Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: BCrosby on March 07, 2014, 10:06:58 AM
-
What it means to hit a homerun in golf architecture:
"[Doral] used to be a golf course where you grab your driver on every hole, swing for the fences and play from there. You can't get away with that here at Doral anymore." J. Dufner, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 7, 2014, p. C-8.
Bob
-
Bob: How does that statement constitute a "home-run"?
-
With this wind, Doral is certainly a home run for golf ball, and ball retriever manufacturers.
-
What's a guy like me to do there with even more water in play?
Is Gil taking marching orders from The Donald?
-
What's a guy like me to do there with even more water in play?
Is Gil taking marching orders from The Donald?
I'm pretty sure you weren't eligible.
I would hope that the owner would provide some marching orders for someone he HIRED.
Amazing how one can play a links course in a windy enviroment (Royal Portrush comes to mind) and lose balls in hay, or hack out sideways if lucky, and that's OK but water, even with a wide berth, is criticized.
it's windy today
it's called the Blue Monster.
and yes I wish there was a bit less water ;D ;)
Like a lot of the changes though-imagine it without the width ::) ::)
I will say it's interesting to see how quickly some of the announcers suggest they might need to remove some slope.
God forbid they mention presenting the greens at a slower pace
-
What's a guy like me to do there with even more water in play?
Watch the pros bleed, just like a US Open. And make a mental note not to attempt to play this course.
-
What's a guy like me to do there with even more water in play?
Watch the pros bleed, just like a US Open. And make a mental note not to attempt to play this course.
Note made. The Florida sand belts are the place to play, not the Florida swamp land.
-
It's nice to see the pros have to actually think about where to land the ball on the green other than right next to the pin. Although I will say 15 is pretty borderline today.
-
Bob: How does that statement constitute a "home-run"?
I'll take a shot.
Because the strategic demands of the updated design require some thought rather than full tilt boogie bomb & gouge.
-
"Seems a bit unfair."
I missed who actually said it as I wasn't really paying attention but that was possibly the most stupid comment of the day, given that it was in response to a golf ball having the audacity to land on a slope and actually roll into the water. We can argue about the water all we like but surely not about the effects of gravity upon a spherical object. ::)
-
Pretty funny report but Golf Channel's Tim Rosafort. He said Gil Hanse had his face buried in his hands watching the players on the back nine today. Gil said that with the wind "this is not what the course was all about." But Tim also quoted the Donald as being VERY happy with how the course played in such wind.
-
If the pros are struggling like this, would the course even be playable to the hacks of the world. You cant predict the wind.
Sounds like it could be pretty miserable time for a resort course, if the wind picks up
-
I watched a half hour of the tournament this afternoon. With that much water, that much wind, that much slope on the greens and the high speed of the green it made for a tough day all around.
But it was tough for everyone.
Does the PGA demand certain green speeds? I am very far from a pro but going from a steady diet of country club fast greens to a goat ranch muni screws up my putting. Would they allow dramatically slower greens on a course with very sloped greens?
-
If the pros are struggling like this, would the course even be playable to the hacks of the world. You cant predict the wind.
Sounds like it could be pretty miserable time for a resort course, if the wind picks up
Rob,
I'd say it's no more miserable than nearly every course in south florida in such a wind.
The corridors are quite large, unlike many courses where there's OB one side and water on the other
10 looks a bit dicey for the average guy though-seems a little less lake for the shorter resort guest in the shorter "landing area" wouldn't have affected the pros too much
-
The Dufner quote is from after the Thursday round. It is one of the rare times I've heard a pro say that "bomb and gouge" doesn't work as a strategy. He sounded slightly shocked. Which is a back-handed compliment to Hanse.
Interesting to see so many balls finding water after landing in the middle of greens. That might be partly due to tail winds today taking spin off the ball. But the simpler explanation is that the greens are very firm and the pros aren't adjusting. Flying balls pin high is not going to work. All good stuff.
Bob
-
68 players today...113 water balls. I can only imagine the response on this board if Rees or Fazio did the redesign. Must be great to be a GCA sacred cow. Hypocrites.
-
Florida Bomb and Drown.
-
Is anyone stunned that South Florida gets windy in early March? Does this make anyone excited to pay $450 to play there? I remember Trevino describing a particular Florida resort course as one where most people play once, loose about a dozen balls in the water, and then never come again. He might bring that line back after today. Trump says he is happy but I can't believe today helped future business.
-
If the pros are struggling like this, would the course even be playable to the hacks of the world. You cant predict the wind.
Sounds like it could be pretty miserable time for a resort course, if the wind picks up
Rob,
Today's wind is far from a "normal" wind.
It was very, very windy today, probably a two to three club wind for most golfers.
Definitely not the normal winds that sweep the property.
Garland,
They tend to avoid building major airports in swamps.
Doral is not in a swamp.
It was farmland when the Kaskel's bought it.
-
Is anyone stunned that South Florida gets windy in early March?
Yes.
Today's wind was excessive due in part to the storm that blew through yesterday.
South Florida was under a tornado watch until 7:00 pm last night.
Are you stunned by that news ?
Do you think that's normal for South Florida in March ?
Does this make anyone excited to pay $450 to play there? I remember Trevino describing a particular Florida resort course as one where most people play once, loose about a dozen balls in the water, and then never come again. He might bring that line back after today. Trump says he is happy but I can't believe today helped future business.
-
68 players today...113 water balls. I can only imagine the response on this board if Rees or Fazio did the redesign. Must be great to be a GCA sacred cow. Hypocrites.
Eagle!!
-
Florida Bomb and Drown.
Awful to watch... and it looks awful to play. The wind excuse is b/s. I grew up going to West Palm every year for spring break... every year it was windy. Every year at PGA National it's windy. Would the wind bea viable excuse If Rees built the course?
Christ, balls were caroming off of the middle of greens into hazards 10+ yards away. Maybe, just maybe, they need some thatch buildup on the greens to make these new greens hold balls...so ill give them another year. But man, this looks awful.
You couldn't pay me to travel down there and play this, as is.
-
Florida Bomb and Drown.
Awful to watch... and it looks awful to play.
The wind excuse is b/s.
I grew up going to West Palm every year for spring break...
And how many times were there tornado alerts/watches when you were there ?
every year it was windy.
NOT LIKE TODAY
Every year at PGA National it's windy.
NOT LIKE TODAY !
Would the wind bea viable excuse If Rees built the course?
Christ, balls were caroming off of the middle of greens into hazards 10+ yards away.
Maybe, just maybe, they need some thatch buildup on the greens to make these new greens hold balls...so ill give them another year.
But man, this looks awful.
You couldn't pay me to travel down there and play this, as is.
I don't think anyone is going to make the offer, so you needn't worry about it.
-
You'd be surprised at the invitations I get Mr Mucci. You're not the only one on here who can claim the title as America's Guest....but thanks.
So if the wind were blowing 20 mph, how many balls would have missed the water and hit the grass, err, I mean miss the grass and hit the water.
Alas, I knew you were the expert on Florida golf, Northeast golf, Notre Dame, Augusta and Seminole, but I didn't know you were also a meteorologist. My fault...I guess my 30+ years of recollection is flawed. And, I guess my buddies playing in the event and at the event are just being overly dramatic.
You're right, my apologies.
-
We should have another thread... Mucci on Doral. Why the vitriol? I thought the course sucked today.
-
It seems like the guys that have played the course defend it and the guys that saw it on tv thought it sucked.
-
So what I get from this thread is that the Treehouse is basically cool with ANYTHING that induces Tour players to hit less than driver. Even if it's aquatic goofy golf when the breeze picks up. But at least they won't be able to play their errant shots.
Frankly, I see nothing to commend the course at all as it has been presented yesterday and today. It's like greens that don't even have water surrounding them are playing like island greens. There's too much good golf to be played on courses that don't require the best players in the world to open up their third sleeve of balls to finish a round. I'll take a pass on Trump Doral no matter who the architect is.
-
Do you think that's normal for South Florida in March ?
Yes. I used to live in South Florida and very often there were days in February and March where we would play holes where we could not reach the fairways, and we were in our 20s and could actually play a bit. My point is not that this was the usual day, but if one is building a course down there for a tournament held this time of year you need to consider width and bail out areas a bit more than what I saw. When 8 and 9 irons are running 20 yards into water hazards there might be problems. How many shots the past two days landed on a green and ended up in a water hazard? Way too many. The course may play very nicely on a calmer day but there is no way South Florida is not going to get a good share of 20+ MPH days.
-
You'd be surprised at the invitations I get Mr Mucci.
You're full of crap, no one's paying your way to Miami and your guest fee to play Doral
You're not the only one on here who can claim the title as America's Guest....but thanks.
I've never made that claim.
So if the wind were blowing 20 mph,
The wind was often blowing at more than 20 mph in South Florida in the last 24 hours.
Did you play in South Florida, close to Doral today, or are your comments based solely from viewing the telecast ?
how many balls would have missed the water and hit the grass, err, I mean miss the grass and hit the water.
Alas, I knew you were the expert on Florida golf, Northeast golf, Notre Dame, Augusta and Seminole, but I didn't know you were also a meteorologist.
There are many, many, many things you don't know, but, that comes as no surprise to me.
My fault...I guess my 30+ years of recollection is flawed.
I think your guess is right, your recollection is flawed
And, I guess my buddies playing in the event and at the event are just being overly dramatic.
Or, you could be embellishing to further your position.
You seem to be relying on hearsay, whereas I'm relying on first hand experience with the wind today.
You're right, my apologies.
Apologies accepted.
-
We should have another thread... Mucci on Doral.
I don't have the time right now, but, I'll start one in a week or so.
Why the vitriol?
There's no vitriol, just a B.S. detector and objector.
I thought the course sucked today.
Did you play it today ?
I didn't see you inside the ropes.
Did you play a course not far from Doral today ?
How windy was it ?
-
My fault...I guess my 30+ years of recollection is flawed.
I think your guess is right, your recollection is flawed
And, I guess my buddies playing in the event and at the event are just being overly dramatic.
Or, you could be embellishing to further your position.
You seem to be relying on hearsay, whereas I'm relying on first hand experience with the wind today.
Apologies retracted. You're a fool if you think my comments are based on hearsay or embellishment.
And since the average wind speed in Miami is 11 mph in March, a 20 mph wind shouldn't render a course unplayable...at least not when properly designed/maintained/set-up. It certainly wouldn't be accepted if Rees or Fazio designed this - not Hanse.
-
Do you think that's normal for South Florida in March ?
Yes. I used to live in South Florida and very often there were days in February and March where we would play holes where we could not reach the fairways, and we were in our 20s and could actually play a bit.
The course may play very nicely on a calmer day but there is no way South Florida is not going to get a good share of 20+ MPH days.
You sure your recollection isn't mistaken? My recollection is apparently wrong...you sure yours isn't as well?
-
Take the weather and wind out of the discussion...
JRPotts has a very valid point. If this renovation was anyone other than Hanse/Doak/C&C, and still run by Trump, is it fair to say this board would be lit up with criticism given what happened today?
-
I thought most on here knew Patrick is an avid and enthusiastic student of meteorology, one who developed the anemometer app found on most smart phones.
