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.


Ian Mackenzie

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2018, 02:23:28 PM »
Doesn't Brandel's top ten list point "backward and not forward"?


Exactly my point (above) that some failed to see through the rush to comment on the comments instead of the subject matter.


Subtlety...a lost art.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Huh?
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2018, 02:34:20 PM »

he's suggesting that new forms of architectural genius/creativity are actually being hampered, not enhanced, by a study of & devotion to the older forms.
     


Well, that's easy to say, and I might well agree.  But it only matters if you are the one who comes up with something new.  ;)

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Huh?
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2018, 02:35:48 PM »

At some point HarbourTown was necessary.  Perhaps we are at the point where the next HarbourTown should be built.


Yes, but again, it will have to be different than Harbour Town.  Longer, for one thing.  Even 7100 yards will be "short" for today's players, but it might be enough to test them if it's done well.

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2018, 03:31:16 PM »

At some point HarbourTown was necessary.  Perhaps we are at the point where the next HarbourTown should be built.


Yes, but again, it will have to be different than Harbour Town.  Longer, for one thing.  Even 7100 yards will be "short" for today's players, but it might be enough to test them if it's done well.


7100 yards isn't "short" for today's players.  It might be "short" for today's PGA Tour pros.  I don't understand the fixation of today's course owners and designers on the PGA Tour and further, on what it would take to neuter a PGA Tour pro.  Very few of the courses will host tour events and even those that do shouldn't be so concerned with "defending par."  The USGA mentality is lamentable for more that just the USGA.


Nonetheless, most of the courses we revere as great from the Golden Age were built at lengths not seen at that time and by those standards.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2018, 03:50:33 PM »

JC,


Can we like posts here?


I wasted an hour last winter, and in 2017, at least, the average tour course was 7,209 yards.  College coaches tell me they play about that, mostly to protect the lower 80% of the field, as only the top guys hit it as long as (or as often rumored, further than Tour Pros)  Other regional events play under 7200 yards.  When the last Publinx was at my Sand Creek Station, when the wind blew, the played it well under 7K.  Most low capper club players aren't comfortable over 7,200 yards.


7100 yards is "short" for such a small % of even top players TD's statement is statistically ridiculous and certainly, as you suggest, ill focused, much like his mentors.  And, for that matter, when the college kids came to town and played Pete's unmercifully hard and long (we thought) Stonebridge Ranch, winning score was like 21 under.  And, we have other evidences that pure length only partially raises scores, etc.


Sorry for the rant, I just can't count the number of design discussions I have been in where someone utters something about "If the Tour came here....."  Might as well ask if a UFO lands here, because for 99.9% of courses, it is obviously about the same odds.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Huh?
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2018, 04:00:46 PM »

Yes, but again, it will have to be different than Harbour Town.  Longer, for one thing.  Even 7100 yards will be "short" for today's players, but it might be enough to test them if it's done well.


7100 yards isn't "short" for today's players.  It might be "short" for today's PGA Tour pros.  I don't understand the fixation of today's course owners and designers on the PGA Tour and further, on what it would take to neuter a PGA Tour pro.  Very few of the courses will host tour events and even those that do shouldn't be so concerned with "defending par."  The USGA mentality is lamentable for more that just the USGA.


Nonetheless, most of the courses we revere as great from the Golden Age were built at lengths not seen at that time and by those standards.


Well, I assumed that Brandel Chamblee was tweeting about PGA TOUR courses.


I also assumed that you were talking about the TOUR, since the only reason Harbour Town was really significant was that it was a short course that hosted a TOUR event.  If it had just been a 6600-yard resort course it would not have had much impact on "changing the direction of architecture," since in that day there were few write-ups about architecture or about regular courses in any of the magazines.


And of course TV coverage dwarfs the magazines in terms of reach, which is the only reason we are talking about something Brandel Chamblee tweeted.




As for Jeff's comment:  in December I will have an opportunity to speak with a bunch of the top money-winners on Tour about how long a course needs to be to keep them engaged.  [No one involved with the project in question is trying to build something that will "protect par".]  I'll get back to you with their thoughts.  Care to wager on the over & under?


Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2018, 04:32:32 PM »
in December I will have an opportunity to speak with a bunch of the top money-winners on Tour about how long a course needs to be to keep them engaged.  [No one involved with the project in question is trying to build something that will "protect par".]  I'll get back to you with their thoughts.  Care to wager on the over & under?
They will say 'it depends.'  On all the things we talk about so often on this website: the width, the rough, the hazards, the bunkers, the wind, the greens and surrounds, the trees, the maintenance meld, etc.   

They will point to Erin Hills, which measured around 7700-7800 yards, and the winner shot -16... while Merion clocked in at around 6900 yards, and the winner shot +1. 

I'm curious to know which course of those two they liked more.  Which one did they think was better? 

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Huh?
« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2018, 04:54:09 PM »

They will point to Erin Hills, which measured around 7700-7800 yards, and the winner shot -16... while Merion clocked in at around 6900 yards, and the winner shot +1. 

