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.


Patrice Boissonnas

  • Total Karma: 0
Championship courses. How good are they ?
« on: July 04, 2014, 04:34:38 PM »
The newly reanimated thread about Golf National makes me think about this: in general, how good are courses which, like Golf National, were specifically designed to host professional tournaments?

Europe has several other examples like PGA Catalunya, PGA Sweden National, maybe also Club Gut Lärchenhof in Germany…

I know most GCAers reject that type of maximalistic & penal architecture (and I usually count myself within).
But can you think of counter examples?
Did any of those courses manage to be playable and enjoyable for everyday golfers? Or simply be fun despite the difficulty?

Curious to read your thoughts about this.
Sorry if a similar thread was already launched couple years ago...

Jaeger Kovich

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2014, 04:44:30 PM »
Patrice - If you only played courses that have held a US Open or Open Championship, you would be playing some seriously good golf 9 times out of 10!

Of the 10 US Open courses I've seen: Oakmont, Winged Foot, Bethpage, Pinehurst, Canterbury, Oakland Hills, Shinnecock, Riviera, Baltusrol and Inwood, 8 are legitimately top-100 layouts.

I'd say its your standard yearly tour stops that are often the overdone "championship" layouts that this crowd doesn't like, so I suppose it depends on your definition of Championship golf

Patrice Boissonnas

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2014, 04:56:04 PM »
Jaeger,
sorry if my question was unclear.
I am questioning the value of courses which were specifically designed to host professional tournaments and, to be more precise, in the past 20 or 30 years.
US Open or British Open courses do not fall into that category. They are courses one which the 1st tournaments were held because they were the only courses around. And they have since then been modified to keep hosting tournaments (we know what that did to the Old Course recently...)

Jaeger Kovich

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2014, 06:31:07 PM »
A few of those were clearly designed specifically for tournaments, but if you want to focus on just the last 20-30 years, nobody has done it better than Pete Dye.

I think many of his courses are hit or miss, and often in the eye of the beholder. Kiawah Ocean I think is great. I personally prefer PGA West to TPC Sawgrass. Of course there is Hilton Head and many many others... Alice Dye's name certainly always comes up in conversations when talking about how playable Pete's courses are for daily play, however, none of these were built to hold the amount of rounds they actually get now. I doubt Harbor Town's greens for example would never have been built so small if they knew how popular the place would be.

Certainly many others have been asked to design for tournament play, but its rare that they 1, are elected to host, and 2, turn out as interesting golf courses for people like us. (I'll think of some examples tonight.) In my option it seems like when presented with this task, to often the design becomes formulaic rather than artistic. Greens, and thus strategies are sometimes compromised for additional pin placements at 2-2.25-2.5%, not to mention the length. I've been a part of 2 projects (1 planning, and 1 construction) where decisions were made to promote easier fan/player circulation and grandstands, rather than the best golf.

Jaeger Kovich

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2014, 09:34:14 PM »
Is this more like it?

I have removed my list as it seems like I have misunderstood the question, or at least am not doing a very good job explaining why I was highlighting some as attention worthy in the "championship" category


... There has to be a lot of courses built with this intention that never won the vote or got the right sponser!
« Last Edit: July 05, 2014, 10:50:57 PM by Jaeger Kovich »

Tom_Doak

  • Total Karma: 19
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2014, 09:42:06 PM »
Jaeger:

Sebonack was not built with the intent of hosting a tournament.  We never discussed it even once during the process.  If we had, it might have changed the design significantly.  Having the ninth hole hit across the only road up to the clubhouse is a huge bottleneck for tournament infrastructure, as was evident during the Women's Open.

I would dispute some of your other "tournament design" choices as well, but don't have first-hand knowledge of many of them.  And just think of all the courses that were designed for a tournament but never got one, and just waste real estate and torture golfers for a tournament that never comes.  [Hint:  you played a tournament on one just recently.]  I would tend to agree with Patrice's perspective. 

Josh Stevens

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2014, 10:16:07 PM »
Hm, Piece of string question.

I guess the major issue is that the difference differential between them and us is now so huge.  In the 70s, a pro might roll it past me by 20m-30m.  Now the pro is rolling it past my young equivalent by 50-60m.  So in the old days, a course of 6100m was quite adequate to challenge, but now it must be 6500m at least to be considered championship standard - whatever the hell that means.

Championship venues, at the top end are the culmination of toughness and logistics.  I see Olympic Club as a case in point.  I played it about 10 years ago, and while a pleasant day out, I didn't see anything amazing architecturally speaking, in fact it annoyed the shit out of me at times, but it makes a great US Open venue apparently by virtue of its brutality and location.

Jaeger Kovich

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2014, 10:48:20 PM »
Tom -

2 TPC courses and 1 PGA brand on my list out of 30ish is not a very good track record! These popped into my head as some of the best "counter" examples, as I understood the question. I tried pointing out how many never got the tournament they wanted... Remember that list of the tournament courses the players liked best 3 years ago? Wasn't exactly filled with courses worth traveling for. Open courses are a different animal. Maybe Championship v tournament v "championship" is where the translation didn't connect in the initial question, when I first read it.