The app works well in all places except western Nebraska. 8)
-
I think some are jumping the gun here....firm and fast is one thing but a new USGA sand based green with no thatch is almost like concrete...that will go away in a year or so....I think by the time most guys get to the PGA tour they have lost the ability to adapt...they have a certain way they play and if the course doesn't fit their style that week they don't play. This is good golf course and most of the pissed off pros know what happened to them. Give it two more days...
-
And I say Doral will do very well and prosper.
People will be eager to play the " Blue Monster" for the same reason they line up at Bethpage Black.
Just a different target market.
-
Sad to read many of the negative comments, from a supposedly golf knowledgeable group!
The weather today was not normal, sustained +30 mph winds caused the havoc, certainly not the superb course.
The greens are new, to me that means firmer. I heard nothing but good comments on the TV golf today, many people want to give the Blue Monster a try. By the end of the weekend, I hope you guys change your minds, but really that might not be possible, and I'm sure the Donald doesn't care either.
From shorter tees golfers will love The new Doral. If Dick Wilson were alive and could see the new pro game, and saw that finally someone had fixed his Blue course to reflect the changes since his death in 1965, he'd buy Gill Hanse a drink in appreciation.
-
68 players today...113 water balls. I can only imagine the response on this board if Rees or Fazio did the redesign. Must be great to be a GCA sacred cow. Hypocrites.
epic!
-
And I say Doral will do very well and prosper.
People will be eager to play the " Blue Monster" for the same reason they line up at Bethpage Black.
Just a different target market.
+1
Outside of GCA.COM. most of the golfing public equates very hard as very good. Gil probably does a get a pass here on all the water around the greens, but there is no denying that he did great work in terms of adding width and playing options. He was hired to modify a pro stop course, and he certainly did that in a refreshing manner: he made them THINK.
I saw Dustin complain about the 9 iron that failed to hold the green and went in the water. But he failed to acknowledge that his draw hit the slope and rolled out, while the next player hit a fade to 4 feet.
-
Sad to read many of the negative comments, from a supposedly golf knowledgeable group!
The weather today was not normal, sustained +30 mph winds caused the havoc, certainly not the superb course.
The greens are new, to me that means firmer. I heard nothing but good comments on the TV golf today, many people want to give the Blue Monster a try. By the end of the weekend, I hope you guys change your minds, but really that might not be possible, and I'm sure the Donald doesn't care either.
From shorter tees golfers will love The new Doral. If Dick Wilson were alive and could see the new pro game, and saw that finally someone had fixed his Blue course to reflect the changes since his death in 1965, he'd buy Gill Hanse a drink in appreciation.
Southeast Florida is known for high winds I have been to Doral and seen the 18th flag stick bent in half practically. Unlike Doral, Scotland another windy place doesn't have water on 12+ holes to make for interesting challenging holes! Also, with the course playing under windy conditions, is there much of chance for a run up option? I'm sure Dick would be proud! Doral gives Florida golf a bad name, but whatever floats your boat!
-
Bob: How does that statement constitute a "home-run"?
I'll take a shot.
Because the strategic demands of the updated design require some thought rather than full tilt boogie bomb & gouge.
I guess I have to relearn what strategic golf is... I'll have none of that strategic design...
-
Comment from Mickelson - "The only thing I would say is that if you only have 15 mile per hour winds, no problem. But this isn’t an anomaly. We get this every year, so you’ve got to kind of be ready for it.”
From Chris Kirk - “The golf course in no wind is a difficult golf course; in 30 mile-per-hour wind, it’s nearly impossible,”
The ninth hole is a par 3 and Bubba laid up. That reminds me of the 91 Ryder Cup at Kiawah when Faldo spent 5 minutes on the 14th tee Sunday trying to convince himself to lay up as he did not have the shot for that hole. There might be a problem there.
The fact is that 68 players hitting 113 balls (113!!) into water hazards in one day, albeit a very windy one, especially when a good number of them were hit onto greens with short irons, means that not enough thought went into strategy. Yes the greens need another year to mature. But I am not going to be one of the people who spend $450 to see how it plays when it softens a bit.
-
Comment from Mickelson - "The only thing I would say is that if you only have 15 mile per hour winds, no problem. But this isn’t an anomaly. We get this every year, so you’ve got to kind of be ready for it.”
From Chris Kirk - “The golf course in no wind is a difficult golf course; in 30 mile-per-hour wind, it’s nearly impossible,”
The ninth hole is a par 3 and Bubba laid up. That reminds me of the 91 Ryder Cup at Kiawah when Faldo spent 5 minutes on the 14th tee Sunday trying to convince himself to lay up as he did not have the shot for that hole. There might be a problem there.
The fact is that 68 players hitting 113 balls (113!!) into water hazards in one day, albeit a very windy one, especially when a good number of them were hit onto greens with short irons, means that not enough thought went into strategy. Yes the greens need another year to mature. But I am not going to be one of the people who spend $450 to see how it plays when it softens a bit.
To be fair, I did not watch the coverage today, so I'm merely asking questions, not trying to force conclusions.
How many players attempted to reach the 15th green? How many were successful/unsuccessful? Who ended up in the water there? Is that a good indicator of the quality of the hole?
I refuse to believe that the 15th is a terrible hole because Bubba Watson decided to lay up. Isn't that one of the greatest characteristics of the 16th at Cypress Point? Bubba fired a 72 today, an excellent score given the conditions the guys faced today.
Others mentioned the new greens. I agree with them: next year, they will be softer.
Despite all of the comments on the golf course today, I've been amazed by the amount of width there is at Doral now. Is the 113 water balls is a matter of the tour guys being aggressive, windy conditions, or flawed course design? Looking at the course via pictures and briefly through television, I believe it's the latter.
Something to keep in mind: These are almost the toughest possible conditions these guys could face, and two guys ended up under par. Since when did we require golf courses to be designed so the best in the world would consistently go under?
-
Pretty much all the water balls I saw (and I saw a BUNCH) were seemingly well-struck balls that bounded and then trickled into the hazards. I'm shocked at how little the rough on the banks did to resist the balls from going in.
-
Bob: How does that statement constitute a "home-run"?
I'll take a shot.
Because the strategic demands of the updated design require some thought rather than full tilt boogie bomb & gouge.
I guess I have to relearn what strategic golf is... I'll have none of that strategic design...
Strategic golf means sometimes you have to play away from the line of instinct to score well. It's not always possible to fly the ball up close to the flagstick with water behind a hard green downwind. It's a style pretty foreign to modern pros who are pretty much one trick ponies. That's one reason it's so much fun to watch the Open Championship every July on those hot links courses in the UK. Can Dustin Johnson finesse a bump and run? Does he want to try?
-
Total nonsense
if this were the TPC there'd be GCA orgasms spewing
30 mph winds at Royal Portrush or Bethpage Black would produce the exact same results-except they would be walking back to the tees hitting three after countless 5 minute searches::) ::)
Amazing how the US Open produces the same scores with no weather and that's expected and applauded.
It's called the Blue Monster-not the pink kitten
a tough weather day, and the PGA can't fathom pacing the greens appropriately.
The weather has been predicted since monday.
As Mike Young says, the weekend will be more benign.
-
Quick recap, not that it means anything!
I was born in S. Florida, and played a ton of golf there.
My dad was a head professional in the Hollywood area.
I played 4 Honda classics, and 3 tournaments at Doral.
Two of the Honda's, we suffered rounds at least as difficult as (it appeared) today was
at Doral. Scores soared, and the field averages were comical. I went from T-65 (or so),
to T-5 after a 67 on a Saturday at Honda (Weston Hills). It was easily a 3 club wind.
So?
My experience of early March golf in S. Florida, consisted of nervously waiting for the wind storm
that would hammer us. For me, it is an expected part of golf there.
-
the wind is why we play the game
-
Total nonsense
if this were the TPC there'd be GCA orgasms spewing
30 mph winds at Royal Portrush or Bethpage Black would produce the exact same results-except they would be walking back to the tees hitting three after countless 5 minute searches::) ::)
Amazing how the US Open produces the same scores with no weather and that's expected and applauded.
It's called the Blue Monster-not the pink kitten
a tough weather day, and the PGA can't fathom pacing the greens appropriately.
The weather has been predicted since monday.
As Mike Young says, the weekend will be more benign.
Because Portrush is too narrow (and it certainly is) to allow for the sort of weather it enjoys does not make Doral good for not having enough space. From what I saw, the design does not accommodate the sort wind that will whip up in that part of the country. To me, this is a design fault. Maybe things will calm down once the course settles in. But even so, where does that leave the punter? I wasn't terribly interested in making an effort to see Doral prior to this event and I am even less inclined to do so now.
Ciao
-
I will credit Jeff's point early in the thread that this course would be working out far more reasonably with two feet less pace on the greens. The lost balls on approach shots seem to be more of a trickle problem than a bounce problem.
Two feet less on the Stimp and the occasional strip of 1/2" longer rough along some of the fairway fall-offs and you'd still see lots of balls in the water. But at least attempts to play properly flighted shots or those aimed properly away from the flag would be more often rewarded. I saw plenty of shots that were attempting to accommodate the rock-hard greens and wind none the less find water after rolling 30-40 feet (after they stopped bouncing).
-
Am I correct in my understanding that many on here are defending the design as long as the greens are kept soft (softer)? Don't we praise design where the greens are kept rock firm but the design allows the use of slopes/counter slopes to control ball roll. Don't we praise design where the architecture would allow a shot to land short of the green and bounce forward toward the target or at least to a recoverable position? (It appeared to me that many balls that landed short were funneled toward the water hazards).
In my opinion, the combination of the design, set-up and weather conditions simply did not work yesterday.
I suspect that the set-up is much different when the pros are not in town and that is likely why those who have played it came away with a positive impression. I think most 5 HCPs would have lost 6-12 balls in the water yesterday. (The best players in the world averaged 2).
Bart
-
Total nonsense
if this were the TPC there'd be GCA orgasms spewing
30 mph winds at Royal Portrush or Bethpage Black would produce the exact same results-except they would be walking back to the tees hitting three after countless 5 minute searches::) ::)
Amazing how the US Open produces the same scores with no weather and that's expected and applauded.
It's called the Blue Monster-not the pink kitten
a tough weather day, and the PGA can't fathom pacing the greens appropriately.
The weather has been predicted since monday.
As Mike Young says, the weekend will be more benign.
But even so, where does that leave the punter?
I wasn't terribly interested in making an effort to see Doral prior to this event and I am even less inclined to do so now.
Ciao
My guess is it leaves the punter in the same position as the punter at Portrush-filling every available tee time. ;) ;D
Your last sentence summarizes this thread (and the $450 Doral thread)
People that weren't interested in playing Doral, still aren't, or probably are even less so (but what's the difference? they're not coming anyway)
and people that WERE, are at least as interested if not more (and will line up to play it).
The criticisms about Doral for the last 20ish years were always that if the wind didn't blow that it was pretty benign course (and the scores reflected that), certainly not as "jazzed up" as say a TPC, Bay Hill, or ANY of the fly by night water laden, optionless Honda sites.
