[Jerry Kluger]

Tim: I don't know why you say that Oakmont would fail my test.  I haven't played it but I did have the opportunity to play Winged Foot last year and I most certainly wanted to go back to the first tee and play it again.  I don't have a problem with TR from a difficulty perspective but from a fun perspective. 

[Carl Rogers]

Jerry

You don't have to defend you position to me. TR is not a course for the moderately skilled golfer to play; it is not a complete test of golf. I can see the appeal from the sense that it is edgy and interesting and has some very cool features but it totally fails that ultimate litmus test of is it a course I could play everyday? Hell no just too many stupid features; punishing results; and punitive blind/disorienting situations.
UGH

I really disagree with this statement. Have played it 6 times now. I think it is a very strategic course from start to finish.   The 25 handicapper should go to Mid Pines or Southern Pines.  You need to play from the correct tees.  You need to understand your own game.
All of the TR par 5's allow for the short hitting golfer to take a safe (and smart) way around the cavernous deep waste areas  and other hazards.
The 5th hole allows the golfer hit to a wedge approach shot slightly long and right to avoid the huge false front.
The fairway on 7 is blind from the tee, but hugely wide.  The green on 8 is also large and hard to miss.
I could go on....
I have 4 caveats:
1. the opening tee shot
2. the approach shot to the 9th green.
3. the routing gets a little disorienting on the back nine
4. the par 3's need a little more variety in length
I live 4.5 hours away and TR is a must play when in the area.

[Tom_Doak]

You need to play form the correct tees. 

It is always a hint of weakness about a course, when you have to say this.


I've told my story before about playing Tobacco Road with two kids about to play in a big junior event at Pinehurst.  One could carry the ball maybe 180 yards and the other 150, but both could hit it on a rope into the narrowest opening you can imagine.  Their dad really had to work to find a tee on each hole where the hole worked for them, where they could both get to the fairway and not have to lay up ... and it certainly wasn't the same set of markers all the way around.

[Carl Rogers]

Tom,
I come at the game a little differently from many on the website.  I think that every hole should be potentially par-able for the majority of golfers .... yes it means very short golf courses.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
I come at the game a little differently from many on the website.  I think that every hole should be potentially par-able for the majority of golfers .... yes it means very short golf courses.

I come at it a little differently too.  I think most courses should be so playable that you don't have to pick the right set of tees to enjoy them, so you can play with your dad or your wife and kids or your club pro from their tees (or any tees) and still enjoy the course.

[Carl Rogers]

Tom,  OK agreed.  But last Saturday, I played with a wife of a friend that could not carry the wetland (80 yards) at Riverfront 18, losing 3 balls and becoming quite flustered and embarrassed.

My final thought on TR is its unabashed in your face contrast with the other courses of note 15-20  minutes down the road Southern Pines-Pinehurst and this contrast and lower price point is part of its reason for being successful.

[Sam Kestin]

Somewhat surprised to hear Tom say that "most courses should be so playable that you shouldn't have to pick the right set of tees to enjoy them."


Wouldn't this kind of limit your options as an architect?


I'll certainly concede that "most" is a key word there. If a guy is hired to build a Chambers Bay-type deal (with the intention of trying to bring the US Open there), of course not every tee will accommodate the wide spectrum of player types.


Shouldn't it be our responsibility as players to select the proper set of tees? Isn't it 100x easier for us as players to pick the proper set of tees than it is for architects to design every hole with each set of tees accommodating all types of players?


If an architect thought a particular hole design would be especially cool--but it would require a carry of at least 150-200 yards from the tee--I surely would NOT want him to pass on building it simply because it could not accommodate the dub's inability to either learn to hit the ball 150-200 in the air OR learn to pick the correct set of tees to play.

[Sean_A]

Sam


I think what is also important about Tom's comments is "most courses".  There has to be room for exceptions even if Tom wouldn't be caught dead with his name on the design.  The golfer also has a responsibility to play courses he/she can cope with.  My not being able to cope with a course doesn't necessarily translate to a poor design.


Ciao

[Sam Kestin]

Sean--


Completely agree with you on both counts.

