Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: jeffwarne on March 12, 2011, 03:48:37 PM
-
i always enjoy watching this tournament.
Of course i worked there for 10 years so I've got familiarity
Johnny Miller just said a player hit a" push hook"
There was big trouble on the left
said it's a rare shot
"why" he was asked
"because you rarely see a player swing inside out."
How is a push hook different than a draw that didn't quite come back all the way.(which is what a right to left player would tend to do with trouble on the left) or.... better yet.. he was aiming to that spot and hit a small draw exactlyto that spot.
before he hit Johnny did say players always miss this shot to the right...no shi$# Sherlock.
a push hook......
I guess a more reasoned announcer would be boring-I think I am getting old though as I am beginning to enjoy him
-
I would imagine that a "push hook" (right-handed) would start out right of where one's shoulders are aiming and move back to the left, whereas a regular draw would start out on a line with one's shoulders. I could be wrong, though; that's just how I'd visualize it, I guess.
-
If he's going by feet alignment than I would consider this one of the stupidest remarks of all time. He won his US Open by opening his stance 45 degrees on Sunday!
-
Tiger hit a top driver 122 yards on the 2nd hole
and a pop-up 3 wood on 14 yesterday.
The player who had the greatest 13 year run in the history of the game duffing the ball?
I just can't see working that much on new mechanics (by new I mean nothing he's ever done before) with that much talent.
and now he's changing his chipping and pitching stroke.......????
-
Tim
I think you are 100% right on the push hook.
Jeff
Doral looks excellent. To me it is very close to the 1980s course, except the greens are faster, and there are fewer figus trees.
-
Jeff:
I have never understood the fanfare tied to Doral / Blue. I mean it's good in spots but far from all the talk people on TV constantrly mention.
No doubt it's been helped by the time line when the event has been held -- used to be the main starting point for the Tour when Nicklaus was active and Norman did likewise.
I like the 18th when the southerly wind is blowing because only then does the hole really have viper's bite should any pulled shots happen.
-
Jeff:
I have never understood the fanfare tied to Doral / Blue. I mean it's good in spots but far from all the talk people on TV constantrly mention.
No doubt it's been helped by the time line when the event has been held -- used to be the main starting point for the Tour when Nicklaus was active and Norman did likewise.
I like the 18th when the southerly wind is blowing because only then does the hole really have viper's bite should any pulled shots happen.
Matt,
Like many topics here, Doral has been done before and the "old" Doral (Dick Wilson) appears to be more interesting than the modern Doral. Perhaps Pinehurst #2 renovation will start a trend.
-
Tiger hit a top driver 122 yards on the 2nd hole
and a pop-up 3 wood on 14 yesterday.
The player who had the greatest 13 year run in the history of the game duffing the ball?
I just can't see working that much on new mechanics (by new I mean nothing he's ever done before) with that much talent.
and now he's changing his chipping and pitching stroke.......????
Tiger isn't even playing a game right now. He's grinding over individual swings.
WW
-
Jeff:
I have never understood the fanfare tied to Doral / Blue. I mean it's good in spots but far from all the talk people on TV constantrly mention.
No doubt it's been helped by the time line when the event has been held -- used to be the main starting point for the Tour when Nicklaus was active and Norman did likewise.
I like the 18th when the southerly wind is blowing because only then does the hole really have viper's bite should any pulled shots happen.
Matt,
I taught there for Jim McLean for a number of years.
When I worked there I enjpyed playing the course when I had the chance (which wasn't often as it's very busy)
I did used to sneak out late and play 6-7 holes as the 12th tee and 10th fairway was right by the learning center.
the other unattractive feature was cartpath only until after the tournament which made for a slow, unenjoyable day. They have since initiated a caddie program and that does help for the resort guests.
What I did like about Doral was there was room to drive your ball, but you could work it to take advantage of the doglegs, or play to the wiide side when the angle or wind called for it which was always a factor.
