Are the MAJORS ruining golf and Golf Course Architecture ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Golf in the Majors seems confined to driving from the tee to a narrow fairway, and then approaching the green with the most lofted club possible.

In the past, when a hole was cut to one side of the green, the tactic was to drive to the opposite side of the fairway, providing a better angle of approach to the hole.

Fairway bunker locations seem almost irrelevant

But, with a driving zone/corridor 15 yards wide and DEEP, LUSH rough bordering the fairway, who would dare to aim for anything but the centerline of the fairway.  Thus, the most important club a golfer carries, his brain, is rendered unnecessary, as is shot variety.

The MAJORS game seems to have become precision bombing, followed by high aerial approaches, with the golfer possessing an inventive short game from deep, lush rough around the green.

Finding greenside bunkers seems preferable to greenside rough.

Sadly, many viewers think this is what their course should aspire to be, a long, narrow, tree lined, deep roughed golf course.

On many occassions, when I've suggested widening fairways and removing some of the recently planted trees that are ridiculously close to the current fairway, I'm told that this will make the golf course too easy.  AND.. this is the trend for courses today.

Where will the MAJOR's trend lead ?

Why do clubs, like monkeys, ape MAJOR conditions ?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,

Hasn't Geoff Shackelford been saying this all along?

[Mike_Sweeney]

1. I played up at Newport CC this weekend where I have not been for 18 years when I caddied there during college. I have been wild off the tee recently, so I switched to 3 wood for most of the round. Clearly my 3 wood is going the same distance as my driver 18 years ago. I love that place, and I feel Newport should be the #1 course on the US Amateur rotation, but realistically today's top college players would probably eat it up .

2. I feel that Shinnecock will be a key event for the USGA next year. If the wind is light and the pros eat up Shinnecock, you may see the USGA do something. I got to believe that they want to keep Shinny on the rotation. I hope they set up the course similar to '95.

3. I also spoke with a former supplier to Titelist, who used to sell the rubber bands to Titelest that were in Balata balls. He was told by Titelist that today's balls are roughly 50% CHEAPER to make that the old balls. Cost less to make, charge more for the distance, clearly Titelist has no interest in changing the rules.

[Michael Whitaker]

You are 100% correct. But, it is not just the majors... it's also the magazine ratings. Between the majors and magazine ratings courses that want to be considered "championship" feel they must keep the fairways narrow and rough deep in order to maintain their "resistance to scoring" numbers.

The South Carolina Golf Association recently conducted the State Amateur Championship at Greenville Country Club's Chanticleer course. Chanticleer is a wonderful course, but in order to protect par the SCGA allowed the club to set up the course in the image of the the US Open and PGA. Here is a quote from an email I received from a friend who was a top ten finisher: "The rough was as high as I have ever seen it in a state am.  It was so tough that I had 2 lies I was not physically strong enough to get the ball more than 30 yards down the fairway.  It was just as high off the fringes as well which made chippping extremely hard."

Unfortunately, the distinction between professional championship golf and amateur golf has blurred. A lot of courses like Chanticleer feel they are being judged against the major venues that are shown on TV and receive the high rankings in the magazines... as a result, they feel they must follow their lead or be left behind in the ratings.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike, Did you ever see the movie Brazil?

Don't say all of that Titliest information too loud, or they (The Ministry of Information) will come to your house, bag you up and take you away fom your family for information retreval and reprogramming.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm not sure why, but that was the absolute least interesting golf tournament that I've ever attempted to watch on TV.  I would have preferred at rerun of some obscure Euro tour event on the Golf Channel.  Most disturbingly, in no way did I want to play golf at Oak Hill.  Surely, after a major championship, class A addicts like myself ought to be wishing for a chance to play the course we've just watched.  I'd rather go to the dentist than play that course.

The idea that the best players in the world are going to shoot 10 over for 4 days is just not attractive at all, and can't be good for the game in the long run.  Nobody wants to see the 24 under stuff either, but there's a HUGE area in there where course setup could surely be rethought in some way.

And yes, that is what Geoff Shackelford has been saying all along...

[Rick_Noyes]

A writer for the Charlotte Observer wrote this morning that "major championships exist to define greatness, sometimes though, they just define a winner".
I believe what these set-ups take away, more than anything, is a Sunday charge.  If a player negotiates the course Thurs and Fri or manages good scoring on Fri and Sat, Sunday is left for "hold on to what to have".  And to me, that makes for boring viewing.  If a player has 6 or more shots to gain on the leaders, providing the leaders don't gag it away, you're asking the "greatest" players in the world to shoot 64 or better.  Chad Campbell shot 65 Sat, Rampling and Michelson shot 66 on Thurs. After that there were only a handful of players to better 69.

Majors are indeed reduced to percision bombing and putting.
Why do clubs ape major conditions?  Because too many golfers out there equate difficult with greatness.  It must be great if scores are so high.

[Dunlop_White]

Sure, the setup of today's Major championship venues have been ruining golf course architecture. These courses serve as a model. Television portrayal also molds the mind and establishes irreversable perceptions about golf. We are really in trouble now as the Augusta National, who answers to no one, has followed suit by growing rough, squeezing landing zones, and planting trees.

[Paul_Turner]

That wasn't the case at Sandwich.  Some of the fairways were too narrow.  But they weren't simply bombing short clubs into those greens.  And the bunkers were relevant, apart from, ironically, the huge one on the 4th, because the hole never had a decent head wind.

[BCrosby]

Pat -

I'm with you. Major tournament set-ups have been the single most pernicious influence of gca since the advent of TV. They have warped perceptions of how a good course ought to play. And it is only getting worse.

Why are we in this box?

Because of the lethal combination of golf's governing bodies  who - in the same breath - want to (a) protect par and (b)ignore the game's technology problems that have rendered par meaningless on anything like a "normal" course.

Given that lethal combination, the USGA et al. have boxed themselves in a corner and are left with one choice.

They mangle golf courses.

Bob

P.S. Did anyone catch Micheel's comment at the end of his press conference where he said - with disdain in his voice - that the set up of several hole made no sense?    

[Michael_Choate]

I think that over time the course set-ups for majors will have an adverse impact on course architecture since many would-be developers and greens committee members will want their course to look like fill-in the blank.  You used to be able to tell the difference between each of the majors, not anymore.  I think the set-up at Oak Hill took skill, except driving it down the middle, out of the equation.  Even Micheel said he was a bit disappointed because he did not play better in the final round.  He only needed to survive which should not be the case in any tournament let alone a major.  I also wish the announcers would spend some time reading the history book.  I grew tired of them describing Oak Hill as a Ross course and noting how it  "stood up" to technology.