[Mark_F]

I'm still on my side of the "distance" debate, but I wondered if anyone had a list of great courses that are no longer able to be played by the PGA Tour primarily because they're too short.

This is a phenomenally stupid question, and the course in question doesn't play host to PGA Tour events really, although it has played host to European Tour events.  It also hasn't been substantially altered.


Royal Melbourne.  The only way they can stop the pros poleaxing it is having the greens at ludicrous speed and firmness and silly pins.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This is a phenomenally stupid question

Thanks for sharing.

[Scott Warren]

I thought the point was pretty clear. People often seem to say "we're losing so many great courses to the distance explosion." This thread seeks to evaluate the merit of those statements by listing these great, lost courses.

But do they? Above and beyond all the other reasons they say technology has adversely affected many great courses?


I'd love to see you at least somewhat establish that what you're claiming is the prevailing thing people say against the technology boom.


Until then it just seems like you're just trying to prove a thesis that doesn't exist.


Even if we stick to your defined frame of reference being where the pros do and don't play, only a fool would argue that Augusta National hasn't been architecturally compromised by 21st century efforts to manipulate scores and try to keep certain holes "relevant". But they still go there each April, so it wouldn't be on your list.


I just continue, despite your subsequent posts in the thread, to fail to understand how what you're trying to achieve is at all relevant or useful.

[BHoover]

Canterbury last hosted a major in 1973. That wasn’t exactly the hickory era. How about Inverness, which hasn’t hosted a major since 1993?

It may not be considered “great” on this site, but Firestone was a mainstay on the Tour for 60 years (until this year, when Bridgestone packed up and left for Memphis). It was popular with players as a tune-up for the PGA and scores were never particularly low, until recently when 400+ yard drives became standard and flip wedges into greens that 25+ years ago saw 5 and 6 iron approaches. But I’m sure it had nothing to do with equipment...

[Mike_Young]

The PGA tour could still play any of the great courses if those courses actually wanted them there AND if the tour wasn't so worried about trying to "fix" the scoring.  Let them play the course and accept the score. 

[jeffwarne]

Canterbury last hosted a major in 1975. That wasn’t exactly the hickory era. How about Inverness, which hasn’t hosted a major since 1993?

It may not be considered “great” on this site, but Firestone was a mainstay on the Tour for 60 years (until this year, when Bridgestone packed up and left for Memphis). It was popular with players as a tune-up for the PGA and scores were never particularly low, until recently when 400+ yard drives became standard and flip wedges into greens that 25+ years ago saw 5 and 6 iron approaches. But I’m sure it had nothing to do with equipment...

Fitness and athleticism....
especially for born again athletes like Fred Couples.....

[JESII]

The PGA tour could still play any of the great courses if those courses actually wanted them there AND if the tour wasn't so worried about trying to "fix" the scoring.  Let them play the course and accept the score.

Agreed...mostly.


The Tour is the modern day Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus...and is always ready, willing and able to go to the fancy new place, if the fancy new place will have them. Sponsorship's, Infrastructure and Cache have had more to do with courses leaving the rotation than the course itself...


In the distance debate, I am firmly in the camp of let the best players in the world shoot whatever they're going to shoot on the best current version of your course.


The circus came to Philadelphia this fall and made our biggest baddest course look like a pushover. It was bizarre. -20 at Aronimink??? No way...But you know what, they put the pins in the middle of the greens and slowed them from a daily 11/12, occasional 13 to about 10. If you can play Aronimink with no fear of short siding your approach or hitting it above the hole you've taken a hell of a lot out of the design. It was soft because it's rained every other day around here for the last 5 months and the Tour wants birdies...that's what pays. So they set it up just about as easy as possible.


So the conversation really isn't about distance in my opinion because the Tour wants low scores. Listen to Jason Day...roll back the ball 20%, better let us play courses 20% shorter. In addition,  if they do roll the ball back 20%, who will be the first people to figure out how to recoup that 20%? The Tour guys because that's their job.


Let the Tour do whatever they want...make your course the best possible version of itself for the people that actually play it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But do they? Above and beyond all the other reasons they say technology has adversely affected many great courses?

I'd love to see you at least somewhat establish that what you're claiming is the prevailing thing people say against the technology boom.

