[Kalen Braley]

It's interesting to hear the talking heads complain of missing the good old days of the US open with tight fairways, deep rough, rock-hard greens, and high scores....yet fail to acknowledge the one change that would actually have the most impact in restoring difficulty... the equipment.

P.S.  I also don't understand how implementing a penal setup makes the US Open more strategic. How is hit-and-hope and chopping out of 6 inch rough more interesting? Hell if they want to determine who can hit the most straight and accurate shots, send em all down to TopGolf and be done with it.

[Carl Johnson]

I know this is supposed to be an architecture site, but in the end it comes down to the game.  Regardless of the course, it will never win (in spite of what others might think -- just my opinion).  Do they give the course a trophy?  No. One player always wins and everyone else falls in behind.  I've watched a lot of the first two rounds, have enjoyed seeing the course, and how the players are handling it.  I've been unhappy with some of the USGA set-ups for their tournaments in the past, but so far, after two rounds I'm happy with this one.  I'd be interested to hear what some of low handicap members of LACC are saying.

[Carl Johnson]

deleted

[Craig Sweet]

Alpine ski racing has seen tremendous equipment changes, especially in the more technical disciplines. 


And the equipment is highly regulated.

[MCirba]

It's interesting to hear the talking heads complain of missing the good old days of the US open with tight fairways, deep rough, rock-hard greens, and high scores....yet fail to acknowledge the one change that would actually have the most impact in restoring difficulty... the equipment.

P.S.  I also don't understand how implementing a penal setup makes the US Open more strategic. How is hit-and-hope and chopping out of 6 inch rough more interesting? Hell if they want to determine who can hit the most straight and accurate shots, send em all down to TopGolf and be done with it.

+1000

[Ben Hollerbach]

If protecting par is the goal(I'm not saying it is), the answer is stunningly simple.
Have any of them take out Jack Nicklaus's clubs, put some new grips on, and see how they do at LACC in any conditions.

This (the last paragraph) is where I would start… I’m guessing that there is a moment in time when clubs, balls and courses all provided the challenge that golf course architects intended (and GCA fans enjoy/wish to see more of!). Once that moment (date) is established let’s provide the equipment of that era to the worlds best, and voila, we now know how much further Rory hit it than, Hogan, Miller, Seve (yes, different eras but we weren’t having this conversation at any time during those eras) any gains would be fine with me.

My final thought is that mankind’s physical efforts have been tracked for decades, sporting gains have been small, often really small, what would the 100m world record be if both sports gained the same improvement since the introduction of Pro V1 and high performing titanium drivers?

If we go back to the clubs of Nicklaus, are we also going to go back to the course set ups of NIcklaus' time?  If not why would anyone expect the same result?

These days of equipment we all dream of were played on golf courses that were narrow, had rough, had water hazards, had trees.  They were played on dark age golf courses.  Can you really separate the two?

If feels like everyone forgets that the dark age golf courses with narrower fairways, and trees, and smaller greens, and water hazards were built in response to the LAST technological change in golf in the 1940's with steel shafts and newer balls which allowed golfers to hit the ball further and straighter (sound familiar).  Many of the principles of the golden age courses couldn't defend par and provide a strong challenge for the technology of the 1950s.  So golf architecture responded with golf courses to restore the challenges. 

Today, Golf Architecture blames manufacturers and the USGA for scores falling.  And yes, manufacturers and the USGA are partially at fault. But Golf architecture principles are also at fault.  Not only is Golf Architecture not responding like it did 80 years ago,  It is flat ignoring the reasons why golf architecture changed 80 years ago, shunning any of the ideas emphasised in the "dark ages" as bad.   They were not bad.  They kept golf in balance from the last technological changes, and created an environment that many would like to return. 

I think we would all agree it would be nice to return to a balance again between golf architecture and golf technology.  I just ask that you consider it's not a one sided issue where only one group needs to change. 