It's just much more fun to play in the wind when a failure to execute results in in a bad angle or a recovery shot from rough or a bunker.(NOT A RETEE)
There is good , mostly strategic use of water on 3,4 8 and 9 10 and 18 which is in my opinion about as much as any course needs, particularly a resort.
I never absolutely loved it, just liked it and as Johnny Miller(there I am agreeing with him again) said today, you have to just survive the tough holes and score on the rest.
Every hole at Doral with water offers you a huge bail, and by bail, I mean you could putt around it and you can certainly play for a bogey,but a really tough up and down par/birdie on many holes.
Honestly though, I would say the more I learn about architecture, the more I like Doral.
I will say I haven't played it in about 6-7 years and no doubt there've been changes I'm not aware of.
Most of Florida golf a guy comes down rusty from the winter and is greeted by a steady dose of predictable condo left water right and a rusty mid handicapper in January is going to lose a dozen balls.
PgA National(for example) is just too tough for a mid handicapper who's not playing regularly to enjoy.(unless he enjoys losing balls which evidently some do)
I enjoy watching Doral because I enjoy watching the pros play golf, not navigate through holes penal corridors on every hole.
That's why I'm still OK with Augusta as they still find their ball and can hit interesting recovery shots (except off stupid mounded pine beds).
Even 18 at Doral has a bail right and a bogie option.
I also enjoy watching it because I have a soft spot from working there and know the course well enough to know the shots.
They also have always had a good field except for the two years after the Floyd desecration which was quietly buried.
I remember skiing once on vacation during the tournament, sick of teaching 10 hours a day 120 days in a row, burnt out and sick of Doral.
We didn't teach much during the event as the teaching end was closed for safety so I usually took a few days off to recharge and avoid the crowds.
The course looked so good on TV, I stopped and watched from a bar in Colorado.
-
Sorry, Jeff. Anybody who pays $300+/ round on Doral Blue either has no brain or more money than Gates.
It is a nice enough of a course, boring & repetitive at times and quite pretty here and there, but to charge that much for a round for something this mediocre is an insult. I understand it is free market and they can charge whatever, but still...
To me, Doral serves as a great GCA IQ test. Anybody who is enamored with this course is just infatuated by the fact that PGA players play on it and that it is expensive (so, it must be good).
-
Sorry, Jeff. Anybody who pays $300+/ round on Doral Blue either has no brain or more money than Gates.
It is a nice enough of a course, boring & repetitive at times and quite pretty here and there, but to charge that much for a round for something this mediocre is an insult. I understand it is free market and they can charge whatever, but still...
To me, Doral serves as a great GCA IQ test. Anybody who is enamored with this course is just infatuated by the fact that PGA players play on it and that it is expensive (so, it must be good).
Richard,
You're not wrong but,
If that same person drops $300 for a night out on South Beach is that an insult?
It's called supply and demand.
There are thousands of courses better than Doral, but how many where you can play out your back door at 75 degrees in January?
Location location location
Is a two bedroom apartment in Manhatten that's cramped worth 2 million if the same space in Cleveland is worth $100,000?
I don't pay $300 for golf anywhere(nor for a night on South Beach), but given the choice between PGA national, Doral, or TPC in January, I'd choose Doral as I know the weather would be better than palm Beach and possibly unplayable in Jacksonville.
I'd still rather go to World Woods
-
Mike S:
Yes, I hope that happens.
Jeff:
Doral is a staple for the tour -- it provides the Miami connection.
But, the architecture and what's there is really not moving the meter for me and likely others as well.
No doubt when the wind blows it offers some tough situations -- especially a southerly wind so #17 and #18 are both into it.
I do agree with you that The Champ at PGA National is one tough hombre for mid to high handicappers -- of course, they would help themselves by playing the more forward tees.