I'm not claiming what you seem to think I'm claiming. I'm claiming that nobody's actually put together a list, and that having done so, the list is likely quite a bit smaller than those who DO make comments like this think it is. That any time someone makes this type of statement, that they're inaccurate.

Until then it just seems like you're just trying to prove a thesis that doesn't exist.

I'm doing no such thing. My thesis isn't that this is the primary reason people cite, only that it's a reason that people cite, and that it's inaccurate when they do. Had that been my thesis, the proof would have been to count comments.

My thesis is that when people give this reason, they're doing so without much actual proof, without a list. They're doing so because it seems right. So, let's make the list.

Even if we stick to your defined frame of reference being where the pros do and don't play, only a fool would argue that Augusta National hasn't been architecturally compromised by 21st century efforts to manipulate scores and try to keep certain holes "relevant". But they still go there each April, so it wouldn't be on your list.

Even if you want to add it to the list… that's one course.

Canterbury last hosted a major in 1973. That wasn’t exactly the hickory era. How about Inverness, which hasn’t hosted a major since 1993?

Add them to the list if you'd like, though Inverness may have been more about infrastructure.

It may not be considered “great” on this site, but Firestone was a mainstay on the Tour for 60 years (until this year, when Bridgestone packed up and left for Memphis).

They didn't leave because Firestone got too short.

If forced to care about PGA Tour players, I'm more in line with Jim Sullivan's take.

[Sean_A]

The PGA tour could still play any of the great courses if those courses actually wanted them there AND if the tour wasn't so worried about trying to "fix" the scoring.  Let them play the course and accept the score.

Let the Tour do whatever they want...make your course the best possible version of itself for the people that actually play it.

Cha ching.


Ciao

[George Smiltins]

Scioto, Canterbury, Beverly, Westchester. Is there some magic number that is enough to make the point that distance has made very good courses obsolete for tour players? Maybe I am still missing the point of the thread.


Ira

Wedge Dot Com tour has been at Canterbury last 3 years playing it a hair under 7,000 and scores have been -14, -8, -7 (cuts E, +2, +1). Soaked course on Thursday resulted in the low rounds for the week. Greens/Pins weren't nearly as bad as they are on a typical member Sunday.


I think some of the Golden Age courses could still be in play, but they don't have the surrounding land necessary for the circus to come to town. Players also aren't exactly GCA fans and do a lot of moaning and groaning when presented with the defenses typical of these courses.  9 bridges far superior to Trinity in their eyes.

[Kyle Harris]

Since your date is the early 1930s, it seems fair to evaluate any present or recent major venues compared to their 1930 design.

[Peter Flory]

This doesn't try to answer the question posed here, but I was just thinking locally about Conway Farms.  Furyk's sub 60 round on a fairly windy day was eye opening to me.  I have played the course many times and I never thought of it as a course that I would describe as easy.  But when a short hitting pro can post a fifty something in the wind, I suppose that the course may be too short to test their entire games.  As it is, you could call it a putting contest. 


They have 3 par 5s that are near 600 yards.  They some par 3s in the 220 range.  Several par fours in the upper 400s.  But you can get some roll out there, there are several shorter holes, and the greens are really good. 


This is a short article where Justin Rose is actually expressing his preference for Cog Hill, seemingly just because of it's length.  It appears as though he thinks that Conway's scoring is too low and it is harder for the "good" players... like himself, to get separation. 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/golf/ct-return-to-cog-hill-20170917-story.html

[Thomas Dai]

Forgive me if it’s been mentioned somewhere above, but a classic (literally) example in the U.K. would be Sunningdale Old, which hosted many a European Tour/Men’s professional event until it was deemed too short for (non-seniors) pro play.
A ‘Persimmon Open’, as Tom Doak called such an event, would be a nice event, even with modern balls, to see held there.

Atb

[Mark_F]

Thanks for sharing.

No problem.  I'm surprised that you managed to sucker so many people into answering such a stultifying question, but I am always here to help.


PS.  Merion, Sandwich, Muirfield, Carnoustie, Winged Foot West, Riviera and The Old Course would all be on your list if you had framed your nonsensical premise correctly.

[Terry Lavin]

Doesn’t play well with others.

[Evan_Green]

They can play anywhere...they may shoot 23 under, but its fun to watch them play any golf course.