[jeffwarne]

What I have found most interesting is where tee shots are gathering on holes like 5 and 8. Course conditions might be too good to highlight the character of some of the more canted fairways. I can’t recall many shots off of side hill lies.

I fixed it for you
"Fairways height may be too low to highlight the character of some of the more canted fairways"


The oh too common substitution of the word "good" for fast(first with greens, now with fairways), is all that's wrong with golf at the more well heeled clubs.


Something can be firm without being(too) fast, and sidehill lies can abound, and interesting pins can then be used to produce interesting golf.
To be fair, LACC does present a lot of super fast downhillers and very(comparatively)slow uphillers, so I give credit where it is due.

[jeffwarne]

If protecting par is the goal(I'm not saying it is), the answer is stunningly simple.
Have any of them take out Jack Nicklaus's clubs, put some new grips on, and see how they do at LACC in any conditions.

This (the last paragraph) is where I would start… I’m guessing that there is a moment in time when clubs, balls and courses all provided the challenge that golf course architects intended (and GCA fans enjoy/wish to see more of!). Once that moment (date) is established let’s provide the equipment of that era to the worlds best, and voila, we now know how much further Rory hit it than, Hogan, Miller, Seve (yes, different eras but we weren’t having this conversation at any time during those eras) any gains would be fine with me.

My final thought is that mankind’s physical efforts have been tracked for decades, sporting gains have been small, often really small, what would the 100m world record be if both sports gained the same improvement since the introduction of Pro V1 and high performing titanium drivers?

If we go back to the clubs of Nicklaus, are we also going to go back to the course set ups of NIcklaus' time?  If not why would anyone expect the same result?

These days of equipment we all dream of were played on golf courses that were narrow, had rough, had water hazards, had trees.  They were played on dark age golf courses.  Can you really separate the two?

If feels like everyone forgets that the dark age golf courses with narrower fairways, and trees, and smaller greens, and water hazards were built in response to the LAST technological change in golf in the 1940's with steel shafts and newer balls which allowed golfers to hit the ball further and straighter (sound familiar).  Many of the principles of the golden age courses couldn't defend par and provide a strong challenge for the technology of the 1950s.  So golf architecture responded with golf courses to restore the challenges. 

Today, Golf Architecture blames manufacturers and the USGA for scores falling.  And yes, manufacturers and the USGA are partially at fault. But Golf architecture principles are also at fault.  Not only is Golf Architecture not responding like it did 80 years ago,  It is flat ignoring the reasons why golf architecture changed 80 years ago, shunning any of the ideas emphasised in the "dark ages" as bad.   They were not bad.  They kept golf in balance from the last technological changes, and created an environment that many would like to return. 

I think we would all agree it would be nice to return to a balance again between golf architecture and golf technology.  I just ask that you consider it's not a one sided issue where only one group needs to change.

Very good commentary, though not all courses were dark age in Nicklaus' prime..
Augusta only recently entered the dark ages.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Brandel’s take is exactly what we expect from a washed up short hitter who can’t compete.  “Thick rough and trees bring out true champions.”  That doesn’t work anymore, and it’s boring to watch.

I have no more sympathy for the litany of posters who demand that the course “defend par”.  Par was abandoned by the governing bodies 25-30 years ago and trying to fix that with a course setup once a year is pointless.

LACC is a great course and if it is no longer a good enough test for great players, that just shows the fundamentals of equipment are out of whack.

Par was also abandoned by golf course architecture 25 years ago.  The dark ages principles were put into place as a way to help counter the technology gains of the 40's with steel shafts and newer balls, all creating longer straighter shots.  About 25 years ago, golf architecture decided these changes were not necessary. 

So  we’ve tried golf without them.  We cut down trees.  We widened fairways.  We de-emphaized water hazards.  We enlarged greens.  All the things that were put in to help against new technology 80 years ago became out of fashion, and removed from golf courses. 

And scoring has collapsed.  Length and Power have become all important. 

Now what complicates this is that at the same time we had a golf architecture revolution, we had a golf technology revolution.  So how can we separate the two?  What was the main driver in the falling scores? 