Doral Blue has some tough holes but there are more than enough simple holes for the pros -- I mean the 1st is a joke par-5. Anyone not making four there 80% of the time is losing ground. Ditto the 2nd which is flip shot wedge at best. The 10th is a decent par-5 -- but if you have a south wind it's not that big deal of a hole.
Thanks for sharing your memories but Doral / Blue is great for a PGA Tour event because of the history but the overall architecture is only so-so in my mind.
-
Agreed Matt.
It's a great PGA tour event
a reasonable use of flat land and not overly penal to play.
Not a reasonable comment now as it's a limited field, but used to always have great champions, as opposed to the one hit wonders we so commonly see on narrow corridor penal courses.
-
I have always enjoyed this event, although the course seems a bit dated now.
The water holes are interesting, but I find myself never being able to remember much of the rest of it, including most of the back nine. I like the par-fives, particularly 8 and 10.
The whole thing seems to be a relic of its era though. While I don't have quite the disdain for this particular period of design that many on this site do, I will certainly concede that this type of architecture doesn't appear to be aging particularly well.
Is it me, or does most of the bermuda look sick?
-
Jeff,
Re the Floyd desecration. Couldn't agree more, what a mess.
I finished t-8th the year before thought, and always figured they felt that if I finished that high, the HAD to change something!
-
DJ's stats (I think for the 3rd round only):
Driving distance: 312
Driving accuracy: 71.43%
GIR: 83.33%
Putts/GIR 1.600
I guess that's how you shoot 7 under.
-
How much of Dick Wilson remains at Doral?
Bob
-
Gents:
Site selection for PGA Tour events is never about the architecture as prime emphasis point #1.
It's about other considerations as many know.
Doral / Blue is about a past course that lives on but really is quite dated as others have surmised. What made Doral special years ago was the merging of many great golf talents which made the overall SHOW impressive. How much did the course play a key role. No doubt it did but Doral Blue is really a yesterday course.
-
Gents:
Site selection for PGA Tour events is never about the architecture as prime emphasis point #1.
It's about other considerations as many know.
Doral / Blue is about a past course that lives on but really is quite dated as others have surmised. What made Doral special years ago was the merging of many great golf talents which made the overall SHOW impressive. How much did the course play a key role. No doubt it did but Doral Blue is really a yesterday course.
Matt,
Isn't the fact that the powers that be that decided courses were" dated", the reason we have so much(percieved) need for restorations now?
It's a slippery slope.
the pros like it, the resort guests like it .
sure it represents an era of 60's Florida(with an updating for ball changes), what's wrong with that?
I would argue that it's width allows the elasticity of lengthening, unlike the already narrow lost ball corridors so prevelant in south Florida.
just don't go putting in ragged edged bunkers and "native grass" in some misguided misinterpretation of amateur minimalism and all will be good.
-
Does anyone have any comment on 16? Personally, I love short/driveable par 4s, but 16 is utterly uninteresting. I think a total of 1 player actually found the green yesterday in 1. It does not seem to me that the Possibility of driving the green was a part of the design consideration as even a tee shot landing on the front portion of the green will usually roll off the back of the shallow green.
Furthermore, the lack of any real risk/reward means that virtually all players will attempt to drive the ball near the green. There is almost no strategy for the players based on what I've seen. The pros seem to be able to get up and down from any of the front bunkers and the rough just over the green equally without problem. To me, any short par four where the tee shot imparts no fear and no real strategy if attempting to drive green, is not a great hole.
Mark
-
I played Doral a few years ago while in Miami on business. I didn't pay $300 but it was probably not far off, allowing for the inflation of the intervening period.
I thought it was rather uninteresting and forgettable, save for the feature holes which are memorable if not necessarily great holes, and I would not play it again even at a deep discount.
Crandon Park was a better course overall, if not quite as well manicured or presented.
-
Does anyone have any comment on 16? Personally, I love short/driveable par 4s, but 16 is utterly uninteresting. I think a total of 1 player actually found the green yesterday in 1. It does not seem to me that the Possibility of driving the green was a part of the design consideration as even a tee shot landing on the front portion of the green will usually roll off the back of the shallow green.