The same criticisms came from the media and hotel guests about the more pedestrian holes.
At TPC there is water penally in play on nearly EVERY hole, whereas at Doral it is least strategically placed as opposed to just punishing EVERY wayward shot. and Doral has way more width, except 10. and 18 for those who can't fly water-though 18 has more fairway than before
the unfortunate thing is that a lot of really good architectural improvements at Doral are being missed, or ignored, even by those smart enough to know better, by setup and weather. Yes there's a bit too much water in a couple places for my tastes-I wasn't that big of a fan of the course to start with-but a fan of the event.
One note:In many, many case the ball scurried across the slick greens,down a slope and into the water.
The drop was often right next to the green, and many players got up and down from that spot.
that's not much different than a really penal bunker or heavy rough.
-
So let me get all this moaning straight.
The 68 highest ranked golfers in the world are playing in a tournament with no cut for a purse of $9,000,000.
An odd weather occurrence stirred up winds to 30 mph on what's essentially new greens. The conditions are the same for all players, correct? Then shut up and play.
And stop pointing to the 113 balls in the water like Terry Gannon felt necessary the entire telecast (would someone stick a sock in his mouth???). I sat and watched Rory hit an approach shot from 130 yards that never touched land. How is that Gil Hanse's problem? On the same hole, Tiger at least touched land although 15 yards short of the green before it ended up in water. Why did that happen? They were both shooting for a front pin location. That's not poor design. That's poor choices.
We as a group cry for firm and fast conditions and greens with character. That's what the players got. These guys are playing for money, not for the thrill of finessing a shot off a contour to a tucked pin location.
The USGA butchered a US Open at Shinnecock with a silly course set up. I never heard ANYONE make comments about how they lost interest in ever seeing the place.
Lighten up and enjoy the tournament. You're still watching guys doing something none of you will get the opportunity to do.
Ken
-
Spot on, Ken. Not sure I'd want to plunk down the cash and play Doral myself, but I don't see any problem with it as a tournament course. It's refreshing to see a Florida course playing firm and fast for a change.
The Tour pros are used to being coddled. Put them on a course other than your average Tour stop, or ANGC, and they ALWAYS complain. I say make the course even firmer and faster. Make it brutal. Okay, just kidding, but there's nothing wrong with making these guys think out there.
-
So let me get all this moaning straight.
The 68 highest ranked golfers in the world are playing in a tournament with no cut for a purse of $9,000,000.
An odd weather occurrence stirred up winds to 30 mph on what's essentially new greens. The conditions are the same for all players, correct? Then shut up and play.
And stop pointing to the 113 balls in the water like Terry Gannon felt necessary the entire telecast (would someone stick a sock in his mouth???). I sat and watched Rory hit an approach shot from 130 yards that never touched land. How is that Gil Hanse's problem? On the same hole, Tiger at least touched land although 15 yards short of the green before it ended up in water. Why did that happen? They were both shooting for a front pin location. That's not poor design. That's poor choices.
We as a group cry for firm and fast conditions and greens with character. That's what the players got. These guys are playing for money, not for the thrill of finessing a shot off a contour to a tucked pin location.
The USGA butchered a US Open at Shinnecock with a silly course set up. I never heard ANYONE make comments about how they lost interest in ever seeing the place.
Lighten up and enjoy the tournament. You're still watching guys doing something none of you will get the opportunity to do.
Ken
Ken, I didn't know that the pro's lost 113 balls at Shinnecock and that you couldn't use a ground game at Shinnecock? I much prefer a tough Shennecock and it fairly determines the best golfer. Would Cory Pavin win at Doral in his prime? How many forced carries at Doral? I loath the TPC too. ''how dare someone criticize Pete Dye on here''. Brent or Jeff made a great point that the greens were running too fast. F&F has to have a means of running shots up. F&F on a Rees Jones track is not good IMO. It has been the worst winter I can remember and that is my rant!
-
Total nonsense
if this were the TPC there'd be GCA orgasms spewing
30 mph winds at Royal Portrush or Bethpage Black would produce the exact same results-except they would be walking back to the tees hitting three after countless 5 minute searches::) ::)
Amazing how the US Open produces the same scores with no weather and that's expected and applauded.
It's called the Blue Monster-not the pink kitten
a tough weather day, and the PGA can't fathom pacing the greens appropriately.
The weather has been predicted since monday.
As Mike Young says, the weekend will be more benign.
I don't care for the TPC! You are now comparing Portrush to Doral, does Portrush allow run up game, yes? Did pro's lose 113 balls at Bethpage? Would a 5 handicap player lose more balls at Doral non tourney vs Bethpage non tourney? Luckily the US Open doesn't select courses with water on 12+ holes, for I would never watch any more Opens and new golf courses would be built worse than they already are! Pink Kitten, that's cute. I am also not Anti-US Open like many are on here.
-
The hypocrisy is amazing. This is a resort course, remember. I truly believed you guys that you thought that courses should not be built or designed for one week. I truly believed you guys that you favored golf courses where you could play the whole round with one ball. I truly believed you guys when you said that only good courses are playable in all conditions. I guess all those beliefs get suspended when one of GCA's own designs something that meets none of these standards.
When one of GCA's own builds a brutal, unplayable in wind, water-world, it's fine because we are showing the best in world what it's like to truly suffer.
It's okay when a sacred cow does it...just not when Rees, Jack or Fazio does it. I got it.
Can't wait for the adoring public to get destroyed out there over the next 51 weeks. God bless the guy who gets the ball retrieving contact...as there will be thousands of brand new ProV1s in those waters in weeks. Hopefully alligators aren't allergic to elastomer...or were going to have a crisis in our hands.
-
Total nonsense
if this were the TPC there'd be GCA orgasms spewing
30 mph winds at Royal Portrush or Bethpage Black would produce the exact same results-except they would be walking back to the tees hitting three after countless 5 minute searches::) ::)
Amazing how the US Open produces the same scores with no weather and that's expected and applauded.
It's called the Blue Monster-not the pink kitten
a tough weather day, and the PGA can't fathom pacing the greens appropriately.
The weather has been predicted since monday.
As Mike Young says, the weekend will be more benign.
I don't care for the TPC! You are now comparing Portrush to Doral, does Portrush allow run up game, yes? Did pro's lose 113 balls at Bethpage? Would a 5 handicap player lose more balls at Doral non tourney vs Bethpage non tourney? Luckily the US Open doesn't select courses with water on 12+ holes, for I would never watch any more Opens and new golf courses would be built worse than they already are! Pink Kitten, that's cute. I am also not Anti-US Open like many are on here.
Hang on a sec, how many holes at Trump Doral allow for a running approach if played from the correct side of the fairway? And yes, there is sufficient width to pick sides of a fairway. In fact, I'd say it's a necessity.
I'd say you could hit a running approach on 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17
As for the guys that hit it in the water long on 15... first, the hole plays predominantly into the wind, so they got it in an unusual wind. Second, the green must be twice as deep on the right side vs the left side (left of the spine). I have no idea why the guys were playing for anything close to the pin.. but they did and paid the price. It's not as though balls were landing front edge and going in the water long, they were landing (downwind) pin high at a narrow portion of the green.
I said it earlier, but I don't think one guy on this board that has actually played the course disliked it or found it unfair. Amazing how we have to wait for the best players in the world to play it to find out that it's actually too hard for the average golfer.
-
I just don't understand why the players seemingly refused to adjust to the conditions. I watched the online live coverage of 15 most of the afternoon and I'm not sure if most guys weren't paying attention or were just being stubborn. If the guy in front of you hits a draw with a hard right to left wind onto a right to left slope and it rolls into the water, maybe that would make you think to not try the same thing.
On at least two instances, and I didn't see much of his round, I saw DJ land 5-10 paces in front of the green to get it close. Isn't that something everyone on here supposedly clamors for?
-
Total nonsense
if this were the TPC there'd be GCA orgasms spewing
30 mph winds at Royal Portrush or Bethpage Black would produce the exact same results-except they would be walking back to the tees hitting three after countless 5 minute searches::) ::)
Amazing how the US Open produces the same scores with no weather and that's expected and applauded.
It's called the Blue Monster-not the pink kitten
a tough weather day, and the PGA can't fathom pacing the greens appropriately.
The weather has been predicted since monday.
As Mike Young says, the weekend will be more benign.
I don't care for the TPC! You are now comparing Portrush to Doral, does Portrush allow run up game, yes? Did pro's lose 113 balls at Bethpage? Would a 5 handicap player lose more balls at Doral non tourney vs Bethpage non tourney? Luckily the US Open doesn't select courses with water on 12+ holes, for I would never watch any more Opens and new golf courses would be built worse than they already are! Pink Kitten, that's cute. I am also not Anti-US Open like many are on here.
Hang on a sec, how many holes at Trump Doral allow for a running approach if played from the correct side of the fairway? And yes, there is sufficient width to pick sides of a fairway. In fact, I'd say it's a necessity.
I'd say you could hit a running approach on 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17
As for the guys that hit it in the water long on 15... first, the hole plays predominantly into the wind, so they got it in an unusual wind. Second, the green must be twice as deep on the right side vs the left side (left of the spine). I have no idea why the guys were playing for anything close to the pin.. but they did and paid the price. It's not as though balls were landing front edge and going in the water long, they were landing (downwind) pin high at a narrow portion of the green.
I said it earlier, but I don't think one guy on this board that has actually played the course disliked it or found it unfair. Amazing how we have to wait for the best players in the world to play it to find out that it's actually too hard for the average golfer.
Is the average resort golfer able to find THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE FAIRWAY in winds that average 11 mph? Don't need to answer as that answer is clearly no. And should the likely result for missing the right side of the fairway on most of the holes be a water ball with your next shot? No need to answer that one either.
-
JR
You are hilarious.
Mark
Courses that are prone to have lots of wind from time to time don't need water on 12+ holes. Forget the fact that the pro's carried the ball pin high, the consequences are a water ball. I don't complain about deep rough. I'll take deep rough all day for a tourney all day with very few hazards. I am glad that the people who played it enjoyed it.
-
It's called the Blue Monster-not the pink kitten
and
The 68 highest ranked golfers in the world are playing in a tournament with no cut for a purse of $9,000,000.
An odd weather occurrence stirred up winds to 30 mph on what's essentially new greens. The conditions are the same for all players, correct? Then shut up and play.
Pretty much says it all. Give the course another year to mature, for the tournament folks to figure things out, and for the designers to make necessary tweaks and all will be well.
As to the charge of hypocrisy, what is new? We give those we like all the latitude in the world when things don't go as planned, after all, their intentions are noble, and, like us, they are good folks who "get it". Those we don't identify with- say Fazio or Trump- will they have horns, don't they?
-
Pretty much says it all. Give the course another year to mature, for the tournament folks to figure things out, and for the designers to make necessary tweaks and all will be well.
As to the charge of hypocrisy, what is new? We give those we like all the latitude in the world when things don't go as planned, after all, their intentions are noble, and, like us, they are good folks who "get it". Those we don't identify with- say Fazio or Trump- will they have horns, don't they?