Would you say tournament course / championship course was a bigger selling point for the Jones or Dye family over the last 30 years?

I didn't think Sebonack was, but given the tournament, gave it a question-mark as a possible exception to the rule. I suppose I should have known that though...

Niall C

  • Total Karma: -4
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2014, 05:56:03 AM »
Patrice

If you are judging courses as being good based on their playability for the average hack, and also on how much fun they are then I think you end up coming back to basics in looking for championship courses that meet that criteria. Championship links courses on the Open rota fit it very well (setting aside the narrowing of fairways for championships which is not a design issue but a set-up issue and the odd championship tee with an impossible carry) as hazards tend to be flanking and fairways playable from every distance. Basically there is loads of flexibility.

A lot of modern "Championship" courses on the other hand are about carrying the ball and hitting the landing zones. If you can't reach the landing zone then tough. There is no flexibility in the design to allow for shorter hitters. Now some would say why not play from the appropriate tee while I would say why not design the golf course properly in the first place  ;).

BTW it was good to meet you briefly at the recent Doakfest, and I'm sorry we didn't get to chat further.

Niall  
« Last Edit: July 06, 2014, 08:47:50 AM by Niall Carlton »

David_Tepper

  • Total Karma: 4
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2014, 07:10:56 PM »
"-Was Castle Stuart built with the intention of hosting tournaments? I'd guess based on when it opened and went it got 3 consecutive tournaments it was certainly talked about."

Jaeger K. -

While I am sure Mark Parsinen & Gil Hanse had championship play in mind when they designed and built Castle Stuart, they also did a wonderful job of making it both playable and enjoyable for the everyday golfer. The width and lack of forced carries certainly helps.

It is one of my wife's favorite courses to play.

DT   

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Total Karma: -1
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2014, 08:32:46 PM »
TPC Scottsdale & TPC Sawgrass and other TPC courses were built for tournaments and public play, both at premium prices. Because of their tv exposure, they get a lot of play from those who want to play where the pros play.

https://www.tpc.com/scottsdale-history
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

Jaeger Kovich

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2014, 10:43:52 PM »
"-Was Castle Stuart built with the intention of hosting tournaments? I'd guess based on when it opened and went it got 3 consecutive tournaments it was certainly talked about."

Jaeger K. -

While I am sure Mark Parsinen & Gil Hanse had championship play in mind when they designed and built Castle Stuart, they also did a wonderful job of making it both playable and enjoyable for the everyday golfer. The width and lack of forced carries certainly helps.

It is one of my wife's favorite courses to play.

DT   

... That is why it is listed as one of the great successes!


Jaeger Kovich

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #12 on: July 05, 2014, 10:51:29 PM »
Is this more like it?

I have removed my list as it seems like I have misunderstood the question, or at least am not doing a very good job explaining why I was highlighting some as attention worthy in the "championship" category


... There has to be a lot of courses built with this intention that never won the vote or got the right sponser!

Sean_A

  • Total Karma: 3
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2014, 04:15:26 AM »
Patrice

Perhaps its just me, but I was confused by the title.  You used "championship" and to me at least (perhaps I am old fashioned), tour events are not championships though the odd championship course is used for tour events.  However, you seem to recognize a difference between championship courses and tour courses.

Anyway, in the GB&I there are several courses which held tour events and no longer do.  A few are great, some are  good and some are quite average; definitely a mixed bag. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Jaeger Kovich

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2014, 10:39:25 AM »
Sean - That is the whole problem. People just started marketing "championship" courses, and now there is no real definition.

Is there a difference between a golf course built to host a tournament as its opening, and a golf course built in hopes to hold one? Its not like anyone would build a course and want to host something in 20 years, they award tournaments so far in advance to make a difference I'd think. (could Rio be the last pending the vote pre-tournament whether it stays in the olympics?) Could one possible design something different for a major and not a tour event? What would be different? 50% more grandstands? The greens will run at lightning no matter what.

« Last Edit: July 06, 2014, 11:21:14 AM by Jaeger Kovich »

Brett Hochstein

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Championship courses. How good are they ?
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2014, 09:54:20 AM »
The standard definition of "championship courses" is incredibly blurry.  Since the age of looking up area courses in the phone book as a kid, the only definition I can come up with is "par 70 and over."

By Patrice's definition, I have not seen much nor really had the desire to, thus I can't really comment fairly on any.  TPC of Michigan might be the only one that counts, though they've only had Senior events.  I did find that one to be reasonably enjoyable and not overly difficult as a mid handicapper, but I don't think it was really designed for bombers anyway.  If tournament-designed courses begin emphasizing greens, contours, and short grass as main defenses over length and penal hazards, I will make more an effort to see them. 

The future Olympic Course in Rio is the only definitive "counterexample" I've seen, though they aren't really designing that strictly for the pros.  That is admittedly one of the OC's requirements, but I don't think many of the others vying for the project could pull off the duality as well as the Hanse and the boys are doing right now. 
"From now on, ask yourself, after every round, if you have more energy than before you began.  'Tis much more important than the score, Michael, much more important than the score."     --John Stark - 'To the Linksland'

http://www.hochsteindesign.com