[Tom_Doak]

On another thread, a poster wonders aloud how Tobacco Road would fare as the site of a pro tournament.


I wonder, what difference does that make?  The pros play wherever the sponsors put up the money, but for the PGA TOUR, that's about 45 courses per year.  Why should the other 15,000+ courses care one whit about "what the pros would do?"  It's just idle speculation, yet it continues to be brought up as some kind of litmus test for golf courses.

[Edward Glidewell]

On another thread, a poster wonders aloud how Tobacco Road would fare as the site of a pro tournament.


I wonder, what difference does that make?  The pros play wherever the sponsors put up the money, but for the PGA TOUR, that's about 45 courses per year.  Why should the other 15,000+ courses care one whit about "what the pros would do?"  It's just idle speculation, yet it continues to be brought up as some kind of litmus test for golf courses.

Additionally, the PGA Tour often plays a course far differently than the members/daily fee players would play it. My father is a long-time member of a course that hosts a PGA event, and the members play harder pin positions than the tour pros do. They make sure there is a a three foot (I think that's the right number) radius of completely flat ground around all pin positions in an attempt to ensure the pros will have easy two putts. They also move the tees all over the place -- there's a 240 yard par 3 on the course from the tips, and I don't think the pros have played from that tee once in the last couple of tournaments. They've played it from the senior tees some days. The course is set up for the players to make a lot of birdies, because that's what they believe the fans want to see.


There's nothing wrong with any of that; the tour can do whatever it wants. But if that's the case everywhere, then what the pros do on a course is divorced from the day to day reality of the golf experience of that same course for regular players. So why in the world would their experience/scoring/whatever matter at all to the regular player?

[jeffwarne]

Architecture does not need pro tour validation
i.e. taking the tour to a course shouldn't be about "how it would fare"......


but rather, enhancing the entertainment value for fans (or would be fans) who actually enjoy seeing architecturally interesting courses on television.


So I personally like it when the pros play courses with classic great architecture (Rivierra, Shinnecock) as opposed to PGA National and Bay Hill.


While it could be argued I am in the minority, I wouldn't have to be if the tour visited such courses more often (and it was intelligently celebrated in the telecast) and the public became more familiar with great architecture and began to question the other stuff they see nearly every week.


As Edward suggests, even when they see a classic course they often negate all the good things about it (sloped pins where strategy and planning matter)
The pin on 17 today at the match play was a perfect example of pros struggling-doubt you'd see a pro go 55 for 55 inside 9 feet as Tiger did last week with a steady dose of those.
Is it really interesting to see someone make every single putt from inside 10 feet? Only if no one else is doing it.


Golf fans are a highly coveted demographic-I'm guessing the more educated and architecturally savvy ones are even more coveted.
They may buy less beer and shout "mashed potatos" less, but they probably buy more insurance, cars and houses.
Not sure why tour and TV execs insist on catering to the lowest common denominator.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I think ir’s the other way around. The Tour needs great architecture for validation. The Palm Springs and Phoenix sites get little respect. It’s when they play at the great courses when their talents are honored. Those are the special weeks,  not the regular events.

[Cal Seifert]

   I think ir’s the other way around. The Tour needs great architecture for validation. The Palm Springs and Phoenix sites get little respect. It’s when they play at the great courses when their talents are honored. Those are the special weeks,  not the regular events.

Not necessarily, I'd argue the special weeks for the tour are majors, regardless of if the major is played at goat hill or Shinnecock, the average viewer just watches for the winner. 

[jeffwarne]

   I think ir’s the other way around. The Tour needs great architecture for validation. The Palm Springs and Phoenix sites get little respect. It’s when they play at the great courses when their talents are honored. Those are the special weeks,  not the regular events.

Not necessarily, I'd argue the special weeks for the tour are majors, regardless of if the major is played at goat hill or Shinnecock, the average viewer just watches for the winner.

While that may be true,
a steady diet of Kemper Lakes or BigmodernCrap National would change that....
majors are majors for many reasons, and a large part of that is site selection.
Sure crap courses get a pass for one year, but they certainly aren't must see TV like Shinnecock or Pebble.

[Kevin Neary]

I would have to imagine that the 15,000+ other courses care about the 45 PGA Tour venues because these courses are believed to be the "pinnacle of golf." For a golf course to host the world's greatest golfers, the course itself must be great, right? Thus, in order to be considered a "great golf course," a course must emulate what is seen on TV: narrow fairways, small greens, small bunkers, long tees, an excess of trees, and an ultimate bastardization of the original architecture. If this formula is followed, the course now becomes "competitive," and the course is now "validated." This can than be used as a marketing ploy to be a "PGA Tour grade course," and, hopefully, many perspective members will join.


It's a travesty that's the line of thinking, but the instinctive drive of survival will always prevail.