So now we're okay with designers getting second or third bites at the apple to tweak designs that did not work or perform as intended. I thought that was a no-no. I'm having a hard time keeping up. #sacredcowstatus. :)
-
I know of two people who have played the new Doral. While neither guy raved about the course, they also didn't say it was unfair. I may be playing there in a month and will report my thoughts on GCA once I get back.
I think we all need to give Doral some time. I always know much more about a golf course and the architect's design after I have played the course multiple times. We have seen two days of golf at Doral in some extreme weather conditions. That's a pretty small sample size. Let's see what happens this weekend, and perhaps, even take the long view and wait to render final judgement until after we have seen 2 or 3 years of the pros playing Doral.
Is Doral awesome? An abomination? Somewhere in between? I don't know because I haven't seen enough of it, yet.
-
I do agree with JR, however. If Jack or Jones had done the redesign at Doral, this site would be decidedly hammering the layout and riping how it was put together.
-
Total nonsense
if this were the TPC there'd be GCA orgasms spewing
30 mph winds at Royal Portrush or Bethpage Black would produce the exact same results-except they would be walking back to the tees hitting three after countless 5 minute searches::) ::)
Amazing how the US Open produces the same scores with no weather and that's expected and applauded.
It's called the Blue Monster-not the pink kitten
a tough weather day, and the PGA can't fathom pacing the greens appropriately.
The weather has been predicted since monday.
As Mike Young says, the weekend will be more benign.
I don't care for the TPC! You are now comparing Portrush to Doral, does Portrush allow run up game, yes? Did pro's lose 113 balls at Bethpage? Would a 5 handicap player lose more balls at Doral non tourney vs Bethpage non tourney? Luckily the US Open doesn't select courses with water on 12+ holes, for I would never watch any more Opens and new golf courses would be built worse than they already are! Pink Kitten, that's cute. I am also not Anti-US Open like many are on here.
Hang on a sec, how many holes at Trump Doral allow for a running approach if played from the correct side of the fairway? And yes, there is sufficient width to pick sides of a fairway. In fact, I'd say it's a necessity.
I'd say you could hit a running approach on 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17
As for the guys that hit it in the water long on 15... first, the hole plays predominantly into the wind, so they got it in an unusual wind. Second, the green must be twice as deep on the right side vs the left side (left of the spine). I have no idea why the guys were playing for anything close to the pin.. but they did and paid the price. It's not as though balls were landing front edge and going in the water long, they were landing (downwind) pin high at a narrow portion of the green.
I said it earlier, but I don't think one guy on this board that has actually played the course disliked it or found it unfair. Amazing how we have to wait for the best players in the world to play it to find out that it's actually too hard for the average golfer.
spot on Mark
I saw plenty of room to run the ball on my detailed walk around and plenty of opportunities for strategy.
Someone who DRAWS a 9 iron with a 30 mph right to left wind to a green sloping right to left, with water left. deserves what they get
and what he got was a bogie
wouldn't work on a links course course either
and BCowan,
i am comparing the penal DAILY SETUP of Bethpage and Portrush, though they are actually more penal as a lost ball is stroke AND distance AND involves a 5 minute look each time
Better courses-crappy daily setups
-
J.R.- I was not thinking of you when I replied. Sorry for my failure once again to communicate clearly.
As to tweaking designs, it is not only "okay", but something that is common and ordinary on all of the best courses. Too many variables are involved to get things right out of the box. Do you think that Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Augusta National, #2 weren't tinkered with since their inception?
-
I do agree with JR, however. If Jack or Jones had done the redesign at Doral, this site would be decidedly hammering the layout and riping how it was put together.
Jim,
I agree 100%.
If they had done the redesign, I certainly would be ripping them also.
Because it would have at least as much water as it does now, without the width,strategy, and greatly enlarged greens.
It's Doral-no one here was crazy about the design to start with-but it is a great tournament and those that patronize the resort will love it.
JR,
No, average guys can't hit the proper side of the fairway in Doral's 11 mph average winds-but they can't hit ANY of the fairway or even the playable corridor at Kiowah, TPC or PGA National
-
John Paul Newport of the WSJ on Doral:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304554004579425320987961970?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_5&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304554004579425320987961970.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_5
-
''Someone who DRAWS a 9 iron with a 30 mph right to left wind to a green sloping right to left, with water left. deserves what they get
and what he got was a bogie
wouldn't work on a links course course either''
I wouldn't say D Johnson has the best course management (18th hole of the PGA). Links course you would have found your ball in a penal bunker, vs all these shallow abundant Florida bunkers. I amazed at the lack of shot making and thinking on tour today vs the 80's PGA tour guys.
''i am comparing the penal DAILY SETUP of Bethpage and Portrush, though they are actually more penal as a lost ball is stroke AND distance AND involves a 5 minute look each time
Better courses-crappy daily setups''
They can cut the rough, can Doral pump out water of 80% of the ponds? Remember I did a thread on maint. fescue 1-2 times a year, which is important IMO.
A positive note, the green complexes look much better.
-
Lou,
"weaking designs" is fairly common with signature firms but form us regional guys it is a different thing all together. They hire someone else and blame you if it doesn't work right the first time. A signature can eat lunch with the green chair or golf pro and be paid to come back and "Tweak".
___________
Golf pros look at courses just like football teams view the defense of different opponents. Sometimes they don't match up and they can't make it match so they lose then other times they match perfectly and bingo....
________
Sort of feel for Gil or any other archie in this spot....you know the RJ's and GN'stypes are going to use this type of stuff to convince major venues as to why they are the "expert" for championship play....
-
First, if its a 30 MPH wind, how do you know someone is DRAWING the ball with a 9 iron. For all we know, they could have hit a straight ball and the wind took it to where it looked like a draw. Use your heads.
I agree with the sentiment that if this were Jack, RTJ, Fazio, etc that did this exact design, the sky would be falling and Doral would be ripped to the extent they wouldn't consider it a golf course. There would be cries for it to be blown up and allow the likes of Doak, Hanse, etc to start from scratch.
So they were rained out for the most part the first day and there were quite unusual winds yesterday, and we are judging the course. I know its what we like to do, but obviously its not appropriate just yet. I think most guys will say they design the course for the conditions that are most likely to affect the course. Not a once a year or every other year storm that just happens to fall on the weekend the course is most recognized. How many tournaments past were there similar conditions? I think that probably answers the question there. A lot of golf courses would have played tough in those conditions. If I am a single digit handicap, and I am smart enough to not go firing at pins in adverse conditions, I'll be damned if these guys can't figure it out.
-
Things GCA loves:
Gil Hanse
Firm and fast
Wind
Green contours
Courses that require playing away from the "line of charm"
Courses that fight bomb and gouge
Things GCA hates:
Water
Difficulty
Lost balls
Donald Trump
Any aesthetic style that can't be described as "minimalist"
Expensive courses
CCFAD atmospheres
Idiots spectators who pick up balls from the rough during a tournament and walk off with them
I often lament that there's no "blind taste test" with golf design. There's no way to ask a GCA Kool Aid drinker to evaluate a course objectively, because their take is always cluttered by their knowledge of who the designer is, their general perception of courses from its era, and numerous other influences. The closest we can get to seeing what people REALLY think is to show them a course that presents such an interesting dichotomy of features that GCA loves crossed with features that GCA hates.
-
I wonder what scores would have been if the women had been playing Doral yesterday.
WW
-
The wind was often blowing at more than 20 mph in South Florida in the last 24 hours.
Did you play in South Florida, close to Doral today, or are your comments based solely from viewing the telecast ?
Pat, according to you, if you were only "close to Doral" your observations are worthless.
South Bend is a few miles from the campus, you weren't on campus and you weren't on site to judge what the conditions were.
-
First, if its a 30 MPH wind, how do you know someone is DRAWING the ball with a 9 iron. For all we know, they could have hit a straight ball and the wind took it to where it looked like a draw. Use your heads.
Umm... that would be because on TV from behind the player he aimed 30 yards right and his ball started 30 yards right of the green, and two golf professional friends of mine were there and watched him start the shot as a draw, which was then engulfed by the wind.
And his teacher was on TV yesterday taliking about he has his players RIDE the wind rather than curve it into it and fight it, which REALLY surprised me-not saying he told Dustin that specifically
AND
the next player in his group hit a shot that held the wind, landed gently, and stopped 4 feet from the flag?
We're not talking about working some fancy long iron shot from 220, but rather controlling the curve and spin of a short iron, which all of these players can.
So if you want to be really picky, we can say he didn't cut it enough ;D
Out here on the east end we play in a lot of wind.
I remember playing the 125 yard 11th hole Atlantic which tilts left and the prevailing wind is 20mph right to left.
In such a wind or stronger,i used to hit anywhere from cut 7 iron to slice 4 iron to keep it from hitting the green and exploding left down a steep slope.
I'm sure Dustin was surprised-I'm not indicting him(he's leading ;D), perhaps he executed poorly or misjudged the shot-it happens.
Just saying that shot wouldn't work on a windy links either
-
So I guess the classic parable should have been about the Hedgehog (knows one thing), the Fox (knows many things) and the Mucci (knows everything).
Then again maybe Pat knew Isaiah Berlin personally and can clarify it for us...
-
First, if its a 30 MPH wind, how do you know someone is DRAWING the ball with a 9 iron. For all we know, they could have hit a straight ball and the wind took it to where it looked like a draw. Use your heads.
Just saying that shot wouldn't work on a windy links either
But the ball wouldn't roll off the green, down a bank, through the rough and into a water hazard on a links course....and have the same opportunity to do so on 11 other holes.
We're comparing uncomparables. That said, the course seems to be much more playable today.
-
Is anyone stunned that South Florida gets windy in early March? Does this make anyone excited to pay $450 to play there? I remember Trevino describing a particular Florida resort course as one where most people play once, loose about a dozen balls in the water, and then never come again. He might bring that line back after today. Trump says he is happy but I can't believe today helped future business.
Tom,
I thought the opposite - this is ideal for business - its now a "must play round" for the many who like to play tough courses.
I think it moved Doral back on the radar for that group after all the carnage. I played it as a kid because I had the game, it was famous "and I wanted to see how tough it really was."
I've been to Florida 5 times in the last 7 years and driven by it 3 times without a seconds thought of playing there. I can't say I'd go back at the price, but I might if that's not the price.
-
Is anyone stunned that South Florida gets windy in early March? Does this make anyone excited to pay $450 to play there? I remember Trevino describing a particular Florida resort course as one where most people play once, loose about a dozen balls in the water, and then never come again. He might bring that line back after today. Trump says he is happy but I can't believe today helped future business.
Tim,
I thought the opposite - this is ideal for business - its now a "must play round" for the many who like to play tough courses.
I think it moved Doral back on the radar for that group after all the carnage. I played it as a kid because I had the game, it was famous "and I wanted to see how tough it really was."
I've been to Florida 5 times in the last 7 years and driven by it 3 times without a seconds thought of playing there. I can't say I'd go back at the price, but I might if that's not the price.
Ian,
Agree.....with....every....word
Next time you drive by it though take a 1 mile detour and play Miami Springs
for the last 20 years the words "Monster" weren't accurate by comparison to other Tour horrow shows.