Nobody can honestly look at the entire picture and say it's entirely golf technology's fault.  Golf design principles today clearly encourage players to hit the ball further, just as the same principles did when steel shafts came into the game.  The principles need to be re-examined as "thick rough and trees" worked fine until you and your contemporaries decided they were not important. 

As to being boring to watch,  Look around at this thread.  Look at what others are saying on TV.  Do you think everyone is asking to be bored?  People want the players to be challenged.  They don't want to see the leader birdie half the holes they play.  The architecture needs to challenge the players and this architecture isn't doing that.

[Kalen Braley]

I noticed Tommy started a thread on 6, and it seems like it would have been much better if they had set it up with 'proper' US Open values.

Fixed  You're welcome 

LACC #6 by Kalen Braley, on Flickr

[George Pazin]

...

And scoring has collapsed.  Length and Power have become all important. 

Has it? Have they?


I'll admit I don't follow pro golf that closely anymore, but it seems like there are just as many majors with closer to par scoring as there are low scoring. Even day 2 of this year's US Open saw higher scoring.


Length and power have always been very important, there are very few great golfers from any era who weren't long, at least relative to their competitors. Fitzpatrick, Smith, Morikawa - would you saw they are just bomb and gougers? Maybe they are, I don't know their stats, but I wouldn't characterize them the way that I would Koepka, DJ and Rory (who hasn't won a major in almost 10 years). Plenty of bombers didn't even make the cut - JThomas, JDay, etc.


If you read Erik Barzeski's book, he makes a pretty solid case for something approaching bomb and gouge (I can't remember if he specifically calls it that) in all circumstances. I think the golfers of today, with the lure of insane money, have worked on everything, and very few can be characterized as short and straight, long and wild, just a great putter, just a great iron player, etc. They're all good at everything and crazy long by the standards of mere mortals.


Let's see what happens this weekend. And maybe pray for some firmness.

[Jim_Coleman]

   The racket may have evolved, but the court remains the same. And the game has not suffered.

[David_Tepper]

"The racket may have evolved, but the court remains the same. And the game has not suffered."

Jim C. -

I am not quite sure I agree with that. Up until 1970 or so, 3 of the 4 major tennis championships were played on grass courts. So were many of the important tournaments of that time. Few tournaments (and none of the majors) were played on paved/man-made court surfaces. Now 2 of the 4 majors are played on paved courts.

Grass courts encouraged more aggressive play, more play at the net, shorter points. Play on paved courts, with more consistent, predictable bounces (combined with the new racquets that enabled players to develop ground strokes that produced a lot of topspin)  emphasizes play from the backcourt rather than from the net. Points last a lot longer than they used to. Sometimes the points seem endless.

As someone who grew up playing tennis with wood racquets in the 1960's, I (and some of my "old fogy" tennis friends from back in the day) are not so sure about whether or not the game has suffered.

DT
 



       

[Jim_Coleman]

  David:  I’m pretty sure US and Australia moved away from grass for economic reasons, not because of improved rackets.We used wooden rackets and hard balls in squash too. But the court’s the same, no?

[David_Tepper]

Jim -

Yes, the demise of competitive grass court tennis in the US and Australia was likely due in large part to the cost of maintaining grass courts. That being said,  the more consistent (and higher) bounces that paved courts offer combined with the modern racquets enabled the heavy topspin game to develop. That really changed the technique of hitting a tennis ball and how the game is played.

In squash, the game we played and the courts we played on are long gone. Squash in the US converted to the international softball game and the wider court well over a decade ago.


DT 

[Jim_Coleman]

   Squash courts are wider today? Interesting. Not that I’ve been on one in 40 years.

[Ken Moum]

Another sport gutted by technology? Bowling.


Between asymmetrical cores, sticky covers and the wrist supports, it's completely different.

[Tom_Doak]

Brandel’s take is exactly what we expect from a washed up short hitter who can’t compete.  “Thick rough and trees bring out true champions.”  That doesn’t work anymore, and it’s boring to watch.

