Golf design gains from the Gil Hanse Olympic course

[John Kavanaugh]

The merits of the architecture of this course will never be discussed on this site. Interesting considering it is the highest profile most exposed new course ever built. The course pleases everyone while offending no one.

[Ian Mackenzie]

To my naive eyes, it looked like it was lifted right out of Australia's Sand Belt and dropped into Rio, minus the interesting adjacent topography and landscape.

[Peter Pallotta]

John - you've been on a lot of great courses of all kinds over many years, and you understand the game and play it very well; so for someone like me your opinion on such matters is well worth listening to. In this case, you seem to be seeing something with the course that no one else (including me) is seeing, and have formed an impression of it that no one else has formed; but at the same time you are sharing that impression only in vague hints and half finished sentences. If you felt like clearly outlining your views on the Olympic course (hopefully without too much bombast or rhetoric or anti-Gil meanness)  I certainly would enjoy reading it

[Tim_Weiman]

Is it possible that providing so many options for the player has resulted in painfully slow play? Is anyone enjoying this today on any level?

John,


Do you really think options encourages slow play? If so, can you explain your perspective a bit?

[John Kavanaugh]

Peter,


The hole that most interested me, and has since Amy Alcott was named a co-designer, is the 16th. I started a thread giving people a clear and easy chance to compare the hole to the 10th at Riviera. No interest.

[John Kavanaugh]

Is it possible that providing so many options for the player has resulted in painfully slow play? Is anyone enjoying this today on any level?

John,


Do you really think options encourages slow play? If so, can you explain your perspective a bit?

How can considering options not be slower than an obvious choice. It's the difference between Jimmy John's and Subway.

[John Kavanaugh]

As odd as this may sound I do think the lack of rough around the greens time after time did slow play down. From a personal experience I find myself taking more practice swings from 50 yds in off a tight lie than from the rough. I usually end up putting but I'm not playing off zoysia. That's the beauty of comparing this course to Riviera as zoysia is a poor mans kikuyu.


I think I know but which came first, the design of the course with all the tight chipping areas or the choice of zoysia. They don't compliment each other.

[Tim_Weiman]

Is it possible that providing so many options for the player has resulted in painfully slow play? Is anyone enjoying this today on any level?

John,


Do you really think options encourages slow play? If so, can you explain your perspective a bit?

How can considering options not be slower than an obvious choice. It's the difference between Jimmy John's and Subway.

I think it depends on the golfer's decision making process. For me, the decision on what shot to play is made while walking to the ball. Sure, the lie may require an adjustment, but if I am playing an approach shot or second shot on a par 5, my decision is typically made by the time I get to the ball.


I don't wait until I get to the ball to visualize what I want to do. Moreover, debating what shot to play when I am standing over the ball usually doesn't help.


Options do require decisions, but the decisions should be made before getting to the ball.

[Tom_Doak]

I think I know but which came first, the design of the course with all the tight chipping areas or the choice of zoysia. They don't compliment each other.

John:


I think they believed that they could maintain the chipping areas tight enough for the tournament to allow for the ground game on zoysia, and I did see some shots played that way, in the bits that I watched.  I doubt that is really the best choice long-term, as it's hard to imagine their new local superintendent will be able to keep those areas as tight once the greenskeeper hired for the Olympics has moved on.  However, decisions on grassing choices were also made with politics in mind -- the zoysia is believed to require the least amount of chemical and fertilizer inputs, and that was a big consideration because of the site's former status as an environmental reserve.

[Tom_Doak]

The course pleases everyone while offending no one.

I believe that was the mission statement.  The IGF wanted to avoid a Cog Hill / Atlanta Athletic Club type situation where the players were in the press critiquing the course, as it might affect the chances of golf continuing in the Olympics past 2020.  They did not want a course that had any controversial features, and they wanted the players and the commentators to speak positively about it.  Which they seem to have achieved 100%.

[Tom_Doak]

I found the quote below, posted in another thread, to be somewhat ironic considering the author. Some might consider the author of said quote to be the same revered barnyard animal as the subject of the quote.

"Gil Hanse is a bit of a sacred cow here; not a lot of criticism of his work, for whatever reason.  Maybe he's perfect."

Except that you're criticizing me right now.  I get a lot of criticism here, and respond to most of it.  I'm not perfect.

Not so much criticizing as appreciating the irony. I'm not perfect, either, for the record.