They will line up to pump balls into the water.....
-
I agree with Ian and Jeff too. Any tour stop is going to have people lined up to play.
-
Is anyone stunned that South Florida gets windy in early March? Does this make anyone excited to pay $450 to play there? I remember Trevino describing a particular Florida resort course as one where most people play once, loose about a dozen balls in the water, and then never come again. He might bring that line back after today. Trump says he is happy but I can't believe today helped future business.
Tim,
I thought the opposite - this is ideal for business - its now a "must play round" for the many who like to play tough courses.
I think it moved Doral back on the radar for that group after all the carnage. I played it as a kid because I had the game, it was famous "and I wanted to see how tough it really was."
I've been to Florida 5 times in the last 7 years and driven by it 3 times without a seconds thought of playing there. I can't say I'd go back at the price, but I might if that's not the price.
Ian,
Agree.....with....every....word
Next time you drive by it though take a 1 mile detour and play Miami Springs
for the last 20 years the words "Monster" weren't accurate by comparison to other Tour horrow shows.
They will line up to pump balls into the water.....
Jeff, got any more under the radar recommendations from Miami to Vero?
-
I think it is more than compelling to watch these guys try to get it around this golf course in the conditions they have experienced so far. These greens will soften as time marches on and you won't see nearly the carnage in coming years. If one day in extreme conditions causing higher than average scores by the best players in the world constitutes a referendum on Hanse's work then the board isn't as open minded as I thought. ;)
-
Mark,
when I was in Miami in the winters I was all teaching all the time and didn't play much..
As I said, I was quite impressed by Miami Springs(esp the back nine!), about a mile away. I used to escape there the one summer I lived in Miami(1995) but the conditions were really rough and I assumed they would close.
I played most of my golf on the old White course at Doral, prior to the Norman debacle.
This past week it was in very playable condition(muni) and the greens were quite good.
the areas around the green were pretty rough/dicey and required some runup imagination but I enjoy that.
Just played West Palm Beach Municipal which is OK-no water and sandy scrub roughs, but would've loved to have seen sand areas incorporated imaginatively rather than always flanking.
Was very tempted to drive out to Clewiston from WPB, but had some work logistics.
I truly doubt I would play much golf if I lived on the south east coast of Florida
-
Jeff, to play here? http://www.clewiston-fl.gov/department/?fDD=6-0
Never heard of it.
-
Ken, I didn't know that the pro's lost 113 balls at Shinnecock and that you couldn't use a ground game at Shinnecock? I much prefer a tough Shennecock and it fairly determines the best golfer. Would Cory Pavin win at Doral in his prime? How many forced carries at Doral? I loath the TPC too. ''how dare someone criticize Pete Dye on here''. Brent or Jeff made a great point that the greens were running too fast. F&F has to have a means of running shots up. F&F on a Rees Jones track is not good IMO. It has been the worst winter I can remember and that is my rant!
Ben,
Cory Pavin didn't win at Shinnecock when the goofy set up was done, that was Retief Goosen in 2004. The players were forced to adjust to what amounted to a course pushed over the edge, but it was a US Open and most applauded the USGA for a great tournament. No, 113 balls were not lost at Shinnecock. Scores ballooned because players were playing ping pong on greens all day. THAT'S hypocrisy.
Doral's set-up was pushed to be firm and fast and weather bit them in the backside. What's interesting is how many guys were complaining about how unfair the course was before Friday??
Ken
-
I know Cory won in 95'. I don't like greens getting that fast at the Open, less green space can be used. Ken, i did complain about Doral prior to Friday's round! No, that Open was criticized and it was the par 3 7th hole if i recall at Shinney. Hypocrisy, please! Retif was -4 when he won. I prefer Ping pong over splash and splash
-
The hypocrisy is amazing. This is a resort course, remember. I truly believed you guys that you thought that courses should not be built or designed for one week. I truly believed you guys that you favored golf courses where you could play the whole round with one ball. I truly believed you guys when you said that only good courses are playable in all conditions. I guess all those beliefs get suspended when one of GCA's own designs something that meets none of these standards.
When one of GCA's own builds a brutal, unplayable in wind, water-world, it's fine because we are showing the best in world what it's like to truly suffer.
It's okay when a sacred cow does it...just not when Rees, Jack or Fazio does it. I got it.
Can't wait for the adoring public to get destroyed out there over the next 51 weeks. God bless the guy who gets the ball retrieving contact...as there will be thousands of brand new ProV1s in those waters in weeks. Hopefully alligators aren't allergic to elastomer...or were going to have a crisis in our hands.
JR,
Really? Pinehurst #2 prepped for a US Open is easy for resort guests?? How about Pebble Beach? Stroll in the park for those resort guests? Whistling Straits? Chambers Bay? Erin Hills? Bethpage Black? Black Wolf Run? TPC Sawgrass? Should I keep going?
Doral is set up tough for this week. The world's best golfers are on it and that's how it's suppose to play. What's it going to be like beyond this week? Set up as a resort course or public course, just like all the other courses listed above are.
I haven't been to Doral so I can't fairly judge the architecture. I won't trust the opinions of guys who are getting beat up trying to make a check. Their judgement is too clouded.
Ken
-
Ken
Don't lump #2 in that category it is very playable day in and day out as are many other Championship Ross courses. The average guy can break 90 at #2 and not lose a ball in the process! It also can be set up for the best players in the world, that is the beauty of it! Using creative means to make a course challenging vs digging water hazards all over the place!
-
The hypocrisy is amazing. This is a resort course, remember. I truly believed you guys that you thought that courses should not be built or designed for one week. I truly believed you guys that you favored golf courses where you could play the whole round with one ball. I truly believed you guys when you said that only good courses are playable in all conditions. I guess all those beliefs get suspended when one of GCA's own designs something that meets none of these standards.
When one of GCA's own builds a brutal, unplayable in wind, water-world, it's fine because we are showing the best in world what it's like to truly suffer.
It's okay when a sacred cow does it...just not when Rees, Jack or Fazio does it. I got it.
Can't wait for the adoring public to get destroyed out there over the next 51 weeks. God bless the guy who gets the ball retrieving contact...as there will be thousands of brand new ProV1s in those waters in weeks. Hopefully alligators aren't allergic to elastomer...or were going to have a crisis in our hands.
JR,
Really? Pinehurst #2 prepped for a US Open is easy for resort guests?? How about Pebble Beach? Stroll in the park for those resort guests? Whistling Straits? Chambers Bay? Erin Hills? Bethpage Black? Black Wolf Run? TPC Sawgrass? Should I keep going?
Doral is set up tough for this week. The world's best golfers are on it and that's how it's suppose to play. What's it going to be like beyond this week? Set up as a resort course or public course, just like all the other courses listed above are.
I haven't been to Doral so I can't fairly judge the architecture. I won't trust the opinions of guys who are getting beat up trying to make a check. Their judgement is too clouded.
Ken
I haven't been there either, so I can't judge the architecture. What I do question though, is taking a course with plenty of water in play, and significantly adding to it.
Many on GCA don't love the overuse of water and its absolute nature as a hazard. Obviously, there are many golfers and golf industry types that don't share that same preference.
-
I know Cory won in 95'. I don't like greens getting that fast at the Open, less green space can be used. Ken, i did complain about Doral prior to Friday's round! No, that Open was criticized and it was the par 3 7th hole if i recall at Shinney. Hypocrisy, please! Retif was -4 when he won. I prefer Ping pong over splash and splash
Retief might have putted better that week than I have ever seen anyone putt. That course was so difficult all week. I must admit I enjoyed watching it though ;)
-
Ken
Don't lump #2 in that category it is very playable day in and day out as are many other Championship Ross courses. The average guy can break 90 at #2 and not lose a ball in the process! It also can be set up for the best players in the world, that is the beauty of it! Using creative means to make a course challenging vs digging water hazards all over the place!
But Ben, it's the set up that's causing more of the problems. JR feels it's the opposite. #2 can be playable, but it doesn't take much to make it so difficult resort guests would go out and never come back! That's true of any course.
I'm not a fan of water dictating strategy but that's what they have this weekend. Adjust and play for it. My point is too many guys in the field aren't adjusting their game to the conditions. I just watched Russell Henley and Gary Woodland both dunk their tee shots on #9. Both were bad shots. The number of "balls in the water" stats is getting stale and misleading. Not all shots are the result of tough bounces.
Ken
-
A few points:
Golfers, spectators and media all overstate the strength of wind as a matter of routine.
Variety is the spice of life. The same designer who's made this course unplayable in a wind, Designed a great course in Scotland that's impossibly easy WITHOUT any wind. One size does not fit all.
Firm and Fast doesn't work on courses with water.
Firm and Fast doesn't work unless you have the option of running the ball in.
All this butchering of courses should all be pointless. Don't blame designers or courses. It's the equipment stupid.
-
What I do question though, is taking a course with plenty of water in play, and significantly adding to it.
Matt,
Is that true? Did Hanse ADD water hazards to the old layout? I know some areas were "enhanced" but wasn't aware of more water being added.
Ken
-
For those of you criticizing the re-design:
1. If you have not watched these flyovers which show the changes and the old lines, I strongly encourage you to do so.
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/morning-drive-doral-front-9-then-and-now/
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/morning-drive-doral-back-9-then-and-now/
2. There can be no denying that much more width was added, playing options increased, and excellent tree removal was accomplished.
3. The architect seems to have fulfilled the owner's marching orders: make a course that presents US Open-like challenges to the world's best players. Don't worry if the course is probably too hard for the average golfer, people sleep in their cars for the chance to play Bethpage Black from the wrong set of tees; Doral's tee sheet will be filled with golfers anxious to play where the pros play.
-
Ken
Don't lump #2 in that category it is very playable day in and day out as are many other Championship Ross courses. The average guy can break 90 at #2 and not lose a ball in the process! It also can be set up for the best players in the world, that is the beauty of it! Using creative means to make a course challenging vs digging water hazards all over the place!
But Ben, it's the set up that's causing more of the problems. JR feels it's the opposite. #2 can be playable, but it doesn't take much to make it so difficult resort guests would go out and never come back! That's true of any course.
I'm not a fan of water dictating strategy but that's what they have this weekend. Adjust and play for it. My point is too many guys in the field aren't adjusting their game to the conditions. I just watched Russell Henley and Gary Woodland both dunk their tee shots on #9. Both were bad shots. The number of "balls in the water" stats is getting stale and misleading. Not all shots are the result of tough bounces.
Ken
Ken, the difference is a 10 handi playing Doral is prob going to lose 2-3 balls a round. Not the case at #2. The problem is more courses will be built with water due to people thinking it is the only way to make a difficult golf course. Bad shots at #2 don't go in the water, but are penalized. Hence Ross's modo of trying not to use water on more than 3 holes, if only modern archies would do this. I love that Kingsley has no water on it! Look at Muirfield Village putting water in on 16, basically copying 16 at ANGC, just like he did on #12 for the most part. ''And the Current fashion sets the pace'', unfortunately.