[BCowan]

The MS courses have always interested me.  I can appreciate the artistic ability but I don't ever get the purpose.  Using furniture as an example....I like Stickley ( arts and craft style) much more than I do French Provencial and yet I can appreciate the craftsmanship in each.  And I sense that Stickley will prevail over a longer period of time.    I'm in the school that thinks the jagged edge bunker is a short lived fad for most courses.  Time will tell...

MY,

   That is deep and sophisticated.  I'd rather go with a lower grade furniture like La-z-boy and have it arranged better in the room.  You hit the nail on the head in regards to lacking strategy.  He did create some great holes at TR, the par 5's last two are spectacular.  I think that it could have been improved strategically with MS understanding strategy better IMO.  It is definitely a fun course to play during the right time of day and year with your shag bag.  On a Architecture site we should be able to look past the fluff and see the weaknesses.  ''The current fashion sets the pace''.  This just makes me glad that I turned down a free copy of the Confidential guide from a friend, it will find a better home. 

It's been 20 years since I played Caledonia which i was really impressed with back then.  I'm curious to see it now.   

[Mike_Young]

Somewhat surprised to hear Tom say that "most courses should be so playable that you shouldn't have to pick the right set of tees to enjoy them."


Wouldn't this kind of limit your options as an architect?


I'll certainly concede that "most" is a key word there. If a guy is hired to build a Chambers Bay-type deal (with the intention of trying to bring the US Open there), of course not every tee will accommodate the wide spectrum of player types.


Shouldn't it be our responsibility as players to select the proper set of tees? Isn't it 100x easier for us as players to pick the proper set of tees than it is for architects to design every hole with each set of tees accommodating all types of players?


If an architect thought a particular hole design would be especially cool--but it would require a carry of at least 150-200 yards from the tee--I surely would NOT want him to pass on building it simply because it could not accommodate the dub's inability to either learn to hit the ball 150-200 in the air OR learn to pick the correct set of tees to play.

If I hear him correctly, I think TD is right.  All the different tees do is aid with the tee shot.  For example, if I play from a tee that allows my drive to land in the same area as a Mickelson or similar player, and 150 yards is left to the green then I still have an 8 iron and he has a pitching wedge or less and the average lady could land there and have a 5 wood or more....It's the approach shots that are most violated by distance issues...and it just eats up real estate and irrigation to accommodate such...JMO

[Tom_Doak]

If I hear him correctly, I think TD is right.  All the different tees do is aid with the tee shot.  For example, if I play from a tee that allows my drive to land in the same area as a Mickelson or similar player, and 150 yards is left to the green then I still have an 8 iron and he has a pitching wedge or less and the average lady could land there and have a 5 wood or more....It's the approach shots that are most violated by distance issues...and it just eats up real estate and irrigation to accommodate such...JMO

Yep.  The reliance on multiple tees points to the need to cure faults in the design.  If you think about it the same as playing the middle tees with a 10-, 20-, and 40-mph wind in your face [in place of a back tee] or at your back [in place of a front tee], you'd want the course to work under those conditions without changing tees, wouldn't you?


I don't really have a problem with tees that require a forced carry, if the topography warrants that ... I'm not saying the ladies are going to want to play from 6500 yards.  But I'd prefer not to have a lot of those carries, so I don't limit who can play those tees.


Moreover, in my ideal design, every approach shot would accommodate a 4-wood from the player who needs to hit 4-wood.  Because for some, that's the best they can do on a 350-yard hole [or even a 300-yard hole], and what are you going to have them do if you build a green that only receives an 8-iron?

[Brian Finn]

You hit the nail on the head in regards to lacking strategy.  He did create some great holes at TR, the par 5's last two are spectacular.  I think that it could have been improved strategically with MS understanding strategy better IMO.  It is definitely a fun course to play during the right time of day and year with your shag bag.  On a Architecture site we should be able to look past the fluff and see the weaknesses.  ''The current fashion sets the pace''.

I'm curious to hear how you would have improved the course strategically.  Can you share a few specific examples?  What do you see as the weaknesses of the course?  Thanks for sharing.

[BCowan]

You hit the nail on the head in regards to lacking strategy.  He did create some great holes at TR, the par 5's last two are spectacular.  I think that it could have been improved strategically with MS understanding strategy better IMO.  It is definitely a fun course to play during the right time of day and year with your shag bag.  On a Architecture site we should be able to look past the fluff and see the weaknesses.  ''The current fashion sets the pace''.