Trinity Forest, a long brand new course by a great architecture team let up a 23 under last year in the inaugural event. Do you think they'd shoot much lower if they played 4 rounds at Cypress? did you not enjoy watching that tournament (Trinity)?  If they shot -30 at Cypress would it be that bad? You could make it a par 68 and then it would only be -14.


The only real reason they may not be able to play somewhere is it couldn't handle the crowds/the event/the infrastructure., etc.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

PS.  Merion, Sandwich, Muirfield, Carnoustie, Winged Foot West, Riviera and The Old Course would all be on your list if you had framed your nonsensical premise correctly.

You may not like the question, but that doesn't make it nonsensical.

How would you phrase the question? The PGA Tour (or the players in majors) still plays at Riviera, the Old Course, Carnoustie, etc., of course, so… what's your version of the question? What's your list of great courses that are no longer great or no longer played by the game's best because they hit the ball too far?

[Jason Topp]

Not exactly your original question because I think you could hold a PGA Tour tournament on a 6,000 yard course and it could still be interesting.  However, many courses no longer test the complete game because a player can either lay back in the fairway, or, more likely, hit driver somewhere within wedge range and figure it out from there.  I believe Dustin Johnson was quoted as saying his longest iron into a par 4 in 2017 was a 7 iron (too lazy to research). 

Colonial is an example of a course significantly compromised by the additional distance the ball travels.  Today - layups or driver/flip wedge is the way the course is played. 


The Old Course is still entertaining to watch but it takes severe weather (but not so severe that the balls will not stay still on the greens) to present a significant challenge associated with distance.  That and most of the time they walk back from each green to each tee. 


Merion was set up in a ridiculous fashion to host a US Open.


Westchester was highly thought of at one time but no longer hosts a tournament.


Augusta National is set up in a strange fashion with the grain cut towards the tee to increase the effective length of the course at the cost of the effects of the rolling landscape.


Royal Melbourne is still a challenge because the greens are difficult.  However, length is not really a big part of that challenge. 

[Garland Bayley]

Well there aren't many great courses that are regular PGA TOUR sites, to begin with.  So it's kind of a trick question.

You see, when I started this topic, I was trying to play devil's advocate with myself. It's a common thing, at least it seems to me, for people to bemoan all the great courses the PGA Tour can no longer play because of the distance the players hit the ball. Would I generally prefer to see the players play at great courses over crappy courses? Yes (then again I'm also not a "typical golf fan").

But… it might turn out that this statement, when made, is a bit of a false statement. If the PGA Tour hasn't had to stop playing a lot of great classic courses - then this argument doesn't hold as much water as some people seem to think it does. The PGA Tour (and top-level pro golf) is still played at some pretty old courses here in the U.S. (despite the fact that the game isn't particularly old here), and yes, they've been lengthened, which is why I think we should list those too if they've been ruined in their lengthening.

And my intent is not at all to create yet another distance debate topic, but to actually create a list of courses that are no longer playable (or ruined), as is so often cited.

But the problem isn't the courses they play on TOUR. The problem is all the other courses that get changed because architects and club members watch golf on TV on the weekends.

That may be your argument, but it's not the one I see cited widely, or the reason I started this topic.

Erik, you dolt. if you are going to restrict it to great courses that have hosted PGA Tour events, then perhaps you should list which courses you think are great courses that have hosted a PGA Tour event. Tom seems to think at most a very small number of great courses have hosted a PGA Tour event (e.g. Cypress Point), so if you really mean courses that have hosted a PGA Tour event, then it is a trick question.

Probably, when people bemoan there are great courses that can no longer host a PGA Tour event, they are referring to great classics that have not been bastardized enough to allow hosting a PGA Tour event to make some semblance of sense. E.g., Seminole, which in your myopic view you say doesn't qualify as one that can be one that can no longer hold a PGA Tour event.

Great of course is in the eye of the beholder. if you allow the definition of great to be US Open worthy, then a great example that shows how distance has affected the pro game is Pumpkin Ridge in Oregon. When it was built, it was targeted to be a US Open site, because the USGA wanted more sites on the west coast, and the pacific northwest has great weather at US Open time, with hardly an chance of an electrical storm. However, it just happened to come online when the new ball created a distance explosion, and was obsolete for US Open purposes from the get go. The USGA had to wait for Chambers Bay to get their pacific northwest Open site.