-
For those of you criticizing the re-design:
1. If you have not watched these flyovers which show the changes and the old lines, I strongly encourage you to do so.
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/morning-drive-doral-front-9-then-and-now/
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/morning-drive-doral-back-9-then-and-now/
2. There can be no denying that much more width was added, playing options increased, and excellent tree removal was accomplished.
3. The architect seems to have fulfilled the owner's marching orders: make a course that presents US Open-like challenges to the world's best players. Don't worry if the course is probably too hard for the average golfer, people sleep in their cars for the chance to play Bethpage Black from the wrong set of tees; Doral's tee sheet will be filled with golfers anxious to play where the pros play.
Bill, people are going to sleep in their car to play a US Open track that is affordable in New York, that is a given. Of course Doral's sheet will be filled they host a PGA tour event and did a big renovation. Was Bethpage as packed prior to renovation? Yes he did add width, did he add hazards? Will adding of hazards effect more future courses adding them to try and be like Doral? Were bunkers added? If a pro tourney didn't exist there, would people like loosing 3 balls a round? My definition of strategic, which has many meanings would be multiple lines off a tee shot (TOC) without water being the penalty on 12 holes.
-
What I do question though, is taking a course with plenty of water in play, and significantly adding to it.
Matt,
Is that true? Did Hanse ADD water hazards to the old layout? I know some areas were "enhanced" but wasn't aware of more water being added.
Ken
I don't have time to dig it up now, but I remember reading that water used to come into play on X number of holes and now it is on play on Y number of holes (with Y being a considerably larger number). I think the lake in play on 15 and 16 was greatly expanded as it wasn't directly in play before. New hazards may not have been added, but the use of water in the design was increased.
-
What I do question though, is taking a course with plenty of water in play, and significantly adding to it.
Matt,
Is that true? Did Hanse ADD water hazards to the old layout? I know some areas were "enhanced" but wasn't aware of more water being added.
Ken
Ken,
he moved several greens to water that was already there. #1,#2 a bit, #7, 14 a bit, 15,16
so 4 holes a lot and 2 a bit
8,9,and 10 moved greens nut net effect about the same, except tee shot on 10 is wetter
For the most part the water was there just way out of play, though it was moved around a bit
-
Ken
Don't lump #2 in that category it is very playable day in and day out as are many other Championship Ross courses. The average guy can break 90 at #2 and not lose a ball in the process! It also can be set up for the best players in the world, that is the beauty of it! Using creative means to make a course challenging vs digging water hazards all over the place!
But Ben, it's the set up that's causing more of the problems. JR feels it's the opposite. #2 can be playable, but it doesn't take much to make it so difficult resort guests would go out and never come back! That's true of any course.
I'm not a fan of water dictating strategy but that's what they have this weekend. Adjust and play for it. My point is too many guys in the field aren't adjusting their game to the conditions. I just watched Russell Henley and Gary Woodland both dunk their tee shots on #9. Both were bad shots. The number of "balls in the water" stats is getting stale and misleading. Not all shots are the result of tough bounces.
Ken
What is so compelling about watching the tournament is these guys play at such a high level that it almost appeared that they didn't believe their own eyes and continued to play the same type of shots while somehow expecting a different result. Bad shots garner bad results regardless of architectural design.
-
For those of you criticizing the re-design:
1. If you have not watched these flyovers which show the changes and the old lines, I strongly encourage you to do so.
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/morning-drive-doral-front-9-then-and-now/
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/morning-drive-doral-back-9-then-and-now/
2. There can be no denying that much more width was added, playing options increased, and excellent tree removal was accomplished.
3. The architect seems to have fulfilled the owner's marching orders: make a course that presents US Open-like challenges to the world's best players. Don't worry if the course is probably too hard for the average golfer, people sleep in their cars for the chance to play Bethpage Black from the wrong set of tees; Doral's tee sheet will be filled with golfers anxious to play where the pros play.
Bill, people are going to sleep in their car to play a US Open track that is affordable in New York, that is a given. Of course Doral's sheet will be filled they host a PGA tour event and did a big renovation. Was Bethpage as packed prior to renovation? Yes he did add width, did he add hazards? Will adding of hazards effect more future courses adding them to try and be like Doral? Were bunkers added? If a pro tourney didn't exist there, would people like loosing 3 balls a round? My definition of strategic, which has many meanings would be multiple lines off a tee shot (TOC) without water being the penalty on 12 holes.
I did not complete a full count, but I think Gil reduced the number of sand hazards, and significantly increased the number of water hazards around the putting surfaces.
You ask if this work will effect future courses and make them be more like Doral. I HIGHLY doubt it. Work like this is probably only possible in Florida, where digging to find water is easy. So theoretically, a great number of Florida courses could this. I can't see private clubs making changes to be more like Doral; the members would hate it. Same thing with retail public courses. I certainly would not want to play a course like this on a repeat basis... But this is the Monster. It is supposed to be an extremely hard course, one hard enough to challenge the pros. It is supposed to be unique. Let's hope it remains unique...
-
For those of you criticizing the re-design:
1. If you have not watched these flyovers which show the changes and the old lines, I strongly encourage you to do so.
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/morning-drive-doral-front-9-then-and-now/
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/morning-drive-doral-back-9-then-and-now/
2. There can be no denying that much more width was added, playing options increased, and excellent tree removal was accomplished.
3. The architect seems to have fulfilled the owner's marching orders: make a course that presents US Open-like challenges to the world's best players. Don't worry if the course is probably too hard for the average golfer, people sleep in their cars for the chance to play Bethpage Black from the wrong set of tees; Doral's tee sheet will be filled with golfers anxious to play where the pros play.
Bill,
Thanks for those links. Wonderful demonstration of the hole by hole changes. It's interesting how much the fairways and greens have grown.
Ken
-
>30 players under par today. Oh no, the course is now not hard enough!!
-
The wind was often blowing at more than 20 mph in South Florida in the last 24 hours.
Did you play in South Florida, close to Doral today, or are your comments based solely from viewing the telecast ?
Pat, according to you, if you were only "close to Doral" your observations are worthless.
What's worthless is your opinion.
Close to Doral allows me to validate the wind conditions you moron.
South Bend is a few miles from the campus, you weren't on campus and you weren't on site to judge what the conditions were.
The campus is within the South Bend city limits you moron.
-
Just heard a player say he deliberately laid up into a bunker.
Would you class this as a design failure?
Certainly no one deliberately hits into the bunkers at St Andrews, Muirfield etc
-
Close to Doral allows me to validate the wind conditions
Then why did you object to Sven Nilsen's description of the wind conditions at Notre Dame Stadium on the day that Declan Sullivan died?
P.S. Please don't call me names.
-
Patrick,,
I know, from your postings, that JR has a faulty memory of wind conditions in south Florida. I was wondering if you could comment on Pat Burke's recollection? I appreciate it, I am trying to figure out how much weight to give a former tour pro.
-
Guys, guys, guys. The real verdict is in. Johnny Miller thinks Gil should have put more trees in play. He likes the palms on 18, though, because if you miss that fairway right "you should not have a shot."
-
If that is the case, I wonder what Johnny thinks of Oakmont? He played here once right? ;D
-
Ken
Don't lump #2 in that category it is very playable day in and day out as are many other Championship Ross courses. The average guy can break 90 at #2 and not lose a ball in the process! It also can be set up for the best players in the world, that is the beauty of it! Using creative means to make a course challenging vs digging water hazards all over the place!
Umm, I think you completely missed the point. #2 is playable day in and day out, but under Open conditions it's brutally tough for anyone. Likewise, Doral is presented this week in tournament condition. That doesn't necessarily preclude it from being playable for resort guests. Everyone on this thread who HAS played it has deemed it very playable. Then again, the original Mulranny thread showed that you tend to trust propaganda over credible sources, so it's not surprising that you disregard those firsthand accounts.
Also, can you explain what Donald Ross, Pinehurst No. 2, and Kingsley have to do with the Blue Monster at Doral or, for that matter, Muirfield Village? Is it your contention that all courses should follow the same basic tenets? That sounds pretty boring.
Obviously today has shown that the course is playable. For those who thought it didn't accommodate the wind yesterday, just how low should players be able to go in a ~30 mph wind on a WGC course?
Again, I'm not convinced that it's a great course or anything, but the rumors of it being over-the-top difficult are about as over-exaggerated as the rumors of Tiger's demise.
-
Ken
Don't lump #2 in that category it is very playable day in and day out as are many other Championship Ross courses. The average guy can break 90 at #2 and not lose a ball in the process! It also can be set up for the best players in the world, that is the beauty of it! Using creative means to make a course challenging vs digging water hazards all over the place!
Umm, I think you completely missed the point. #2 is playable day in and day out, but under Open conditions it's brutally tough for anyone. Likewise, Doral is presented this week in tournament condition. That doesn't necessarily preclude it from being playable for resort guests. Everyone on this thread who HAS played it has deemed it very playable. Then again, the original Mulranny thread showed that you tend to trust propaganda over credible sources, so it's not surprising that you disregard those firsthand accounts.
Like I said above during everyday play a golfer is going to lose lots of balls at Doral! I don't trust propaganda, prove it loud mouth!
Also, can you explain what Donald Ross, Pinehurst No. 2, and Kingsley have to do with the Blue Monster at Doral or, for that matter, Muirfield Village? Is it your contention that all courses should follow the same basic tenets? That sounds pretty boring.Real simple great courses don't need water on 12+ holes. You continue to use extremes to try and make a point, which is stupid.
Obviously today has shown that the course is playable. For those who thought it didn't accommodate the wind yesterday, just how low should players be able to go in a ~30 mph wind on a WGC course?Yeah, many tough courses are very playable under low wind conditions by the best players in the world, the water comes into play more for the average golfer.
Again, I'm not convinced that it's a great course or anything, but the rumors of it being over-the-top difficult are about as over-exaggerated as the rumors of Tiger's demise.Never said it was over the top difficult, I said using hazards on 12+ holes to add difficulty is rather lame, but you are free to make your own conclusions.
-
The course is playable. That was proven beyond a reasonable doubt today. Maybe you like water hazards or maybe you don't. But there's certainly room for all types of courses. No one course is going to please everyone.
-
So Ben, what you're really saying is that you took roughly 15 posts and 6000 words to say "I don't like water hazards"? Fair enough.
I don't think anyone was calling Trump Doral a "great" course anyways, though it has produced an impressive tournament with some pretty compelling swings on the leaderboard.
-
Nope, i said they are overused to create difficulty and I cited courses that were adding water hazards. Goes a little deeper than that. The tournament has turned out well, but the beauty of a great course is one that can play very tough when set up for it and one that the average player doesn't lose 3+ balls on in everyday rounds. Yes, the tourney is shaping up pretty well and that wasn't my focus (pros)
-
Nope, i said they are overused to create difficulty and I cited courses that were adding water hazards. Goes a little deeper than that. That it has, but the beauty of a great course is one that can play very tough when set up for it and one that the average player doesn't lose 3+ balls on. Yes, the tourney is shaping up pretty well and that wasn't my focus (pros)
Whatever you just said, I am sure it was beautiful.