Furthermore, the lack of any real risk/reward means that virtually all players will attempt to drive the ball near the green. There is almost no strategy for the players based on what I've seen. The pros seem to be able to get up and down from any of the front bunkers and the rough just over the green equally without problem. To me, any short par four where the tee shot imparts no fear and no real strategy if attempting to drive green, is not a great hole.
Mark
Mark,
I would agree the hole was not designed to be driven.
Starategic risk reward par 4's are an interesting part of the game and very much have become a part of modern architecture.
This has in many cases contributed to the interest and strategy in a course
That said, I love a par 4 where you just rip at it and attempt to drive a green that is really not driveable unless you're long, execute AND get a bit of luck.
There is a group think though that insists every short par 4 must have risk reward and fear (and that it should be short enough for most of the field to reach)
How about a hole that simply demands sheer height and length and or luck and ISN't driveable for most players?
Such a hole can be great as it may average 3.5 for the elite and mentally beat you up if you don't birdie.
It can easily balanced by following it with a 490 par 4 frought with trouble.
i.e. I hate the concept of fair evening out over every hole.i.e. short hole =s hazard and /or small nasty green.
Such features of course have their place, they just don't HAVE to occur on a hole because it's short-but they can. I just feel it should even out over the 18 holes due to the use of the features of the site.
It's not great design, but it is interesting to watch that hole-it just doesn't fit the cookie cutter mold of a driveable par 4 that we've come to expect in elite modern architecture.
I actually like 300-320 par 4's with minimal trouble as it does test a different skill set (raw length, accuracy, and short game) but few agree with me.
They're also fun because you CAN hit driver without a lot of fear. Ultimately many driveable par 4's with too much risk become boring once you find out the best way to make 3 is to layup.
-
Does anybody have any idea what TPC Doral means?
Did they thinkthe word TPC added cache ? or did they sign some kind've deal
ick
-
Jeff,
although it may seem contradictory to my first post, I agree with basically everything you wrote. I agree that a short par 4 need not be so difficult that the risk clearly outweighs the reward and as a result a lay-up, wedge is the obvious choice. I'm just saying my problem with 16 is that there seems to be zero strategy on the tee shot. Virtually the entire field seems to be able to get the ball into one of the greenside bunkers, and the ability to hit it long/straight is not rewarded because the ball will not stay on the green. The players seem to just be 'going through the motions' on the tee shot and then are left with fairly straightforward bunker shots to a pretty flat green.
That all being said, 361 days a year, virtually every person that plays the course plays the hole as it was designed (driver/fairway wood to fairway and a short iron). The shallow green and extensive bunkering make much more sense in that context. So I guess the question is, should I be judging the hole's merits based on how it is played by the very best in the world, or how it is played by everyone else?
Mark
-
#16 is not really a driveable par-4 by its original design -- it was altered to provide that dimension.
Doral works because of the historic connection in being so long associated with the Tour -- the quality of the holes is not that impressive. No doubt you get big time fanfare with the 18th but there's plenty of other holes that are fairly pedestrian -- unless heavy wind whips up -- but that's the MO for plenty of places in FL -- especially southeast area.
-
#16 is not really a driveable par-4 by its original design -- it was altered to provide that dimension.
Doral works because of the historic connection in being so long associated with the Tour -- the quality of the holes is not that impressive. No doubt you get big time fanfare with the 18th but there's plenty of other holes that are fairly pedestrian -- unless heavy wind whips up -- but that's the MO for plenty of places in FL -- especially southeast area.
Matt,
Would you mind briefly stating what was changed with 16 (and when was the change made)? Do you mean the tees are just moved up for tournament play, or was there an actual redesign of the entire hole? Was the green/bunkering changed? Sorry, but I know very little of the history of Doral Blue.