I'm curious to know which course of those two they liked more.  Which one did they think was better?


Me, too.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2018, 05:28:41 PM »
in December I will have an opportunity to speak with a bunch of the top money-winners on Tour about how long a course needs to be to keep them engaged.  [No one involved with the project in question is trying to build something that will "protect par".]  I'll get back to you with their thoughts.  Care to wager on the over & under?


They will point to Erin Hills, which measured around 7700-7800 yards, and the winner shot -16... while Merion clocked in at around 6900 yards, and the winner shot +1. 

I'm curious to know which course of those two they liked more.  Which one did they think was better?


Didn't the members blow up Merion recently?
so maybe the members preferred Erin Hills:)
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2018, 05:31:10 PM »
I want to know what goes on his hair as I believe that the only worthwhile comment/endorsement from Brandee would relay to his “product.” He has the casual-but-purposeful-bang-dangle perfected as a golf-tv-talking-head “must have.” 


What comes out of his mouth?  Not so much.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2018, 05:43:48 PM »
The original quote is probably helpful to understand what he was thinking.  There is some irony in that he had to recycle an old quote to make his point about how golf course architects need to look forward.


Quote
Genius is always sufficiently the enemy of genius by over influence. The literature of every nation bear me witness. The English dramatic poets have Shakspearized now for two hundred years.”

— Ralph Waldo Emerson
« Last Edit: November 13, 2018, 05:46:41 PM by Peter Flory »

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2018, 05:45:25 PM »
double post- deleted

John Emerson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2018, 09:48:48 PM »
Niall and Peter are spot on.


At some point HarbourTown was necessary.  Perhaps we are at the point where the next HarbourTown should be built.


This is where the conundrum lies.  Why build more golf courses that, for the other 51 weeks of the year, don’t apply to the ones flipping the bill.  We don’t need more long courses.  We need to address the equipment!  Because in the end the consumer ALWAYS pays the price. :(
“There’s links golf, then everything else.”

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2018, 03:27:34 AM »

Nonetheless, most of the courses we revere as great from the Golden Age were built at lengths not seen at that time and by those standards.


And weren't the likes of Braid and Fowler criticised in some circles for doing so and also for lengthening previously revered venues?
Harbor Town - width. To what extent has the tree canopy changed over the years? Wider lower down but narrower higher up? Or has the maintenance regime kept things essentially as they originally were? As to playability, has the modern ball, which generally swerves less but has a higher ball flight, effected the way elite players now play the course?
atb




Tim Gavrich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2018, 01:20:51 PM »

JC,


Can we like posts here?


I wasted an hour last winter, and in 2017, at least, the average tour course was 7,209 yards.  College coaches tell me they play about that, mostly to protect the lower 80% of the field, as only the top guys hit it as long as (or as often rumored, further than Tour Pros)  Other regional events play under 7200 yards.  When the last Publinx was at my Sand Creek Station, when the wind blew, the played it well under 7K.  Most low capper club players aren't comfortable over 7,200 yards.


7100 yards is "short" for such a small % of even top players TD's statement is statistically ridiculous and certainly, as you suggest, ill focused, much like his mentors.  And, for that matter, when the college kids came to town and played Pete's unmercifully hard and long (we thought) Stonebridge Ranch, winning score was like 21 under.  And, we have other evidences that pure length only partially raises scores, etc.


Sorry for the rant, I just can't count the number of design discussions I have been in where someone utters something about "If the Tour came here....."  Might as well ask if a UFO lands here, because for 99.9% of courses, it is obviously about the same odds.


Agreed, Jeff. Length is less relevant to the difficulty of a course for Tour play than the following:
- Fairway firmness
- Green firmness
- Green size
- Rough depth
- Wind
- Shot-shaping demands around the course - especially off the tee


Pros these days are really good at hitting it far and straight, because the courses and setups reward those skills considerably more than they used to, and technology and workout regimens have made those particular skills easier to acquire and hone than they used to be.


If you want to disrupt the trajectory of professional golf scoring/game-play, disrupt the paradigm of reward and penalty dealt out by the courses. Sure, one way to do that is to pin it on the USGA and equipment companies by trying to get them to roll back the golf ball. Another, which places the onus on people who are closer to the everyday conduct of highest-level golf tournaments, is to refine the way these courses are set up (including making new choices about what those courses are).


Perhaps the most difficult but most necessary step: stop thinking about 99% of courses in terms of what Tour pros would do to them, because it doesn't matter, and never has.
Senior Writer, GolfPass

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #40 on: November 14, 2018, 03:00:54 PM »


As for Jeff's comment:  in December I will have an opportunity to speak with a bunch of the top money-winners on Tour about how long a course needs to be to keep them engaged.  [No one involved with the project in question is trying to build something that will "protect par".]  I'll get back to you with their thoughts.  Care to wager on the over & under?


