyone and adjust the speed of the greens for the different groups of players, as in the days before club members made their superintendents promise to mow the greens at tournament speeds on an everyday basis.  One of my friends in China asked why they didn't do that, not understanding that it used to be exactly what everyone did, 30 years ago.

Cory Brown

  • Karma: +0/-0
I think a couple people are playing DA here (that's advocate not the Pine Valley version :P) The USGA states every year that this is not the way the average course should be setup. A bit of challenge for top players is one thing, but a torture chamber of 6 hour rounds for the everyday player is no fun for anyone. I used to really enjoy the US Open, but as I have learned more about golf architecture the less I enjoy the way these fantastic layouts are shrunk down and buried in extremely thick rough to the point that much of the strategic interest has been eliminated in the name of high scoring. It has given me much more appreciation for the Masters and some of the Open Championship setups that I feel reward the best player not just the best survivor.