Courses TOUR pros should see

[Tommy Williamsen]

I remember reading that when JN was designing Dismal River he as asked if he had Played Sand Hills. "No," was his simple reply. If I played golf for a living I'm not sure I'd take a golf vacation but I think there are courses that pros should see, especially if they are in the design business.


Sand Hills would be one
San Francisco GC
Ballyneal
Eastward Ho!
Sebonack
I can think of a bunch

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:


That story about Nicklaus at Dismal has been retold many times.  Let me add some color:


1)  He only had two or three days on the ground in Nebraska during the construction of Dismal River
2)  His client would probably rather he spent those days on their project
3)  Jack being Jack, going to Sand Hills would be a very big deal, and people would overreact to anything he said about it
4)  Easier to stay away


There are some courses where I have to make a similar assessment!


There are lots of courses that someone interested in golf architecture should see, Tour pro or not.  I don't know why the ones on your list are more important than others.  For example, of my own courses, why Ballyneal and Sebonack, instead of Rock Creek and Old Macdonald?

[Michael Wolf]

I've posted this before, but my experience working with Tour pros is that many of them have seen far more golf courses than I sense most of you are assuming. Particularly when you factor in that they are often only in their mid twenties and already traveling 30 weeks a year for their "regular" jobs.


Michael

[AChao]

I’d add Friars Head to list.  A pretty big name in golf world who has also designed courses told me it was his favorite ... and for interesting reasons.  (Really good ones I thought ... one of which hadn’t dawned on me at all).

[Peter Pallotta]

I've posted this before, but my experience working with Tour pros is that many of them have seen far more golf courses than I sense most of you are assuming. Particularly when you factor in that they are often only in their mid twenties and already traveling 30 weeks a year for their "regular" jobs.
Michael

I've gotten that same impression over the years, in side-bar snippets from interviews or informal youtube clips, ie there's 'work' and then there's 'play' -- when they're working tour pros think most about 'scoring'. but when they're playing & relaxing with friends they think about 'golf courses'. And that's when they appreciate courses like Pacific Dunes. Any tour pro save for the most craven and dull-witted understands more about great golf course architecture than I ever will, or am even capable of. They can 'see' all the possible shots a design offers because they can actually 'hit' all those shots.

PS
I think the above certainly applies to Jack Nicklaus. He understands better than anyone what makes for great golf courses -- and indeed, he knows that there are many different *kinds* of greatness, eg Muirfield and Merion, St Andrews and Augusta, Oakmont and Pebble Beach. My opinion is that, if he hasn't himself built many great courses it's in part because a) gca is for him a profession more than it is a vocation, and b) because he sees his primary role/function as meeting the client's wants and serving the member's needs; he's not as interested in expressing his creativity or manifesting his philosophy.

[Thomas Dai]

Part of me wants these players to visit a few dog tracks and ultra rural and rustic courses occasionally to remind them what it's like on the other side of the golfing fence.
However, other than maybe a few, these players are there to make money, to pay the bills etc.
As I believe a former leading European player once said "I'll play on an airport runway if the money is right".
atb

[Tim Martin]

I've posted this before, but my experience working with Tour pros is that many of them have seen far more golf courses than I sense most of you are assuming. Particularly when you factor in that they are often only in their mid twenties and already traveling 30 weeks a year for their "regular" jobs.
Michael

I've gotten that same impression over the years, in side-bar snippets from interviews or informal youtube clips, ie there's 'work' and then there's 'play' -- when they're working tour pros think most about 'scoring'. but when they're playing & relaxing with friends they think about 'golf courses'. And that's when they appreciate courses like Pacific Dunes. Any tour pro save for the most craven and dull-witted understands more about great golf course architecture than I ever will, or am even capable of. They can 'see' all the possible shots a design offers because they can actually 'hit' all those shots.

PS
I think the above certainly applies to Jack Nicklaus. He understands better than anyone what makes for great golf courses -- and indeed, he knows that there are many different *kinds* of greatness, eg Muirfield and Merion, St Andrews and Augusta, Oakmont and Pebble Beach. My opinion is that, if he hasn't himself built many great courses it's in part because a) gca is for him a profession more than it is a vocation, and b) because he sees his primary role/function as meeting the client's wants and serving the member's needs; he's not as interested in expressing his creativity or manifesting his philosophy.

Peter-In your experience what is it about Pacific Dunes that provides such a diversion from tour courses/setups? I haven’t played the course so I am interested in the comparison.

[A.G._Crockett]

As we slogged thru the mud in 4 layers of clothes after a one-hour frost delay yesterday morning, two buddies and I were talking about the contrast of what we were doing to the Tour in Hawaii.  We decided that there should be a Tour event on a clay-based course with dormant Bermuda (aka mud) in January or February. 