Mark
-
Mark:
The tees were moved up and then people can say it's driveable -- the original intent of Wilson didn't really include that option.
It was meant to be a 3-metal or long iron to the turn of the hole and then a short iron to the well-bunkered green.
Mark, the 16th at Doral isn't remotely close to the 10th at Riviera where such an option from the tee was in the original thinking of its creation.
No doubt the driveable feature has become an interesting addition to create added opportunities / burdens for the players but the actual hole itself wasn't designed for what you saw in Saturday's round.
-
Thanks, Matt. I'm not sure where in your head you store all of this info, but I hope you have room for things other than GCA javascript:void(0);
-
Mark:
The sad reality is that most tour sites are chosen for a whole host of reasons and architecture is somewhere down the line in terms of the real big time needs involved.
Doral provides the tour with a mainstay presence in southeast FL -- nearest to greater Miami.
-
Mark:
The sad reality is that most tour sites are chosen for a whole host of reasons and architecture is somewhere down the line in terms of the real big time needs involved.
Doral provides the tour with a mainstay presence in southeast FL -- nearest to greater Miami.
Matt,
One of the first times I was written up (not fined, just written up) was as a rookie, when in an interview I was asked
what the biggest surprise was as a rookie. I said I was surprised that we played better golf courses and better conditions
on the Australian Tour back then than our tour played. Went over like a fart in church
-
Pat:
That's too bad -- unfortunately, many of the really classic courses should not even entertain the thought in hosting such a big time event because of the many disruptions and even possible course changes that must be carried out for one's week of activitity andf fanfare.
It concerns me greatly that Plainfield in NJ will be facing that sort of thing when The Barclays is played there later this year.
Doral / Blue is part and parcel of the Tour's storyline -- players are comfortable as is the sponsor(s). For the PGA Tour and much of professional golf -- those two elements linked together are sufficient.
-
It looked as if the greens were dormant bermuda?
Certainly not the verdant green I usually associate with a winter rye overseed (tyoical in Arizona).
-
Does anyone have any comment on 16? Personally, I love short/driveable par 4s, but 16 is utterly uninteresting. I think a total of 1 player actually found the green yesterday in 1. It does not seem to me that the Possibility of driving the green was a part of the design consideration as even a tee shot landing on the front portion of the green will usually roll off the back of the shallow green.
Furthermore, the lack of any real risk/reward means that virtually all players will attempt to drive the ball near the green. There is almost no strategy for the players based on what I've seen. The pros seem to be able to get up and down from any of the front bunkers and the rough just over the green equally without problem. To me, any short par four where the tee shot imparts no fear and no real strategy if attempting to drive green, is not a great hole.
Mark
16 isn't supposed to be a driveable par four. It's an excellent short par four with a challenging green surface. Tiger made it exciting and showed the possibility to drive it, however more people make 3 from 100 yards out.
Doral is much better now that most of the Floyd andother "improvements" have been voided.
-
Matt, why do you believe that PGA Tour SHOULD host on courses with better architecture? If we have learned anything over recent years that better architecture does not necessarily produce better tournaments. I mean, the US Open at Torrey Pines was as good as it gets and we can all agree that architecture there leaves a lot to be desired.
The tour players do not like "quirky" courses and courses with lots of ponds like Doral looks great on TV.
Why should PGA Tour cater to golf geeks like us when our numbers are so small? Aren't they doing the right thing by catering to the players and viewers?
-
Matt, why do you believe that PGA Tour SHOULD host on courses with better architecture? If we have learned anything over recent years that better architecture does not necessarily produce better tournaments. I mean, the US Open at Torrey Pines was as good as it gets and we can all agree that architecture there leaves a lot to be desired.
The tour players do not like "quirky" courses and courses with lots of ponds like Doral looks great on TV.
Why should PGA Tour cater to golf geeks like us when our numbers are so small? Aren't they doing the right thing by catering to the players and viewers?