-
Keith, i corrected it. I forget to hit the preview button
-
Why is losing balls a big deal at a course with a $450 green fee? I'd say the people playing at Trump Doral can afford a full sleeve or two, wouldn't you?
It is nice that you don't lose balls when you play Pinehurst No. 2. Then again, they give you two Titleist Velocity sleeves when you check in, which is a far bigger insult at that $400+ dollar price point than watching your ProV1 trickle off into a lateral hazard. I wish Pinehurst would have the decency to install some water hazards to sink those pieces of crap in.
Does Trump Doral give you any free SWAG when you play there? Anyone know?
-
Trump's hyperbole in the booth today included the interesting insinuation that a "world" championship should present as difficult a test as players face all year. With a ten-year contract for the event, he wanted to be known as the hardest of the WGC series.
WW
-
Does anyone on here think Doral could be built with no water hazards?
-
Does anyone on here think Doral could be built with no water hazards?
sure just bring in the dirt to raise the fairways in the chopper ;D
the lakes aren't new(other than 15), they just moved the greens snug to them in a few(more) cases
-
Does anyone on here think Doral could be built with no water hazards?
Nope.. It has around 325 acres right? Do the hazards have to be in play? :)
''sure just bring in the dirt to raise the fairways in the chopper Grin
the lakes aren't new(other than 15), they just moved the greens snug to them in a few(more) cases''
;D
-
Does anyone on here think Doral could be built with no water hazards?
Nope.. It has around 325 acres right? Do the hazards have to be in play? :)
;D
Wouldn't an "out of play" hazard be an oxymoronic statement? ;) ;D ;D
-
Does anyone on here think Doral could be built with no water hazards?
Nope.. It has around 325 acres right? Do the hazards have to be in play? :)
haha, good point. retention pond. which would be good for u
Wouldn't an "out of play" hazard be an oxymoronic statement? ;) ;D ;D
haha, good point. retention pond. which would be good for u ;D
-
FROM A SPECTATOR PERSPECTIVE...
one of the, if not the, most compelling elements of tournament viewing is the water hazard. ESPECIALLY with the pro's short game acumen, and their frequent escapes from terrain misplays, aqua brings about leaderboard swings and creates excitement and keeps eyes on the telecast. FROM A SPECTATOR PERSPECTIVE.
Also, the water that now is so prevalent at Doral can be mitigated just by growing grass longer along edges and, more obviously, through softer conditions. You can be certain that once the last shot has been played Sunday, the water is gonna flow freely on the course.
As difficult as the Blue Monster has been, it's still tamer than Whistling Straights (with little water in play. Lake Michigan is more removed than it looks). And WS does just fine with their greens fees.
-
Also, the water that now is so prevalent at Doral can be mitigated just by growing grass longer along edges and, more obviously, through softer conditions. You can be certain that once the last shot has been played Sunday, the water is gonna flow freely on the course.
That's a really good point. They can let the grass grow a little higher on the slopes when the pros leave. Will they? I think a very significant percentage of the pros' balls that trickled down the slopes into the water would have been held up with a slightly higher cut.
-
For those of you criticizing the re-design:
1. If you have not watched these flyovers which show the changes and the old lines, I strongly encourage you to do so.
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/morning-drive-doral-front-9-then-and-now/
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/morning-drive-doral-back-9-then-and-now/
These were very well done, thanks for posting
-
I played Doral Blue several times but not for 25 years. Did Trump create new lakes? I don't remember all that water in the dogleg of #16.
-
water was always there Bill.
They expanded the lake a bit and moved the fairway over a bit and the green over to the left a LOT.
in it's old form,I've actually seen quite a few balls hit in the water on the right on that hole. long and right-usually skulled out of the fairway or greenside bunkers.
-
1) Haven't been to the new Doral
2) I know a little about some of these guys games, but not a lot compared to when I played
My personal feeling when I played was praying for wind. For whatever reason, I liked the wind,
and seemed to have good results in it. I believe a big part of that, was that I was pretty comfortable
in adjusting my "par" in windy conditions. I was more patient with the insanity on a day like Friday at Doral,
and was pretty good at taking what the conditions gave me.
I was also comfortable moving the ball both directions, it was one of the reasons I loved playing in Australia
so much. Great courses, and pretty constant windy conditions!!
BTW..I actually worked the ball (with) the wind for the most part.
-
I know of no player who can fade a nine iron to counter a 20 mph right to left wind.
-
I know of no player who can fade a nine iron to counter a 20 mph right to left wind.
What exactly do you think Kuchar did?
and there's no rule saying he had to hit a 9 iron.
Lot easier to mitigate wind and create left to right curve (or in this case less right to left curve) with a less lofted club
Whatever he did was a mistake or he was surprised, but it's hard to call a situation unfair when THE VERY next player hits it 4 feet from the pin NOWHERE near the water
Not saying a 30 mph right to left won't make the ball eventually curve and fall left, I'm saying starting it out with a draw and riding a 30 mph right to left wind to a hard, thatchless, fast green sloping left with water left, will need a LOT of room to stop rolling.
More room than Dusting gave it ;D
-
Sorry but when some players are trying to land in the bunkers (hazards) rather than the greens, something has gone slightly awry. Doral is not suitable for firm conditions or a decent wind due to the necessity to go the aerial route.
Mickelson, one of the most creative guys out there said on Friday that rather than present options, the course offered none.
-
Sorry but when some players are trying to land in the bunkers (hazards) rather than the greens, something has gone slightly awry. Doral is not suitable for firm conditions or a decent wind due to the necessity to go the aerial route.
Mickelson, one of the most creative guys out there said on Friday that rather than present options, the course offered none.
Ryan, what hole (s) are players consistently choosing to land in the bunkers?
-
Several players including woods have mentioned trying to do just that in post round interviews. I suspect any hole where you can't land the ball short and run it up. Or any hole where you cannot land on the green and stop it.
-
Several players including woods have mentioned trying to do just that in post round interviews. I suspect any hole where you can't land the ball short and run it up. Or any hole where you cannot land on the green and stop it.
The greens are essentially new. I see this as a temporary "problem". In a year or two it's likely the risk/reward presented will be just right as the greens should be more receptive.
-
Several players including woods have mentioned trying to do just that in post round interviews. I suspect any hole where you can't land the ball short and run it up. Or any hole where you cannot land on the green and stop it.
The greens are essentially new. I see this as a temporary "problem". In a year or two it's likely the risk/reward presented will be just right as the greens should be more receptive.
the green firmness is great! I wish Trump would spend the extra money he has and redo the greens every year so they are this firm, don't take away the only thing I like about the set-up! D Johnson should have landed his shot on 15 on the front of the green, these guys don't hit half shots anymore, the hole was downwind.
-
BTW..I actually worked the ball (with) the wind for the most part.
Pat,
That's really interesting. Don't you find it difficult to judge the "run out" working the ball with the wind as opposed to the quick bite working against the wind?
Ken
-
Several players including woods have mentioned trying to do just that in post round interviews. I suspect any hole where you can't land the ball short and run it up. Or any hole where you cannot land on the green and stop it.
The greens are essentially new. I see this as a temporary "problem". In a year or two it's likely the risk/reward presented will be just right as the greens should be more receptive.
I agree. GMac said after his Friday round that he was actually impressed with how well the balls stayed in place on the greens, not oscillating. That suggests that the firmness of a new green plus the wind were the real culprits, not the length of cut/speed of the green. Though I'm sure the greens will be slower the other 51 weeks of the year.
Brand new courses are really, really firm. No real way around that.
-
Matt
Why can't the greens be the same firmness and slower? Doesn't that determine the best player? Softer and fast is boring IMHO. In the Open last year the greens got super fast, then they let it get too soft IMHO. Raise the mowers when it is very windy, let the firmness be! The beauty of new greens as that you can over water them like most US courses and they are still firm! Can F&F have greens running at 10, instead of 12?
-
Some wind stats, since nobody has mentioned them:
Friday West 23 high average, with high gust 33
Saturday East 6-10 all day
----
In his report, Newport mentioned something I saw somewhere else as well:
The challenges of Hanse's revise at Doral may be plain to see from the tee, but they're tricky. "We were interested to see if angles could become relevant again," he said. Working with ideas that were drawn up but never executed by the course's original designer, Dick Wilson, Hanse built many of the new fairway bunkers on diagonals that require players to shape their tee shots to achieve maximum distance.
"It's a lost art, I think, but we're trying to see if we can challenge today's professional to get to certain sides or places in the fairways with the best angles into the greens," Hanse said. "If they don't shape their shots, they may have to use an iron or a three-wood off the tee to stay short." Hanse and his partner, Jim Wagner, elevated parts of many fairways by several feet, tilting a few, to give new looks to some holes and add wrinkles to the tactics players have to devise on each tee.
-----
It should be noted the Al Kaskel all but threw Dick Wilson off the property during construction because Wilson was drunk so often. Joe Lee and Robert Von Hagge finished Doral, while Wilson sobered up and toiled on Pine Tree, which is a masterpiece. Lee and Von Hagge either simplified what Wilson had planned on their own or did so on Kaskel's orders, but Wilson was a fan of diagonals – see Pine Tree's par-3 13th for an excellent example – and making a player think. It's delightful to know Hanse was able to consult Wilson's diagrams for inspiration. It's also not a surprise that many players play by rote and don't think.
Taking into account the need for the greens to thatch in and for the rough to thicken as well, I'd say Doral gave a good account of itself in harsh conditions. In 2015, in similar conditions, the stroke average is probably 1 to 1.3 strokes lower, and some of that is because players have a year of experience on the greens. Friday was fascinating, as was Saturday, and I expect nothing less from today.
-
Several players including woods have mentioned trying to do just that in post round interviews. I suspect any hole where you can't land the ball short and run it up. Or any hole where you cannot land on the green and stop it.
I'd like to know the players and the circumstances. I'll bet any amount of money that it was one or two players choosing a line at the bunker rather than risk a water hazard penalty. It probably was a par 5 and they wanted to get as close as possible to the green. The fact that one or two PRO players rely upon their phenomenal abilities out of sand says absolutely nothing about golf course deign.
-
Several players including woods have mentioned trying to do just that in post round interviews. I suspect any hole where you can't land the ball short and run it up. Or any hole where you cannot land on the green and stop it.
I'd like to know the players and the circumstances. I'll bet any amount of money that it was one or two players choosing a line at the bunker rather than risk a water hazard penalty. It probably was a par 5 and they wanted to get as close as possible to the green. The fact that one or two PRO players rely upon their phenomenal abilities out of sand says absolutely nothing about golf course deign.
It speaks volumes to me.
Really, a player chooses to play for a hazard? You said yourself in your letter re: bunker maintenance. "Don't hit it there".
It it becomes a preferable option because there is water behind the green and no prospect of landing short down wind, in my view that's a lousy hole.
A player aiming for a bunker tells me that the bunker is nowhere near severe enough. And that the treatment of a shot toward the target is far too severe. As I said earlier in the thread, players don't try and go in the bunkers at Muirfield, County Down or the Old Course for good reason.
-
Several players including woods have mentioned trying to do just that in post round interviews. I suspect any hole where you can't land the ball short and run it up. Or any hole where you cannot land on the green and stop it.