[Jon Wiggett]

Of course it depends if there is a specific mandate to design a course and if it is to hold a PGA Tour event then it is the ONLY question a GCA should ask. Otherwise, a GCA should be asking how their design plays for all levels of player from the topping beginner to the tour player.


I am always a bit surprised by how quick some GCAs are to deride the opinion of those who play the game for a living as Neanderthals when it comes to expressing opinions about golf course architecture. Tour players are no different to any other group of player in that some will appreciate and understand GCA, others will claim to but have no real understanding but the vast majority will give GCA no thought at all and care even less.


You could flip the question and ask 'why so many GCA (and so called GCA experts) have an almost rabid dislike for the opinions put forward by the games most accomplished players?

[Sean_A]

While the tours didn't exist 100 years ago, hasn't it always been the case that most courses were measured against the best players? Sure, pros still went where the money was on offer, but the courses which became famous are those which the best players played. I think pro/top am validation is sought because it always has been the case to one degree or another.  That said, this is back when "championship course" meant something more than a minimum yardage requirement.  It was also a time when top player validation was simply one source of validation...writers, people in powerful golf administration positions and architects were also sources of validation.  In a word, validation sources were more balanced than today.  One good thing today is there are so many great courses that will never host pros that punters can use social media and sites like this to validate courses.  This is basically what photo tours are about and indeed photos in general. 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

An aside on course choices.


I attended a minor European Tour event last year on a course I also happen to have played and got talking with one of the TV supervisors.


I was amazed by how many people they had on site, and how many vehicles and the cabling etc etc etc and this got me thinking about the whole subject of tournament logistics, all aspects, not just course access and the players and the spectators and the on-site staff and the parking etc etc but how much 'non-golf' space is needed and where on the site the space is best positioned for all the folks and facilities who are there.
 
How many of our 'classic courses' and old favourites have the space available to cope (even more so when they've squeezed every last inch out of the property to allow for course alternations to fit in with modern equipment) with modern tournament logistics?


atb

[Steve Lapper]

Parts from the previous posts are very valid and contribute to the ultimate answer, but I would put it a little differently:


The influence of money and it's use of contemporary media as the moneyed distribution system is centered around using the Pro Tour as the benchmark for success. This so-called success is defined by exposure, adaptation and financial reward. The Pro Tour is unquestionably the prominent vehicle for this pursuit and thus the culprit for the mal-association for course architecture.


Sadly, the super-majority of early-modern architects readily, eagerly, acceptingly embraced this path down the rabbit hole. They designed to cater to the tour and it's demands, and quite frequently assumed their experience with the tour (as player or consultant) conveyed validation and led to financial, if not critical, success. Too many of these architects had proverbial blinders on and lacked the creative foresight to see outside their chosen box. Maybe Pete Dye's desire to challenge them with some form of diabolic humor stepped slightly outside the accepted norm, but soon enough even his designs were explicitly tailored to provide the Tour with yearly venues.


 Here is where I give Tom and his peers the credit they so richly deserve insofar as they've practically ignored the tour.


 Sure Gil tweaked TPC Boston, Doral and created Rio for the Tour, but he didn't bastardize his principles to do so. Neither did Bill and Ben as Kapalua wasn't designed specifically for the Tour and certainly their recent Trinity Forest design can be considered far, far outside the Pro Tour architectural box. Tom and guys like Mike DeVries and Jim Urbina have remained the purest of the bunch, launching the intellectual middle-finger at Ponte Vedra and not giving a damn about what the Tour wants or needs.


I've often wondered why the Pro Tour has the influence it does? These 1% of the 1% of the golfing population are amazing to watch, but unless they chunk, slice, hook, shank or three-jack a hole, I don't find much, if anything, in common with them. Whether they are hitting Taylor Made, Callaway, or Titleist clubs and balls means zero to me. I can't hit towering 300yd drives or check stop balls out of perfectly manicured rough. Putting is probably the only place I could even come close and that'll probably diverge and disappear for me shortly as well. Frankly, Outside of the competitive sporting drama, I don't give a shit about them.


I like watching Augusta, The Opens and even occasionally a PGA Championship as much as anyone, but the real pleasure, along with critical validation, is found when I hit exactly a shot off the bank shoulder of a Redan, or have to think my way around a series of hazards to find the line of charm.


I'd liken it to appreciating less a Jeff Koons Balloon Dog and more a Matisse. Do we really think that if today's media wasn't the gigantic money-driven machine it is, a Koons would critically find it's place next to a Matisse? I doubt it. The media has our eyeballs, and thus the assumption of our mind and voice and uses the Pro Tour to promote it's moneyed agenda. It's influence on critical architectual validation is just another false equivalence in a world full of them

[Ira Fishman]

I agree with Steve, especially about the answer to the question that is the Subject of the thread.  But I do think that we need to not paint with too broad of a brush.  There are a number of tour stops played on courses that to varying degrees are admired or at least appreciated on GCA:


Kapulua
Torrey Pines
Pebble
Riveria
Bay Hill
Harbour Town
Quail Hollow
TPC Sawgrass
Trinity Forest
Colonial
Muirfield Village
Old White
Sedgefield
Ridgewood
Aronimink
East Lake


One can quibble over the inclusion of specific courses, but it is a pretty good list for 2018 and does not include the Majors.


