Framed by history, winners and losers

[David Wigler]

In 1947, two of the most prominent clubs in the United States were Plum Hollow and St. Louis CC.  This is proven by the USGA selecting SLCC for the Open and the PGA selecting Plum for the PGA Championship.  These two clubs are linked by two more historical facts:

1. They both have fallen off the national radar screen (Plum much more so than SL CC).

2. They both had Sam Snead lose a tournament at their club in an amazing way.

We all know that in the '47 Open, Snead missed a 2' putt on 18 and lost to Lew Worsham.  If Snead had won the Open, he would have had a career Grand Slam.

In the '57 Western Open at Plum (The last tournament the club hosted) Snead took a 10 on the 4th hole and lost by one stroke to Doug Ford.

Although Oakland Hills is a better course than Plum, I do not believe it is better than SL CC.  Yet Hogan won at Oakland and called it "The Monster."  I wonder if the winner of events create a courses national reputation?  SL CC had Guilford win the '21 AM instead of Chick Evans, who won before and after and Bobby Jones who would win a bunch a couple years after.  In 1960, SLCC was the course where Beaman upset Nicklaus preventing Jack from winning three in a row.  Would SLCC be a top 20 if everything was identical but its winners were Jones, Snead and Nicklaus instead of Guilford, Worsham and Beaman?  In the same light, would Plum be a top 100 if the '47 PGA had been won by Hogan and the '57 Western by Snead instead of Ferrier and Ford?

Is part of the national view of a course defined by its winners?  If yes, how much?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Wigler,

Yes.

I don't know the degree of influence, but becoming a landmark site has its benefits, and anchors the club's place in history and tradition.

I think the 11th hole at Merion would be a good example.

[T_MacWood]

I don't think so. Olympic has had a string of upset winners. Hogan won the PGA at Norwood Hills in 1948, I don't see it breaking down the door of the top 100.

In fact if you look at the venues the PGA chose in the 40's and 50's, it has you wondering what their criteria was--Big Spring?

[David Wigler]

I think Olympic is a great case.  Olympic would be a lock top 10 IMO if its 2nd place finishers had won.

[T_MacWood]

David
Olympic has been in and out of the top 10. And Norwood Hills....what happened there?

Nichols won the PGA at Columbus CC in the 60's--Nicklaus and Palmer I believe were runner-ups. Are you saying Columbus CC could have been a top 100 course if only history had been different?

[JDoyle]

David,

Excellent topic and a point well made by your examples.  Oakmont is a world class golf course, but it doesn't hurt that past US Open champs include Els, Miller, Nicklaus, Hogan and Armour.

IMHO, a first time host site like Bethpage was probably thrilled to have THE player in the world win that week.

[David Wigler]

David
Olympic has been in and out of the top 10. And Norwood Hills....what happened there?

Nichols won the PGA at Columbus CC in the 60's--Nicklaus and Palmer I believe were runner-ups. Are you saying Columbus CC could have been a top 100 course if only history had been different?

Actually Tom I was posing a question.  I will save the arguing for something I have a strong opinion on.

[BCrosby]

I come to the opposite conclusion.

I would think that Snead's near misses gave those courses lots of extra attention (people still talk about them today). In theory, that should have enhanced their chances of getting highly ranked.

But it didn't happen.

So there must be something else at work.

One explanation may be that they don't deserve to be top ranked courses.

Bob

[Mike Hendren]

Carnoustie might be the poster child for this.  In the golf shop, photographs everywhere of Van deVelde shin deep in the Barry Burn available for purchase.  Far more prominently displayed than anything related to Lawrie.  

They get a lot of mileage out of Hogan there as well.  

Regards,

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

David:

Your premise sounds good but it flies in the face of so many exceptions. Take Oakmont for example -- you have such major championship winners among the men as:

Tommy Armour
Ben Hogan
Jack Nicklaus

You also have the middle of the road club:

Ernie Else
Larry Nelson
Johnny Miller

You also have a lesser grouping:

John Mahaffey

You also have the all-time unknown ...

Sam Parks

In the case of Baltusrol you have two wins by Jack Nicklaus ('67 and '80) but you also have the win by Ed Furgol ('54) and Tony Manero ('36). Let's not forget the supreme shotmaking talents of Mickey Wright in '61 but the reputation of the Lower has not been "helped" immeasurably because of these winners. In many cases -- people think of the Lower as being overrated.