Why limit the discussion?  Seems to me you might get more information by asking them, simply, which golf courses do you find interesting and why.  Or, even simpler, "what keeps you engaged."


I'm not sure if you're fixated on length because you're using as a foil to sell your new course or if you legitimately are stuck on the incorrect notion that length of the golf course is the solution to keep PGA Tour pros shooting closer to par.  It isn't usually the case, but in this case, Im hoping its the former.  If its the latter, read Tim's post and re-ask the question of why it matters whether PGA Tour pros shoot under par.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #41 on: November 14, 2018, 03:25:41 PM »
in December I will have an opportunity to speak with a bunch of the top money-winners on Tour about how long a course needs to be to keep them engaged.  [No one involved with the project in question is trying to build something that will "protect par".]  I'll get back to you with their thoughts.  Care to wager on the over & under?


They will point to Erin Hills, which measured around 7700-7800 yards, and the winner shot -16... while Merion clocked in at around 6900 yards, and the winner shot +1. 

I'm curious to know which course of those two they liked more.  Which one did they think was better?


Didn't the members blow up Merion recently?
so maybe the members preferred Erin Hills:)

Merion was blown up due to conditions of the greens. It needed help. They had been deteriorating steadily over the years.
Mr Hurricane

John Emerson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #42 on: November 14, 2018, 06:13:36 PM »
in December I will have an opportunity to speak with a bunch of the top money-winners on Tour about how long a course needs to be to keep them engaged.  [No one involved with the project in question is trying to build something that will "protect par".]  I'll get back to you with their thoughts.  Care to wager on the over & under?


They will point to Erin Hills, which measured around 7700-7800 yards, and the winner shot -16... while Merion clocked in at around 6900 yards, and the winner shot +1. 

I'm curious to know which course of those two they liked more.  Which one did they think was better?


Didn't the members blow up Merion recently?
so maybe the members preferred Erin Hills:)

Merion was blown up due to conditions of the greens. It needed help. They had been deteriorating steadily over the years.


Care to elaborate on “it needed help”?  I’m sure some of the original design has been lost over the years but it didn’t seem to need “help” a couple years ago for the open...
“There’s links golf, then everything else.”

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #43 on: November 14, 2018, 07:42:30 PM »
Yesterday, I started typing that I wouldn't put the over/under over 7500 yards, based on discussions I have had with tour pros.  Even in that limited segment of about 200 players, there will be two groups - those 30 that bomb it over 300 yards, and the rest who don't.  If it is only top money winners, who tend to be long, it might be higher, like 7600.  For shorter hitters, I speculated their  consensus might be lower, but probably not under 7300.


Today, I received a surprise phone call from a three time major champion, famous for being not too long but really accurate.  He mentioned in his peak years he hit 80% of fw and 70% of greens, according to the PGA Tour stats, adding many of todays long hitters might be half that (probably exaggerating a bit)


Briefly describing Tom's upcoming meeting, he pegged ideal Tour length for today's players at 7400.  He said, "It depends" citing elevated tees as one factor.  Surprisingly, he used Merion and Erin Hills as examples, nearly word for word from some posts here, although I am certain he doesn't visit this site.

He also noted 2017 PGA Championship venue of Quail Hollow as being near perfect at 7400, while noting that it only played max length one day of four, and that most courses actually play less than the max length quoted on scorecards in most tournaments, depending on wind, moisture, etc.  That was similar to my comment regarding Sand Creek Station and the Publinx.

He also said he thinks most tour guys would go with a design like Harbor Town, with some length as being the hardest.  Needs narrow fw to test accuracy, small greens, etc.

So, I will go with 7401 for the early over/under on TD's question! 


« Last Edit: November 14, 2018, 07:44:49 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #44 on: November 15, 2018, 09:08:05 AM »

He also said he thinks most tour guys would go with a design like Harbor Town, with some length as being the hardest.  Needs narrow fw to test accuracy, small greens, etc.

So, I will go with 7401 for the early over/under on TD's question!


This is why I think narrowing the discussion to length at the outset is a mistake.  A mistake borne by the foolish myopia of some developers and designers.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #45 on: November 15, 2018, 09:19:00 AM »
I think Thomas Dai has it right here.


Half of staying relevant is getting people to talk about you or the things you've said.  Brandel is not my cup of tea, he comes off as a pretentious whiny ass, who rarely has an interesting take on anything... but maybe the ladies like looking at him on TV.  I wish we had more commentators like David Duval and Frank Nobilo.
This.
Chamblee's stuff has reached the point, at least for me, that I assume that I'll disagree with anything I hear or read from him.  He's sort of made a career by trashing the swing of Tiger Woods, and telling the public how Woods could improve. 

This stuff is just more of the same; an attempt by a guy who is on the margin of irrelevancy to stay in the conversation by any means necessary.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Huh?
« Reply #46 on: November 15, 2018, 10:46:16 AM »
Yes AG,


But that gorgeous hair and smile.  Can not live without!!  ;D



Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back