I agree with you Rich. Shocking, trust me, I know. ;)
-
Richard:
TP was simply quite lucky for the alignment of things that happened with that US Open. Plenty of times flat and uninteresting sites produce boring predictable situations of little interest.
Of course, there's no guarantee that the best designs produce stellar golf but the issue is more about general trends when then that happens. Check out the roster of US Open winners at Oakmont -- sure there is a Sam Parks but there is also Tommy Armour, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus and even more recent winners such as Ernie Els and Larry Nelson.
The same can be said for places like Merion over the years -- yes, there's Olin Dutra - but you have Hogan, Trevino and a fantastic ending round by David Graham. Look at Pebble Beach -- Nicklaus, Watson, Woods.
I can go on and on with such situations.
The PGA Tour is about other elements -- first, the sheer logistics of an annual site requires it. Many classic courses can maybe consider a major -- if they are up for it -- but the sheer idea of an annual event would be a major red flag for nearly all of them -- just too much work.
Keep in mind the pull the sponsor(s) have in the overall enterprise -- ditto the player's comfort zone. Doral / Blue is a known entity -- it may not be the best of places architecturally -- but it has enough pizzaz to keep things flowing -- the much ballyhooed 18th hole is clearly a fixture for many.
The other factor is $$. The Tour has gotten into the design business with its own roster of courses -- no need to spread the gravy around when they can keep much of it for themselves.
-
Meh, the stellar list of winners are really the by-product of stellar field and added pressure of the major. I doubt that you can show statistically that better courses produce better winners.
I bet you you can hold US Open on any muni with enough length and still produce high drama.
-
Richard:
Sure it's possble anything can happen.
But the issue is trying to minimize the "chance" factor that can and does happen if so-so sites are thrown into the mix.
Let me ask you this -- would you want to win a US Open at Torrey Pines or Oakmoint ?
The answer is obvious -- if you're truly honest.
-
Matt, if I was a player, I would want to win the US Open. Period. I don't care if it was played in Podunk National.
No other course in last two decades has better identified the best players of the time than Torrey Pines. Tiger has won six times there and Phil has won 3 times. You add other winners like Daly, Bubba, Olazabal, and O'Meara, no other course has done better rewarding the best players in PGA Tour.
If you truly believe that best architecture finds best players, Torrey Pines would be up there with Oakmont, Pebble Beach, and Shinnecock (and perhaps surpass them).
-
Following up on Richard's point, neither Tiger nor Jack ever won at Riviera.
-
Richard:
You are on another planet if you equate Oakmont with TP - the former is in the world's elite of elite courses.
The other is a site that benefits from having had two SoCal guys play well there -- they would do the same if it was at Balboa Park.
In regards to tour courses -- check out Muirfield Village - or the former Westchester CC when the Classic was long held there.
-
Matt I am not the one equating TP to Oakmont, you are - by implying that great courses produce great champions.
I am under no delusion that course quality has any relation to the quality of the champions that it produces.
-
I think DORAL, in any of it's many "states" has produced a great list of champions. I've played TP almost as much as Doral (we used to do IBM east at Doral and west at TP, for 6 weeks per year). Doral (except during the Floyd version) is 10 times the course.
Doral is one of a few courses that I have played around the world where I want to know where the pin is before I tee off. The shot left to the pin is key at Doral (DORothy and AL - original owners). 18 is one exception, all I wanted there was to dry. Even the short first hole had scores from 3 to 7 during the recent WGC.
Jeff - I think I remember you during our Doral IBM events.
-
Richard:
Course quality does have a impact -- much more than you suggest. Under your theory -- why not play the US Open at Dyker Beach in Brooklyn and let's see who wins. That is silly.
The better layouts cannot guarantee an all-star roster of champions but the overall proability is there. ANGC has a few Herman Keiser types on its listings -- they also have Nicklaus, Palmer, Woods, Lefty, Hogan, Snead and Demaret many more times over.