Ira

[jeffwarne]

While the tours didn't exist 100 years ago, hasn't it always been the case that most courses were measured against the best players? Sure, pros still went where the money was on offer, but the courses which became famous are those which the best players played. I think pro/top am validation is sought because it always has been the case to one degree or another.


  That said, this is back when "championship course" meant something more than a minimum yardage requirement.  It was also a time when top player validation was simply one source of validation...writers, people in powerful golf administration positions and architects were also sources of validation.  In a word, validation sources were more balanced than today.


 One good thing today is there are so many great courses that will never host pros that punters can use social media and sites like this to validate courses.

Ciao

Sean,
completely throwing out the infrastructure, lodging, location criteria,


why is it that such greats that you highlight-
Kington, Aiken Golf Club, Palmetto, Aberdovey, Pennard, Swinley, Northwest (which I'm selecting for you as I know you will love)
or many of the wonderful compact gems you enjoy...


will never host professional events?

[Jerry Kluger]

Allow me to interject another question - how does the PGA Tour playing a course influence you in so far as your desire to play the course? After watching the pros play Austin CC I am far less interested in playing the course despite the fact that I am a Pete Dye fan.  The course's home page points to the fairway undulations and deep bunkers and compares it to Royal Dornoch - really?

[Evan_Green]

Tom - I certainly don't architecture think it must seek validation from the Tour and my guess is very few folks that spend time on GCA think so, but I think for the general golfing/sports community its the "I want to be like Mike" (remember those Michael Jordan commercials) factor. They want to play the courses the pros play (some of them want to do so from the tees the pros play even though they are a 10 handicap) with the equipment the pros play and they want to wear the clothes the pros play (and pay a lot for them when the pros get them free). And is that also the reason there are so many former great PGA tour players are architects and they get so many projects?


My guess is the average developer/operator/owner of golf courses would rather be able to sell "this is where the tour plays" or "this was designed by someone famous from the tour" or this is a "championship course" (what does that really mean)? than a great piece of architecture. And lets face it the average player probably cares more about the conditioning of the course/greens than they do about the architecture any way...because they always see perfect conditions on tour...


While we enjoy watching pros play great architectural courses (especially because we can't play them that way) - the average golf fan probably cares more about the competition than the course (e.g. I bet if they had a US Open at Cypress and someone was 10 shots ahead, they would turn the channel before the leaders even got to 16)...

[Kalen Braley]

As that other "Other member" who asked the question, I would like to add a bit of context. 


I only brought it up because while I've never played it, TR seems to be pretty high up there on the "Quirk/WTF is this" scale.  It would be interesting to see the pros play something very very different to the usual Kemper Lakes, Torrey Pines crappola....as others have pointed out on this thread.


Given its only 6500 yards, seems they would just hit it over everything and go pretty low.


But who knows, maybe if a course like this were on TV a bit, it might encourage more places like to be built/played...


P.S.  Perhaps one year they can finish the AT&T at MPCC Shore and give a national audience a good two days look at another Stranz gem.  I know it'd be tough to forgo Pebble and all, but I'm sure Nantz could fawn over that course just as well as Pebble.

[Ronald Montesano]

No difference.


It needs no tour-level validation.

[MClutterbuck]

I don´t think a course needs Tour validation at all. That does not stop me from wondering about and enjoying pros coming to play tournament golf at my course, or other courses I know well, or even wishing to see a Pro Tournament at certain top courses I have yet not seen, such as Royal Portrush.


This is true even if pros play tees that members do not play, different pin positions or different speeds (and yes Edward, I have seen them play shorter, easier and slower that what scratch members play). 

[Kalen Braley]

I never used the word validation or otherwise in my posts either.


Its more about taking top notch players and putting them on unconventional layouts to get them to try different shots and strategies as opposed to straight away "all in front of you" holes, where its bomb and gouge hole after hole...


Who wouldn't love to see Bubba or Phil take a crack at TR?  Perhaps its no good for stroke play, but match play would be compelling, because then no one would get thier knickers in a twist cause the winner shot 30 under...

[Michael George]

Tom:

People on this board don't need the validation of the PGA Tour or its players for a course.  However, we are not the average golfer.  The average golfer would rather play a sterile PGA Tour course over an unknown gem.  They aren't right, but they don't know any better.  They still view the best courses as those places where the pros play.  The problem for these courses is what happens if they lose the event.   Is the course good enough to withstand its loss.  I would argue that many would not be.