I jest, of course; sort of...

But I would suspect that Tour players are no different than other golfers when it comes to their interest in GCA.  Some are passionate, some couldn't give a damn, and most are somewhere in between.  And when it comes to having seen a lot of good golf courses, I would further suspect that they have, on balance, seen MORE, simply because of access.  Lots of top amateur tournaments, not to mention pro events, are played on courses that few of us will ever get to play.  One particular course in Georgia leaps to mind...

[jeffwarne]

I remember reading that when JN was designing Dismal River he as asked if he had Played Sand Hills. "No," was his simple reply. If I played golf for a living I'm not sure I'd take a golf vacation but I think there are courses that pros should see, especially if they are in the design business.


Sand Hills would be one
San Francisco GC
Ballyneal
Eastward Ho!
Sebonack
I can think of a bunch

Where do I sign up for this Tour pro gig?


I say be careful what you wish for.
The last thing we probably need is a Tour pro hitting a 9 iron to a certain par 5 or driving a previously untouched par 4 and a sudden attack of the protection police-to protect against a .000001% event.
I think the tour pros today are the savviest about architecture of any generation of touring pros, and many see quite a few gems-as their schedule and time allows.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I remember reading that when JN was designing Dismal River he as asked if he had Played Sand Hills. "No," was his simple reply. If I played golf for a living I'm not sure I'd take a golf vacation but I think there are courses that pros should see, especially if they are in the design business.


Sand Hills would be one
San Francisco GC
Ballyneal
Eastward Ho!
Sebonack
I can think of a bunch

Where do I sign up for this Tour pro gig?


I say be careful what you wish for.
The last thing we probably need is a Tour pro hitting a 9 iron to a certain par 5 or driving a previously untouched par 4 and a sudden attack of the protection police-to protect against a .000001% event.

Jeff, I thought about that as well. Think about Cypress Point. With the distances TOUR pros hit the ball it would be a pitch and putt course.

[Tom_Doak]

I say be careful what you wish for.
The last thing we probably need is a Tour pro hitting a 9 iron to a certain par 5 or driving a previously untouched par 4 and a sudden attack of the protection police-to protect against a .000001% event.
I think the tour pros today are the savviest about architecture of any generation of touring pros, and many see quite a few gems-as their schedule and time allows.

As the consultant to SFGC, I can vouch for the fact that whenever a member gets to play with Adam Scott, or some other big name who comes through town, I'm likely to get a "concerned" call about the length of the par-5's etc.  I always just ask the member if the game is getting so easy that his handicap has been going down out there?

I also agree that this generation of players has read more about golf architecture and great courses than previous generations, because the information is so much more accessible now.  But even the ones who DON'T go out of their way to see Seth Raynor courses DO understand the basics of architecture . . . it's just that some of them accept that it's on them to figure out how best to play the course, while others want to complain that it doesn't yield to their prowess.

[Niall C]

Tom

They may have read about it but have they actually seen it ? I'm thinking of a lot of tour stops which are set up other than the architect intended.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

They may have read about it but have they actually seen it ? I'm thinking of a lot of tour stops which are set up other than the architect intended.

Niall:


Well, they see real architecture when they play a major, but not in the weekly Tour event, and that's by design.  Tour setups are based on not causing the players to complain, and on the players preferring not to have to practice for three days to figure out the course.


What I was referring to above was that whenever we try to do something "different" in design on a Tour course to make the players think, they don't want it.  Of particular note, the Tour doesn't want us to do anything in the middle of a fairway.  Most young players have gotten so used to the conventional wisdom of aiming away from trouble, that they think of it as "unfair" to have to deal with a hazard that's in their landing area.  Justin Thomas, most notably, complained about the fairway bunker on Gil's course in Mass., even hitting over into the other fairway to avoid it.


When I proposed a Principal's Nose type hazard on the 10th hole at Waialae, it just about set off a fire alarm at the Tour, because they were sure the players would be vocal about it the same way.  [I thought it might be different since the hole they had complained about in Mass. was 480 yards, and the hole at Waialae only 380.]  Instead, I was strongly urged to compromise and just have a bunker pinching the left side of the landing area instead.


On the 18th hole at Memorial Park, it wasn't even a bunker in the middle, just a contour in the landing area that would divide shots left or right, that caused alarm . . . and even more alarm when I didn't want to take it out.  The weird part was, I had thought of it partly so players could aim away from a pine tree on the right but then use the slope to get their ball back to a better angle for the approach.

[Andrew Harvie]

Torrey Pines, Cog Hill, Bay Hill, Doral, Medinah would be quintessential for them to see

[Terry Lavin]

Torrey Pines, Cog Hill, Bay Hill, Doral, Medinah would be quintessential for them to see

Can’t wait to see some plans for the newest iteration of Medinah #3.