-
Matt, you are still not getting it.
You say ANGC produces great champions because of its architecture (beside some obvious evidence contrary to that argument that you yourself listed). But I have already shown that a course with less than stellar architecture have produced great champions.
So how do you know exactly that ANGC produced great champions because of its architecture when even courses with poor architecture can do the same (and even do it better)?
For your conjecture to be true, the opposite must also be true, the courses lacking architectural merit must not produce a group of great champions. But that is demonstrably false, which makes your entire argument false.
How do you know that US Open at Dyker Beach won't produce a worthy champion?
-
Richard:
I get it plenty -- you seem to think just about any golf course will do and whoever wins so be it.
There is no course -- get it -- NO COURSE - that produces a full proof roster of all-time great champs.
The unknowns can win but because of the stellar courses generally involved the architecture demands a certain level of higher quality play and it's the really superb players most capable in doing that.
Richard -- please -- stop with this mindless drivel. I don't doubt the show at TP was quite sensational. But the place has no business hosting a US Open -- it was done there for other reasons ($$$).
Quality courses have the better percentage in identifying the best of the best -- quirks and upsets do happen. They don't happen that often and frankly for the US Open to go to Dyker Beach would be a joke and fail to do what a US Open is meant to be.
-
Nope, still not getting it.
I am not saying anything. You are. I am only pointing out that your arguments don't hold water.
You say that great architecture identify the best of the best, but I can give you plenty of examples where not-so-great architecture that also identify the best of the best. So how do you know that it was the great architecture that did it and not something else?
You don't.
-
Richard:
Let me try to help you out again ...
If you take a solid design like an Oakmont the history has clearly shown it identifies the best players -- in most of the occassions (save for Sam Parks).
How do I know?
Check out the history that has happened there and in most other notable places.
The top players prefer to play those places that weed out the lesser ranks. Upsets and quirks happen in all sports -- including golf.
The high pedigree of the design forces such players to play the widest and deepest array of shots.
-
That is not how logic works.
If the statement "great architecture weed out lesser ranks" is true, then the opposite MUST BE true. This means that "poor architecture does not weed out lesser ranks".
But this last statement is not true when you look at places like Torrey Pines or Doral. Logic says that in that case, the first statement cannot be true.
Put it another way, it does not matter if EVERY great course has a great list of winners, if every other course also has a great list of winners. That just means that every course has a great list of winners regardless of architecture.
For the statement that "great architecture weed out lesser ranks" to be true, there has to be evidence of poor architecture rewarding poor players, but the evidence does not show that. The evidence pretty much says that if you have an elite field, you are going to have elite list of winners. The course does not matter as much.
Just because you keep saying that it is, does not make it so.
-
Richard:
English must not be your primary language.
Great players can win at all places -- the reverse that weak players can win at the most architecturally sound doesn't flow in the same manner. No doubt upsets happen -- as they do in ALL sports.
Richard smell the coffee -- it's been brewing for some time -- probabiltiies are what is being discussed here. It is more probable that as the quality of the design goes up the better players will only be served in a higher percentage of times than playing a weaker design which permits even more broader array of players to challenge for the title. Numerous examples can be provided.
The odds that weaker players can win at the lesser quality layouts simply goes up because such courses do not have the high bar requirements that only serve to separate the elite players from the others.
By the way -- check out the comments of the elite players who have always relished such strong and architecturally sound courses to test them. Of course, under your reasoning (shall I call it that) they are flawed in their thimking as I am.
-
Two points.
1. I don't think Richard is arguing that the tournaments played at lesser courses are as good or that the golf is as interesting, he is simply suggesting that the cream will rise to the top at about the same rate regardless. Difficult to judge when it comes to majors as there are few majors that have been held at substandard challenges especially since the PGA upgraded the site selection for its championship.