That being said, having been involved in the operation of a tour event, there is so much more than golf to hosting an event.  In fact, I would say that the golf is secondary.  It may not even be top 5.  First and foremost is the availability of sponsors, especially corporate sponsorship.  If you don't have the companies willing to pay the maximum dollar available (millions) to put their name on the event, it isn't happening. Once that is established, then the tour can look in the geographic area where the sponsors want the event and determine which courses can meet the infrastructure demands, like availability of installation, land available for hospitality and other needs, insider and fan parking, etc....).  Then, they look at volunteer availability, player accommodations and simply meeting location with time on the schedule. 

I think members of clubs are insane to accommodate the PGA Tour or USGA or PGA for their bigger events.  Closing my course for several weeks and playing with spectator tents and stands everywhere for months (and listening to the installation for months prior to the event) is just not appealing to me.  But they do it for prestige (which I don't get) and their guest rates can be increased to increase revenue to the club.

Tobacco Road would never get consideration as it isn't set up for hospitality.  Pinehurst only works for the USGA because it is the US Open and the hospitality options there (tons of land to host the tents and stands) and other courses where guests of sponsors can play in between watching the event. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

While it could be argued I am in the minority, I wouldn't have to be if the tour visited such courses more often (and it was intelligently celebrated in the telecast) and the public became more familiar with great architecture and began to question the other stuff they see nearly every week.

I think TV does a horrible job of showing off "great architecture."

I'd go so far as to say that if you're not already keenly interested in golf course architecture, TV coverage alone or even primarily has swayed less than ten people ever in its entire history to become knowledgeable about GCA. It's a horrible medium for seeing GCA - telephoto lenses compress, hills are flattened… we almost never see things from the player's perspective, we have almost no sense of scale in any dimension… Horrible job.

To the actual question, Michael George says almost exactly what I'd have said, so… ditto that, mostly.

[Jeff Schley]

While it could be argued I am in the minority, I wouldn't have to be if the tour visited such courses more often (and it was intelligently celebrated in the telecast) and the public became more familiar with great architecture and began to question the other stuff they see nearly every week.

I think TV does a horrible job of showing off "great architecture."

I'd go so far as to say that if you're not already keenly interested in golf course architecture, TV coverage alone or even primarily has swayed less than ten people ever in its entire history to become knowledgeable about GCA. It's a horrible medium for seeing GCA - telephoto lenses compress, hills are flattened… we almost never see things from the player's perspective, we have almost no sense of scale in any dimension… Horrible job.

To the actual question, Michael George says almost exactly what I'd have said, so… ditto that, mostly.

This is correct IMO as well.  I mean when you see Augusta show the slope on #9 green with ground cam you are like Holy Shizzznits!  Don't get that often.  At least we have the shot tracker now as opposed to a camera following a ball in the air with no context.  But that doesn't help architecture.  I'd love to see ground cams similar to the ones use in football where the camera is being worn as a harness that is automatically leveled to stop motion and gives you the ground angle.  Would be great for greens and bunkers.  Not much innovation in the way they broadcast TV, stationary cameras mostly.  Drones could be utilized more creatively as well.

[Tom_Doak]

I would pay good money to see Steve Williams take out a drone 


Kalen:  that "watching Bubba play" is the validation of which I spoke, if it would make you feel any less of Tobacco Road if Bubba overpowered it, or didn't have to hit any of the cool shots you envision him needing.  It's the same interesting course for you and me and most on this board, no matter What Bubba Would (or Wouldn't) Do.


And the mindset of the Tour is to actively avoid situations where the players would have to adapt.  I heard a rumor they are so worried about the reaction to Trinity Forest, they've had Geoff Ogilvy making videos to try to explain it to his fellow pros!  Day to day setup is aimed at discouraging gambling holes that might slow down play, especially on Thursday and Friday when they're trying to get 144 players around.

[Jerry Kluger]

One day I will have to go out and play TR at around 10:00 with someone who loves the course and can explain why they do as we have a wonderful 5+ hour round.

[Mike Sweeney]

Why should the other 15,000+ courses care one whit about "what the pros would do?" 

Because the paying customers and members care. It's easy to say they "don't get it" and such, but this is also a piece of what makes golf great.


There have literally been thousands of professional and first tier amateurs that have played Yale #18 in  -below, at, and/or above PAR. Yet, it is still John Daly and his two shots to the green in a Nike event that dominates the conversation.


Think about it. The University with the Top 3-5 endowment, with the pretty much #1 golf course still has many people talk about how a Redneck from Arkansas picked apart Yale #18 in a Nike Tour event.


To be candid, I am skeptical that Daly actually hit Yale #18 in two!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()