[Mark_F]

How would you phrase the question? The PGA Tour (or the players in majors) still plays at Riviera, the Old Course, Carnoustie, etc., of course, so… what's your version of the question? What's your list of great courses that are no longer great or no longer played by the game's best because they hit the ball too far?

It's difficult to get a handle on what you believe, Erik.

It appears to be that you think the distance issue, such as it is, is due to natural progress, better coaching and better fitness, and not necessarily technology.  Is that the case? (And that the effects of the increase in distance are exaggerated, but that's a different argument).

All of those courses I listed have been significantly altered to allow for the distance modern players hit the ball. If they weren't altered, or otherwise tricked up, would they still host PGA/European tour events?  Jason touches on some of them above.

The Old Course, for instance, is now played from three separate courses for The Open.

Ernie Els almost shot 60 at RM a few years ago.  In one of the books about the club, an Argentinian player from long ago is mentioned as being a colossal hitter who drove the 1st East green and hit the 17th East with a 7-iron second.  These days, such feats are commonplace.

[Matthew Rose]

Inverness just de-Fazio'd itself and went up to about 7700 yards so I'm guessing it's back in the game now.

[Brian Walshe]

Hi Erik,


Perhaps it might be enlightening to start a list of the courses that have had to be lengthened since the ProV1 arrived because you'd agree that if they have been lengthened then it was because they sought to remain relevant and that distance was the issue they were combating.  I'm guessing but it would likely be a list of most of the courses the Tour visits regularly.  As Mark pointed out, the Old Course now uses teeing grounds on other courses in order to remain relevant.  If they played Augusta as it was in 1986 today it would be a pitch and putt.  Sadly not every club can go and buy up the land around it as ANGC has to stop it being added to your first list. 


I suppose the only answer to the distance issue is to ban Trackman, prevent players from using the gym and have McDonalds provide all the meals.  That way we'd see the driving average plummet back to around 275yds because it obviously isn't the ball or the clubs.

[V_Halyard]

This is a phenomenally stupid question

Thanks for sharing.

Not a stupid question at all.
I like it. It’s actually a simple call the ball.
“Those that think length has ruined the ability of great courses to host a PGA event, name those courses.”
I believe tallied to date are; CPC, Scioto, Interlachen, Beverly, Plainfield, Olympia Fields, Chicago and a few others.
Add to the list OR perhaps the courses played wern’t that great.

[V_Halyard]

I thought the point was pretty clear. People often seem to say "we're losing so many great courses to the distance explosion." This thread seeks to evaluate the merit of those statements by listing these great, lost courses.

But do they? Above and beyond all the other reasons they say technology has adversely affected many great courses?


I'd love to see you at least somewhat establish that what you're claiming is the prevailing thing people say against the technology boom.

Until then it just seems like you're just trying to prove a thesis that doesn't exis.

I just continue, despite your subsequent posts in the thread, to fail to understand how what you're trying to achieve is at all relevant or useful.

Relevant and useful? It’s a discussion board about golf architecture. He asked a question seeking an opinion. It’s a great question. If it needs a tweak let’s ponder the permutations.
People complain that distance has ruined great courses’ ability to host tour events.
Name those courses.
In discussing, we may find either the greatest courses didn’t host or care to host them, changed their skins to host them or perhaps they weren’t great courses. I don’t know the answer but it has peaked my curiosity to take a look.
Elevate the exploration vs. s#itting on the question.
It’s a discussions board about golf architecture, not cat videos. This poses a great question asking for names to tie to complaints about golf architecture’s relationship with technology and competition.
It begs “do great courses want tour events?” “Do great classic courses only want USGA events?” Etc
Stop complaining about the usefulness of the question and share some useful insight.

[Scott Warren]

Vaughan,


The issue as I (and others, it seems) see it is that such a list excludes all those courses that have been bastardised by lengthening, tightening and green changes to retain a place on Tour: TOC & ANGC front and centre.


If the concern is the impact on great classic architecture of the technology arms race, then surely the focus should be on all the great courses in pro golf that have been adversely affected and not just those that couldn’t or wouldn’t keep up.


A list simply comprising the latter will be short enough that many would say “see, it’s not a big deal - only a handful of courses.”

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()