I have no more sympathy for the litany of posters who demand that the course “defend par”.  Par was abandoned by the governing bodies 25-30 years ago and trying to fix that with a course setup once a year is pointless.

LACC is a great course and if it is no longer a good enough test for great players, that just shows the fundamentals of equipment are out of whack.

Par was also abandoned by golf course architecture 25 years ago.  The dark ages principles were put into place as a way to help counter the technology gains of the 40's with steel shafts and newer balls, all creating longer straighter shots.  About 25 years ago, golf architecture decided these changes were not necessary. 

So  we’ve tried golf without them.  We cut down trees.  We widened fairways.  We de-emphaized water hazards.  We enlarged greens.  All the things that were put in to help against new technology 80 years ago became out of fashion, and removed from golf courses. 

And scoring has collapsed.  Length and Power have become all important. 

Now what complicates this is that at the same time we had a golf architecture revolution, we had a golf technology revolution.  So how can we separate the two?  What was the main driver in the falling scores? 

Nobody can honestly look at the entire picture and say it's entirely golf technology's fault.  Golf design principles today clearly encourage players to hit the ball further, just as the same principles did when steel shafts came into the game.  The principles need to be re-examined as "thick rough and trees" worked fine until you and your contemporaries decided they were not important. 

As to being boring to watch,  Look around at this thread.  Look at what others are saying on TV.  Do you think everyone is asking to be bored?  People want the players to be challenged.  They don't want to see the leader birdie half the holes they play.  The architecture needs to challenge the players and this architecture isn't doing that.

Ben:


It's 9:30 pm in Scotland and I am pretty jet lagged after a long day of work, so I can't answer you fully, but basically, I don't understand why you care what the winning score is in a tournament, or why I am supposed to care, since I don't build golf courses for professional tournaments?


Thick rough and trees never "worked fine", for anybody apart from very good players.  For the other 90% it was an ordeal.


And when the hell has golf architecture NOT encouraged players to hit the ball further?  Length with a reasonable amount of accuracy was just as important to Bobby Jones's success as to Jack Nicklaus's . . . arguably, it was MORE important back in the day when it meant the difference between a 4-iron approach and a 7-iron.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

They are also effectively neutered by their fear of ruinous litigation to take on the manufactuers and firmly institute a ball-driven bifurcation.

And yet… they're proceeding with a ball rollback via bifurcation?

Deep down I think we all know this, and its why we want our championships to at least stay near par.

Talk about flawed thinking. The score relative to par is not a measure of how "testing" the golf course was. You could easily make a super-difficult golf course, and you often see the fluky type winners in those events specifically because they tend to reward luck a little more than superior golf skills. When players go low at Augusta National, is the course a poor "competitor"? No. Was the course at St. Andrews a poor competitor last year?

As much as you want to say that the competitor is the course… it's not. It's the other golfers and how they play the same course, but the course isn't actively competing. It's merely the playing field. One competitor (player) doesn't directly affect another like in tennis, but this is similar to saying the court in tennis is the "competitor." Or the wind in a football game. It's not - it's still the other people playing in the same game or tournament.

I see now that others made the same point(s) in slightly longer form, but I typed it out, so…   I'm gonna post it all the same.

[Ira Fishman]

I still remember the Massacre at Winged Foot well. The subsequent US Opens where “defending par” dictated penal set ups provided some of the less interesting golf to watch whether it was narrow fairways with deep, thick rough and/or crusty greens with pins in barely pinnable locations.


This year reminds me of Olympia Fields in 2003 and Pinehurst 2014. Classic courses that were set up to reward good shotmaking. Both those tournaments were criticized for producing low scores although at the end of the day only a few broke par.


I have not played WFW, Merion, or Shinnecock, but I would enjoy seeing the US Open played on them with less effort to “defend par”.