I believe it's possible for people to perceptionally award "brownie" points because of clubs that have hosted championships (hint, hint -- Augusta) but it doesn't always follow in a neat and orderly way that the "best of the best" will have won at a particular site (i.e. Aaron, Coody, Keiser, etc, etc) and ipso facto that means the course is now validated. Sometimes the people who prepare a stellar course can bastardize it (see Carnoustiue '99) and create a winner (Paul Lawrie) that totally flies in the face of reality. Unfortunately, the greateness of Carnoustie didn't need the "extra help" that it was given -- it only soured the minds of the participants, the media and those watching that the course was simply not playable as prepared for that Open.

[bg_in_rtp]

I'll throw one out to David that's in his neck of the woods....Birmingham CC.  If Hogan had decided to get on the boat after the '53 British Open at Carnoustie and play at the '53 PGA, and won, would BCC get any better consideration around the Detroit area, or regionally?

 

[SL_Solow]

David, I understand your point but I think it can be carried too far, particularly when courses that hosted the PGA in the 40's and 50's are considered.  Several sources have reported that when the PGA selected courses for its championship during that era, special consideration was given to courses where important club pros or their friends were involved.  Thus the quality of the courses were very uneven.  Additionally the match play format led to a less star studded list of champions.  This makes it more difficult to reach a conclusion on the question you raised.

[Paul Richards]

David:

Your topic here seems to coincide with a point I made in my essay on the history of Beverly CC, which can be found elsewhere on this website under the title, "My Home Course."


The excerpt reads:


Perhaps the truest reflection of the quality of a championship golf course is reflected in the champions it has produced. Beverly’s tournaments have produced some truly great champions. Among them are Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Francis Ouimet, and Chick Evans.

[Gary_Smith]

I think Medinah #3's reputation was probably hurt by having Lou Graham as the '75 Open champ, in a playoff with Mahaffey. Snead and Nicklaus threw away Opens there. Nicklaus would have won the '75 Open there with pars on the last three holes, instead he bogied out.

The last Open Championship at Carnoustie was such an unbelievable train wreck that I actually think it will have people, myself included, looking forward to the next one there.

[David Wigler]

Matt,

Not sure I was making a point but your example does not fit my hypothesis.  Oakland Hills is the same way as Oakmont.  A great winner in Hogan, some middle of the road guys and a nobody - Steve Jones, but they had HOGAN!  If SL CC had Snead win the first event or Jones win the Am, who knows?  Heck, Francis Oiumet was the medalist at the event.  

At the end of the day, I certainly may be wrong but it seems to me that a course that has hosted multpiple events without crowning a "Great" champion seems to be punished for such.

[Jeff Fortson]

Ultimately, I think a course's architectural merits are and should be the most influential in it's esteem or "ranking".  With that said, I would say it's not who wins or loses a big tournament that gives a course a shot of "prestige" but rather the drama of the tournament.  

Whether it be some amazing shootout (i.e. Watson vs. Nicklaus @ Turnberry), unbelievable choke (i.e. Van de Velde @ Carnoustie), or Ryder Cup comebacks (i.e. Brookline 1999).

(((I had to get that jab in for all those Euros in here .)))

Although, it works against me as well since the Belfry gets all it's prestige from the memorable Ryder Cups hosted there.  I don't think many give it high scores on its architectural merits.


Jeff F.

[DPL11]

Matt,

I don't know about Johnny Miller as a "middle of the road guy". I understand his day in the sun was brief, but he flat out dominated the game in his prime. The way he won at Oakmont was truly a feat of greatness.

Personally, I can't stand him as an announcer. I find his mindless banter similar to the sensation of nails on a chalkboard, but give the man his props.

Sorry to get off track a bit.

[Thomas_Brown]

I'm tending to think major site selection by the USGA is based more and more upon region rather than anything else.

Look at how many Metropolitan (US) Open's have been conducted lately.

Tom

[Matt_Ward]

DPL11:

Can you honestly say that Johnny Miller is beyond the career of Larry Nelson (i.e. 3 majors to 2 -- plus Nelson torched Oakmont in '83 with final rounds of 65-67 = the lowest finishing two-day total for the Open at that time)? I don't the blond from CA was a real presence on tour but Nelson too often gets little mention and in my mind he rates no less than a draw with Miller.