2. Matt; are you suggesting that better architecture will identify the best players more often or that harder courses will achieve that result. You are not suggesting that the two concepts are the same?
-
Matt, you must not be mathmatically nor logically inclined.
If this statment is true:
The odds that weaker players can win at the lesser quality layouts simply goes up because such courses do not have the high bar requirements that only serve to separate the elite players from the others.
Show me the odds! If you can show me that stronger players win at higher percentage on "quality architecture" courses, than I would be happy to shut up.
No amount of verbal gymnastics is going save you from the fact that you are just pulling this out of your ass with no data to back you up. And as much general course knowledge (and English language) as you have, it still does not mean that your BS is not BS.
Elite players may relish "strong" courses, that does not mean that they are winning at higher percentage on those courses.
-
SL:
The same rate doesn't happen.
The better courses have the wherewithal to separate out the lesser players -- just read any quote from Nicklaus or Watson or Woods on the subject. Put Jack in his prime in the field at Quad Cities and put him in the field of a US Open at Merion and the odds are that he will succeed more so at the Pennsy layout over the one in Iowa. The same situation doesn't happen in reverse anywhere nearly as much. Upsets do happen in ALL OF SPORTS - but when top tier players play top tier venues their wherewithal to get to the winner's circle is enhanced and those of lesser talent is diminished.
SL -- check out the no names that won at those lesser PGA Championships from years gone by. The big name players were facing equal competition at many of them simply because the venues were a good notch or two lower than what they have done in more recent times.
-
I know a risky move, but I'm jumping in on this one:
In theory it sounds great that better courses do a better job of identifying the best players. I would be open to proof - I don't believe a casual review of winners at the better courses of majors proves anything. Aside from the rare Tiger Woods-esque 15 shot US Open victory, majors (and most tournaments for that matter) are typically decided by one or two strokes over 72(+) holes. The one stroke is clearly significant in the sense of determining the winner but is it statistically significant?
Seems to me to accurately determine whether or not the better courses do a better job of determining the best players you should look at the top 10-15 from the tournaments and apply some score based on the world rankings of those players. We all would agree that there is always a chance that there will be a random Michael Campbell every once in a while who wins the tournament but, if the hypothesis is true, the better courses should consistently produce a better/higher quality leaderboard.
A few other observations:
1. Doesn't course conditioning play a huge part in this discussion? The Quad Cities course in August as a regular PGA event would be much different than a Quad Cities course in June as the venue for the US Open.
2. Would Cypress Point do a better job than Baltusrol of identifying the best players in a field?
-
I wonder if Jack Nicklaus jumps off a bridge, Matt will as well...
Rob, that would not be a good way to determine whether or not architecture influences good player's to win since not all tournaments have the same caliber of field.
The simplest way to figure it out would be to take the best players from last 2 or 3 decades or so and gather all of their starts and wins to figure out their winning percentage (win/start) on top 20 courses, top 50 courses, top 100 courses, and the rest. It would be rough, but if there is a strong trend, this should show it.
There are a lot of things that great golfers believe that are completely false. It would not surprise me if this was one of them.
-
Rob, that would not be a good way to determine whether or not architecture influences good player's to win since not all tournaments have the same caliber of field.
The simplest way to figure it out would be to take the best players from last 2 or 3 decades or so and gather all of their starts and wins to figure out their winning percentage (win/start) on top 20 courses, top 50 courses, top 100 courses, and the rest. It would be rough, but if there is a strong trend, this should show it.
There are a lot of things that great golfers believe that are completely false. It would not surprise me if this was one of them.
I should have been more thorough in my description. The "score" of the tournament would definitely need to be adjusted for the caliber of the field. I think your idea of winning percentages misses the randomness factor as mentioned in my initial post. Sounds like we both agree that there could be a way to create a statistical analysis to determine whether or not the idea has been proven over time. There are lots of things that seem like they should be true but upon further analysis are not true.
I couldn't agree more with your last comment!!