Do Classic Courses Stand Up Better?

[JNC Lyon]

 People often talk of building 7400 Yard courses to accomodate long hitters and new technology. However, I believe classic courses do stand up better to new longer pros. A good example is the Canadian Open. The winning score at Hamilton this year was -11, at a course Colt built for member play. The year before, the scores at Angus Glen, 500 yards longer, nearly reached -20. I believe classic courses have a boldness and a subtleness not found at even the best modern courses.

[TEPaul]

I occurs to me that the answer to a question such as this is that some classic courses do stand up better to even tour caliber players despite lack of length. But why?

Firstly, length alone, the type of length cited here, even 7400 yds, has basically been proven to not be a problem for tour caliber golfers although it certainly would be for the rest of us.

So why would a shorter course be more of a problem for them to score well on? My guess would be in some classic course cases the greens would be the answer.

Many classic courses have greens that are more complex for tour pros or anyone else to play despite being shorter total distance-wise.

Some older classic courses have greens that really weren't built for the speeds that they're running today, as are many of the greens on longer more modern courses and consequently hitting them properly, recovering to them or birdied them is obviously more diffiicult than what they find on the newer, much longer modern courses.

That's probably the answer.

[Lou_Duran]

I agree with TEP.  Those so-called "member courses" are set up for these special events in a way that the average member probably couldn't finish the round within double their handicap.  Greens which were built to run about 6 or 7 on the Stimp, are cut to 11 or 12.  Coupled with the high, thick, irrigated and fertilized rough around them, scoring is much more difficult.  Set up the course as normally played by the members, the pros would likely shoot zero.  My recommended solution: if you are a decision maker at a classic course, disregard what the pros want, and concentrate on maintaining what made your course great and satisfying the large majority of your members/customers.

[TEPaul]

The "ideal maintenance meld" to put these classic courses into their proper and ideal (not over the top) scoring defense mode is proving itself--at least it is to me on my course. They had it pretty well souped up recently with what passes as my "ideal" perscription that consists of firm and fast "through the green" and most IMPORTANTLY green surfaces that weren't exactly too fast at all for the slopes and counters BUT WHERE the "Ideal" firmness (very light dent/no dirt producing pitch mark) to dial down just enough on total reliability to the aerial only game!

How do I know this? Well, we had a Green Committee meeting the other day which our head pro who's won 2 out of the last 3 Pa Opens and comes to all the green committee meetings and he happened to mention that during this condition he'd unbelievably shot rounds of 74-77-74 instead of his usual 65-66-67! Terry Hertzog is really into all this stuff and he knows exactly what he's saying. It was music to my ears too. The members for some reason seem to be loving it to.

The "ideal maintenance meld" works perfectly guys--it really does. You can dial it up or down anyway you want to--weather permitting of course!

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- How would handle or describe the ideal meld for modern courses? IS it possible that most of these critically acclaimed modern courses, ideal meld, is wet and soft? How would you respond to someone who stated " 'IMM' only works for classic courses"?

[TEPaul]

"Tom- How would handle or describe the ideal meld for modern courses? IS it possible that most of these critically acclaimed modern courses, ideal meld, is wet and soft? How would you respond to someone who stated " 'IMM' only works for classic courses"?"

Adam:

Most of my focus on the "ideal maintenance meld" has been on the classic course simply because they're the ones who've basically had components of their design intents compromised and corrupted--basically things such as designed width but particularly the necessary compent of the ground game alternative that most of them have (still today) at least in design although often not in function (over irrigation).

But I have thought about the "Ideal maintenance meld" for the modern course as well. Basically the best perscription for any golf course's "Ideal maintenance meld" is to closely study what it was designed to offer in the way of playability and then enhance and highlight that in various ways through maintenance practices.

But in a general sense if a modern course was designed for pretty much solely the aerial game then it stands to reason that that is what needs to be concentrated on with maintenance practices to acheive it's own unique "ideal maintenance meld". And, yes, if it has little ground game design then firm and fast conditions really wouldn't seem to be necessary, would they? Softer conditions "through the green" than on the classic course style would seem to be their "ideal" and probably less firm greens too--more receptive greens to aerial shots (to accomodate their heavily reliant aerial game design). Faster greens would also seem to be an "ideal" perscription.

Having said all this the modern course with it's heavy reliance on the aerial game and little or no alternative ground game alternative suddenly doesn't seem quite so interesting, at least "ideally, does it?

[JNC Lyon]

 I believe that this meld would work for many modern courses. Many modern greens often contain a good deal of undulation and are therefore more receptive. Why is Oak Hill's #6 so much more receptive than #3? It has more undulation.
I believe courses would be more challenging if they were firmer, and they might even play better.