Ernie Els is still in the midst of his career but right now if he stopped I can't say he belongs in the first tier of players. He still has time to turn things up a notch or two -- we shall see.

[Gary_Smith]

DPL11:

Can you honestly say that Johnny Miller is beyond the career of Larry Nelson (i.e. 3 majors to 2 -- plus Nelson torched Oakmont in '83 with final rounds of 65-67 = the lowest finishing two-day total for the Open at that time)? I don't the blond from CA was a real presence on tour but Nelson too often gets little mention and in my mind he rates no less than a draw with Miller.

Ernie Els is still in the midst of his career but right now if he stopped I can't say he belongs in the first tier of players. He still has time to turn things up a notch or two -- we shall see.

Matt,

You are normally one of the most level headed guys here, but, IMHO, you are a little bit out on the limb saying Nelson rates no less than a draw with Miller.

Miller was a FORCE, at least for a few years on tour. Nelson never was. I recall Miller winning something like eight times in '74 alone! (and some of those wins, albeit in regular stops, were by Tiger-like margins of 8 to 10 shots) Nelson was the kind of Toms-like player who quietly went along and grabbed off a win now and then. His Oakmont win was indeed impressive, but one of his PGA wins ('87 PGA) was at one of the lousiest major tournaments of all times. If I recall correctly he wasn't even on the first page of the leaderboard until everybody folded at the end and he beat Wadkins in a sudden-death playoff. Nelson was an excellent, dogged competitor, with a very good record in the RC appearances he made.

Miller's two majors were very impressive, and he was a force in quite a few more. I just don't recall Nelson having the stature as a player that Miller did. I didn't look it up, but my guess is that Miller has at least twice the number of PGA wins that Nelson does. (referring to regular PGA tour, not the Senior one) I will agree that Nelson is underappreciated, and it was really wrong that he was skipped over as a Ryder Cup captain.

Just my view of things, could be wrong.  

 

[Matt_Ward]

Gary S:

Appreciate your take on my head being level.

However, just check the record book and you'll see that Larry Nelson often was and is overlooked by a great many golf media. The man won the US Open on Oakmont and mounted one of the greatest comebacks EVER to win a major championship. I covered the event in '83 and his two-round final total of 132 on Oakmont is no less impressive than what Miller did in one round.

I am equally baffled that the PGA simply sidestepped around Nelson for other captains of the Ryder Cup when the man's record in the event is simply first rate stuff.

Nelson also withstood the talent of Tom Watson in 1983 at the Open when Watson was not only the defending champion but the game's premier player at that time. In addition, I can remember vividly when Nelson holed his superb 60-foot birdie on the 16th hole after the rain delay of Sunday's final round. What a putt indeed!!!

Johnny Miller had great moments for sure but his window of time was indeed a very small one. Johnny also displayed a casual indifference to really becoming the kind of player he oculd have become. I don't doubt that family considerations were a part of his equation and I say more power to him. But, check out Nelson's record in the Ryder Cup and also his career on the Senior Circuit. For a man who was a Vietnam vet and who only started in golf in his early 20's I believe he rates no less than a draw from the blond bombshell from Napa.

In my mind Nelson was just a shade behind the likes of Hale Irwin. When the man from Georgia was on his game it took the best of the best to beat him when it counted. Check the record book and compare the stats and you'll see what I mean.

[Ramon T. Hernandez]

.quote author=BCrosby link=board=1;threadid=6808;start=0#msg130257 date=1067618168]
I come to the opposite conclusion.

I would think that Snead's near misses gave those courses lots of extra attention (people still talk about them today). In theory, that should have enhanced their chances of getting highly ranked.

But it didn't happen.

So there must be something else at work.

One explanation may be that they don't deserve to be top ranked courses.

Bob

CORRECTAMUNDO. Check out the big brain on Bob. Plum Hollow has been relagated to the history books! As Sollow puts it, in such a politically correct manner, UNEVEN. QUITE RIGHT

[Paul Richards]

Gary:

you said:
>The last Open Championship at Carnoustie was such an unbelievable train wreck that I actually think it will have people, myself included, looking forward to the next one there.



So true!  This is one of the GREAT championship courses in all of the world and what happened there in 1999 was just a travesty!  I, too, look forward to the next Open being contested there!!