I'm curious to hear how you would have improved the course strategically.  Can you share a few specific examples?  What do you see as the weaknesses of the course?  Thanks for sharing.

Brian,

   Starting with the front 9.

 #1, I would have lowered the 2nd ridge on the left side rewarding the player who took an agressive line off the tee going down left side with a better view of the green and one with less carry over the ridge.  Also giving weaker player who hits tee shot to the right off the tee an S shaped hole that rewards playing proper angles by hitting 2nd shot to the left. 

#2, I have since revised my disdain for the hole.  I couldn't figure out what the purpose of the fairway on the right was.  It is for the weaker woman and senior players.  So I will give the hole benefit of the doubt. 

#9, The hole is very cool.  A bold drive going down the left side should be rewarded with better view of green due to massive greenside bunker on the right.  I had to hit a 7 iron over trees on top of ridge on the left side being un-rewarded for a good drive with an aggressive line off the tee. (I hit green in reg, but that's not the point)  So I'd cut those pines down on the ridge 100 yards or so from the green on the left and cut some of the ridge down to reward bold drive down the left.   

[Sean_A]

If I hear him correctly, I think TD is right.  All the different tees do is aid with the tee shot.  For example, if I play from a tee that allows my drive to land in the same area as a Mickelson or similar player, and 150 yards is left to the green then I still have an 8 iron and he has a pitching wedge or less and the average lady could land there and have a 5 wood or more....It's the approach shots that are most violated by distance issues...and it just eats up real estate and irrigation to accommodate such...JMO

Yep.  The reliance on multiple tees points to the need to cure faults in the design.  If you think about it the same as playing the middle tees with a 10-, 20-, and 40-mph wind in your face [in place of a back tee] or at your back [in place of a front tee], you'd want the course to work under those conditions without changing tees, wouldn't you?


I don't really have a problem with tees that require a forced carry, if the topography warrants that ... I'm not saying the ladies are going to want to play from 6500 yards.  But I'd prefer not to have a lot of those carries, so I don't limit who can play those tees.

Tom

I sort of agree.  There are times when a well forward tee is warranted simply because certain tee shots demand to be utilized. Mainly though, I would prefer archies to seek out different angles for tee shots which aren't all that different in yardage. 

On the other hand, we have courses built for carts either because people are lazy or the land calls for it.  In these cases it is much easier to imagine mega multiple tees as necessary or desirable.  Golfers do have brains and they can decide that certain courses do not suit their games...so play somewhere else.  All courses can't be all things to all golfers so why pretend about ideal courses? 

On the other hand dos, it is becoming more and more clear that shorter courses need to be built for folks who can't handle even the forward 6300 yard tees.  We always point to women on this issue, but the truth is a huge percentage of seniors and children could do with 5500 max tees.  How is it possible to build a course of 5300 yards stretching to 6700 yards without some serious tee sheenanigans? 


Ciao

[Carl Rogers]

Tom


I sort of agree.  There are times when a well forward tee is warranted simply because certain tee shots demand to be utilized. Mainly though, I would prefer archies to seek out different angles for tee shots which aren't all that different in yardage. 


On the other hand, we have courses built for carts either because people are lazy or the land calls for it.  In these cases it is much easier to imagine mega multiple tees as necessary or desirable.  Golfers do have brains and they can decide that certain courses do not suit their games...so play somewhere else.  All courses can be all things to all golfers so why pretend about ideal courses? 


On the other hand dos, it is becoming more and more clear that shorter courses need to be built for folks who can't handle even the forward 6300 yard tees.  We always point to women on this issue, but the truth is a huge percentage of seniors and children could do with 5500 max tees.  How is it possible to build a course of 5300 yards stretching to 6700 yards without some serious tee sheenanigans? 
Ciao
[/quote]
Sean,
An early Doak Course, Riverfront, in Suffolk, VA does a good job at this problem, particularly the Par 3's... interesting and hard short shots.

[Sean_A]

Carl


Without knowing anything about riverfront except it is modern, I bet it has at least 4 sets of tees and the spread is at least 1200 yards.  That means tees are being used to even out the test.  I can't see how this is avoidable if courses are designed for hackers up to scratch players unless archies figure out ways to test scratch players from 6000 yards...which is very possible to do.


Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()