Ira

[Dan_Callahan]

I don’t much care about defending par. But I do enjoy the traditional aspect of the US Open that sees courses described as “brutally hard.” The tournament this year is being played at what appears to be very much a second shot course. And in Augusta, we already have a major that emphasizes that aspect of the game. It’s just a preference thing, I guess.

[Jim_Coleman]

Another sport gutted by technology? Bowling.


Between asymmetrical cores, sticky covers and the wrist supports, it's completely different.

    And yet the playing field remains the same.

[Ken Moum]

Another sport gutted by technology? Bowling.


Between asymmetrical cores, sticky covers and the wrist supports, it's completely different.

    And yet the playing field remains the same.

I believe that tournament organizers have done extreme things re. oiling the lanes to combat technology.

[John Kirk]

I'm enjoying the tournament very much.  To me, it looks like the shots required to make pars and birdies on this course are extraordinarily difficult.  Especially during the first couple of days, the greens were really smooth, which helped scoring.

I'm all for golf like this.  I think it showcases the incredible abilities of the modern player nicely.  And it's tougher in the afternoons, playing in the prevailing westerly winds.  Ten under is still leading.

Check that.  Fowler rolls in a 70 footer to move to 11 under.  That was awesome!

[Ben Hollerbach]

It's 9:30 pm in Scotland and I am pretty jet lagged after a long day of work, so I can't answer you fully, but basically, I don't understand why you care what the winning score is in a tournament, or why I am supposed to care, since I don't build golf courses for professional tournaments?

Thick rough and trees never "worked fine", for anybody apart from very good players.  For the other 90% it was an ordeal.

And when the hell has golf architecture NOT encouraged players to hit the ball further?  Length with a reasonable amount of accuracy was just as important to Bobby Jones's success as to Jack Nicklaus's . . . arguably, it was MORE important back in the day when it meant the difference between a 4-iron approach and a 7-iron.

From 1987-1999, 8 of the 13 US Open winners ranked outside the top 100 in Driving Distance on the PGA Tour. Since then, from 2000-2022, Only 3 US Open winners ranked outside the top 100.

The US Open didn't always reward length, But it did reward great play. The shorter players winning these events were some of the best players we have ever seen.  Hale Irwin won 21 times on the PGA tour.  Curtis Strange won 17.  Corey Pavin won 15 times.  The only active players on the tour with more wins are Phil, DJ, and Rory.

From 2016-2022, 6 of the 7 US Open winners have ranked in the top 20 in driving distance. Over the preceding 29 US Opens, There were only 5 who ranked in the top 20.

We're currently in an unprecedented time for the US Open, as it now so clearly favors length. Is it a coincidence that during this time, the USGA is also widening fairways and shortening rough, or are they related?

This trend is not unique to the US Open, the story is the same for the Masters and PGA Championship as well. From 1987-1996, Players who ranked outside the top 100 won 19 of 30. Since then, only a handful have done it.

Earlier this spring Mark Broadie published a white paper where he examined the impact of distance change in professional golf. Examining data from 2004-2022 Broadie found that over the past 2 decades Driving increased from only a ~19% contribution to a 28% contribution towards scoring, while Approach play decreased from ~41% to a 36% contribution. Driving was the only category to increase in contribution to scoring. If the trend continues, will become the most dominant contributor to scoring in less than 10 years.

So yes, the game has changed.  Length and power are much more important than they used to be.

Now we all know some courses favor certain types of players.  Some are approach play courses.  Some are short game courses.  Some are accuracy courses.  And some are bomber courses.  It's the golf course architecture which decides which part of a player's game will be favored, which part will be rewarded. 

Therefore newfound supremacy of length in the top levels of the game is very much an architectural issue.  It's definitely just as much an architecture issue as it is a technology issue.

If you truly believe thick rough and trees worked fine for the best 10% of golfers, would you please let everyone know that.  People listen to you. The game is changing quickly in front of our eyes at the top level, and letting the USGA know there is nothing wrong with trees, rough, and tight fairways on courses meant for the best players in the world would be huge in bringing a balance back into golf at the highest level. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()