Brian:


You quoted me out of context last night ... the part you printed was the third point in a list of responses to a question from John Kavanaugh about why the course had not received more critical discussion here, in a post where I also praised the golf course.  And, in that same thread, you said of John "he's just drunk" for suggesting the course was no good.  So, no, you're not perfect, either.

[Don Mahaffey]

Seems weird that there is not a single controversial hole or feature

[Charlie_Bell]

LochteGate may have sucked up everyone's energy for outrage.

[Ben Attwood]

It seems as though there is a tension between architecture we know provides more interesting and fun golf and a course that provides the best look for TV audiences.


Rough and trees that define a narrow playing corridor and high contrast with the greens seem to go down well with the TV viewer, as I witnessed in a discussion with my friends about the Olympic golf, whereas contours and mounds don't provide as much contrast. This led my friend to call the course 'easy' and 'boring'.


I wonder how much the period of optionless, penal golf architecture was driven by the TV market and vice versa. In answer to the thread title, Given the viewing numbers for the Olympic golf I hope that TV can encourage golf courses to have options and fun rather than contrast for the TV.

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder how much the period of optionless, penal golf architecture was driven by the TV market and vice versa. In answer to the thread title, Given the viewing numbers for the Olympic golf I hope that TV can encourage golf courses to have options and fun rather than contrast for the TV.

What drove the TV ratings for Olympic golf were


1)  The relentless promotion of the Olympics in general, which is not comparable to any normal golf event, and maybe
2)  The controversy over all the guys skipping the event, which generated extra attention for it.


So the funny part is, controversy generates interest and ratings.  About the only golf event I can think of where the golf course generated a lot of interest was the TPC at Sawgrass, the first couple of years it was open, when all the pros were complaining about it.  But that's exactly what the IGF wanted to avoid for the Olympics.  And as it turned out, they didn't need the controversy of a really difficult course to get good ratings, because the Olympics are made for TV ratings.


P.S.  There have been a lot of comparisons about how great the TV ratings were for the Olympic golf compared to the Open Championship, but I haven't seen anyone comparing the numbers for the golf vs. gymnastics or swimming or track & field.

[Mike_Young]

AS TD says above, he hasn't seen any comparisons of Golf to Gymnastics etc.  My gut says Olympic golf is in the honeymoon stage presently and will fade quickly.  Now that is not to reflect on the course in anyway.  I'm sure some viewers saw golf in a light they had never seen or possibly may have never seen golf before but I personally don't see it having an affect on the game.  Note on Geoff Shackelford's site the article on Zack Johnson and how he is attacked for comments on the Olympics.  Will be interesting to see.

[Tom_Doak]

I just looked for something about the individual TV ratings by sport and couldn't find anything quickly. 


However the headlines were stuff like "NBC blames millenials for sagging ratings."  Overall Nielsen ratings for TV were down 28% from London, partly due to people streaming online.  Total viewership across ALL platforms was still down 9%.

[Mike_Young]

.
 

[Peter Pallotta]

Several years ago, I read an article noting that the average PGA tour stop got significantly lower tv ratings than professional figure skating (i.e. those made-for-Sunday-afternoon-television showcases).  Not surprisingly, the reason pro golf is on television week after week while figure skating is on now almost never is because the latter's audience is *not* made up of 55 year old men with large amounts of disposable income and the seemingly unshakeable faith that $500 drivers and $300 shoes and $1000 rain suits will improve their lives.   (The other reason, of course: that golf-loving corporate CEOs with boards in their back pockets and no curbs on how advertising dollars are spent would much rather spend the company's money to buy Phil Mickelson's friendship for a few days than Brian Boitano's). 

In short: man crushes and andropause are the only things keeping professional golf afloat!
       

[Garland Bayley]

Is it possible that providing so many options for the player has resulted in painfully slow play? Is anyone enjoying this today on any level?

John,


Do you really think options encourages slow play? If so, can you explain your perspective a bit?

How can considering options not be slower than an obvious choice. It's the difference between Jimmy John's and Subway.

Perhaps your brain is slower than Tim's. 


Actually, I think the pros would have decided their strategy before even showing to play, as they had time to examine and play the course before the actual event.

[John Kavanaugh]

Please, Tim went to Princeton and played the oil industry like a cheap fiddle. I've learned most of what I know about life ordering fast food. Jimmy John's is Freaky Fast and I've only found one Subway in a 100 mile radius that doesn't ask a 300lb lactose intolerant man if he wants cheese with that.