I'd like to know the players and the circumstances. I'll bet any amount of money that it was one or two players choosing a line at the bunker rather than risk a water hazard penalty. It probably was a par 5 and they wanted to get as close as possible to the green. The fact that one or two PRO players rely upon their phenomenal abilities out of sand says absolutely nothing about golf course deign.
It speaks volumes to me.
Really, a player chooses to play for a hazard? You said yourself in your letter re: bunker maintenance. "Don't hit it there".
It it becomes a preferable option because there is water behind the green and no prospect of landing short down wind, in my view that's a lousy hole.
A player aiming for a bunker tells me that the bunker is nowhere near severe enough. And that the treatment of a shot toward the target is far too severe. As I said earlier in the thread, players don't try and go in the bunkers at Muirfield, County Down or the Old Course for good reason.
Can we please be told on what holes this strategy was used? Until you provide examples, it's a waste of time discussing this.
Maybe the player was out of position from the tee and FROM THERE the best he could do was a green side bunker.
-
You chaps are right. Phil is lying, Tiger Woods is lying. 300 balls in the water is just like the golden age guys intended. What a wonderful test. I wish more courses were like this. These lousy best players in the world just don't know how to adapt. The only thing missing is some wonderful flat bunkers in the shape of Mickey Mouse ears.
-
You chaps are right. Phil is lying, Tiger Woods is lying. 300 balls in the water is just like the golden age guys intended. What a wonderful test. I wish more courses were like this. These lousy best players in the world just don't know how to adapt. The only thing missing is some wonderful flat bunkers in the shape of Mickey Mouse ears.
I'm trying to grasp how the course has no strategy because it has 4 more holes where the greens were brought closer to the existing ponds,yet the width on the opposite side was left there. (other than 15 where the pond was enlarged also)........
yet it also has no strategy because players are aiming for bunkers, that are evidently not severe enough.(like we never see players aiming for bunkers in a US Open)
Doral didn't invent the perfectly maintained bunker that's barely a hazard for pros
The ball can be run up at Doral on 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,13,14,17, and even 18 assuming the player is in position
the fairways have TONS of width to allow these positions.
On one of the few holes with less of a runup otion, it doesn't seem a stretch to force the player to work the ball into the wind FROM 150 YARDS to allow a birdie chance, as Kuchar did, moments after the supposedly "unfair" Johnson shot.
We get it, It's not Muirfield or TOC, though Muirfield would've been way better last year if they'd let the greens be as firm as Doral's.
-
Matt
Why can't the greens be the same firmness and slower? Doesn't that determine the best player? Softer and fast is boring IMHO. In the Open last year the greens got super fast, then they let it get too soft IMHO. Raise the mowers when it is very windy, let the firmness be! The beauty of new greens as that you can over water them like most US courses and they are still firm! Can F&F have greens running at 10, instead of 12?
I don't think that's a terrible thing generally, but it's sure not going to happen for a PGA event. And as a practical matter, I don't know how firm they'll be able to keep the course ultimately. I am sure they will do what they can, but brand new courses are just firm in a way that is very, very difficult to preserve. I imagine this is especially so in south Florida.
-
You chaps are right. Phil is lying, Tiger Woods is lying. 300 balls in the water is just like the golden age guys intended. What a wonderful test. I wish more courses were like this. These lousy best players in the world just don't know how to adapt. The only thing missing is some wonderful flat bunkers in the shape of Mickey Mouse ears.
I'm trying to grasp how the course has no strategy because it has 4 more holes where the greens were brought closer to the existing ponds,yet the width on the opposite side was left there. (other than 15 where the pond was enlarged also)........
yet it also has no strategy because players are aiming for bunkers, that are evidently not severe enough.(like we never see players aiming for bunkers in a US Open)
Doral didn't invent the perfectly maintained bunker that's barely a hazard for pros
The ball can be run up at Doral on 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,13,14,17, and even 18 assuming the player is in position
the fairways have TONS of width to allow these positions.
On one of the few holes with less of a runup otion, it doesn't seem a stretch to force the player to work the ball into the wind FROM 150 YARDS to allow a birdie chance, as Kuchar did, moments after the supposedly "unfair" Johnson shot.
We get it, It's not Muirfield or TOC, though Muirfield would've been way better last year if they'd let the greens be as firm as Doral's.
In practice the approaches are nowhere near as firm as the greens. From what I can see, the rare ball that lands short, stays short.
That cultured shotmaker Kuchar hit right on the front of the green on the long par 3 and still ended up in the water. I've never seen anyone hit a great recovery from the water.
Saying that that players have the option of running it in, is as true to the same extent as saying anyone can be president.
-
Duplicate
-
You chaps are right. Phil is lying, Tiger Woods is lying.
It's not really the point, but FIGJAM and a serial adulterer really aren't the most credible sources now that you mention it.
All anyone is asking for is context. Get out of the whambulance and just explain on which holes a bunker is Position A. I'd be shocked if pros were actually aiming for bunkers instead of a green or fairway. I wouldn't be shocked if pros were trying to set up so that a miss found a bunker instead of the water. That's just basic course management.
-
You chaps are right. Phil is lying, Tiger Woods is lying. 300 balls in the water is just like the golden age guys intended. What a wonderful test. I wish more courses were like this. These lousy best players in the world just don't know how to adapt. The only thing missing is some wonderful flat bunkers in the shape of Mickey Mouse ears.
I'm trying to grasp how the course has no strategy because it has 4 more holes where the greens were brought closer to the existing ponds,yet the width on the opposite side was left there. (other than 15 where the pond was enlarged also)........
yet it also has no strategy because players are aiming for bunkers, that are evidently not severe enough.(like we never see players aiming for bunkers in a US Open)
Doral didn't invent the perfectly maintained bunker that's barely a hazard for pros
The ball can be run up at Doral on 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,13,14,17, and even 18 assuming the player is in position
the fairways have TONS of width to allow these positions.
On one of the few holes with less of a runup otion, it doesn't seem a stretch to force the player to work the ball into the wind FROM 150 YARDS to allow a birdie chance, as Kuchar did, moments after the supposedly "unfair" Johnson shot.
We get it, It's not Muirfield or TOC, though Muirfield would've been way better last year if they'd let the greens be as firm as Doral's.
In practice the approaches are nowhere near as firm as the greens. From what I can see, the rare ball that lands short, stays short.
That cultured shotmaker Kuchar hit right on the front of the green on the long par 3 and still ended up in the water. I've never seen anyone hit a great recovery from the water.
Name a PGA Tour site with firm greens that has approaches equally as firm
Never said Kuchar was a shotmaker.
he just happens to play a fade ;) ;D which on 15 Friday was useful
Never liked that hole (#4 if that's the one you're referring to)
was going to have some fun but you changed it from #11
-
You've answered your own question Jason except on lots of holes in a breeze there isn't a position A. Only the player has the option of selecting the lesser of two evils as you describe. That's basic course management on a lousy course. I'd prefer the player attempt to hit the correct shot. With a reasonable chance of reward for the level of risk taken. If a player is aiming for a hazard, to my mind, that's a defect.
-
You chaps are right. Phil is lying, Tiger Woods is lying. 300 balls in the water is just like the golden age guys intended. What a wonderful test. I wish more courses were like this. These lousy best players in the world just don't know how to adapt. The only thing missing is some wonderful flat bunkers in the shape of Mickey Mouse ears.
I'm trying to grasp how the course has no strategy because it has 4 more holes where the greens were brought closer to the existing ponds,yet the width on the opposite side was left there. (other than 15 where the pond was enlarged also)........
yet it also has no strategy because players are aiming for bunkers, that are evidently not severe enough.(like we never see players aiming for bunkers in a US Open)
Doral didn't invent the perfectly maintained bunker that's barely a hazard for pros
The ball can be run up at Doral on 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,13,14,17, and even 18 assuming the player is in position
the fairways have TONS of width to allow these positions.
On one of the few holes with less of a runup otion, it doesn't seem a stretch to force the player to work the ball into the wind FROM 150 YARDS to allow a birdie chance, as Kuchar did, moments after the supposedly "unfair" Johnson shot.
We get it, It's not Muirfield or TOC, though Muirfield would've been way better last year if they'd let the greens be as firm as Doral's.
In practice the approaches are nowhere near as firm as the greens. From what I can see, the rare ball that lands short, stays short.
That cultured shotmaker Kuchar hit right on the front of the green on the long par 3 and still ended up in the water. I've never seen anyone hit a great recovery from the water.
Name a PGA Tour site with firm greens that has approaches equally as firm
Never said Kuchar was a shotmaker.
he just happens to play a fade ;) ;D which on 15 Friday was useful
Never liked that hole (#4 if that's the one you're referring to)
was going to have some fun but you changed it from #11
Jeff
None. Other than the open. And I have no problem with that. PGA tour is set up for the aerial game. I just think its lame when as with the US Open things are firmed up with no prospect of running the ball in. I.e lakes, bunkers and Bermuda grass approaching the greens.
-
You've answered your own question Jason except on lots of holes in a breeze there isn't a position A. Only the player has the option of selecting the lesser of two evils as you describe. That's basic course management on a lousy course. I'd prefer the player attempt to hit the correct shot. With a reasonable chance of reward for the level of risk taken. If a player is aiming for a hazard, to my mind, that's a defect.
If a player is not expected to curve a ball to counter the wind,(DJ ala 15 Doral friday)
and if a hole is lousy when a player's best choice is a bunker due to "a breeze"
haven't you pretty much eliminated many links holes?
Isn't it OK to have a hole in certain conditions that the green can't be hit and held? even if it means going over?
Isn't course management and figuring out the best score possible part of the test?
I say if there's a perfect, doable shot for every circumstance, you got a poor design that's failing to test the patience and thougtfulness of a player
-
You've answered your own question Jason except on lots of holes in a breeze there isn't a position A. Only the player has the option of selecting the lesser of two evils as you describe. That's basic course management on a lousy course. I'd prefer the player attempt to hit the correct shot. With a reasonable chance of reward for the level of risk taken. If a player is aiming for a hazard, to my mind, that's a defect.
If a player is not expected to curve a ball to counter the wind,(DJ ala 15 Doral friday)
and if a hole is lousy when a player's best choice is a bunker due to "a breeze"
haven't you pretty much eliminated many links holes?
Isn't it OK to have a hole in certain conditions that the green can't be hit and held? even if it means going over?
Isn't course management and figuring out the best score possible part of the test?
I say if there's a perfect, doable shot for every circumstance, you got a poor design that's failing to test the patience and thougtfulness of a player
No on a links course you play away from and around the hazards. The hazards tend to be what is punitive. Rather than landing on the front of the green. And going into water over the back. Play the shot again and have it stay near its pitch mark just short of the green.
A good course in enhanced by a wind. Apply that test to Doral and the current set up fails. I'll wager the redo will be redone. Rolling off a green is one thing, balls continually rolling off into water is Mickey Mouse golf.
-
Ryan, you're continuing to operate on a set of assumptions that have been repeatedly discredited by people who have seen the course in person. Like this one:
I just think its lame when as with the US Open things are firmed up with no prospect of running the ball in. I.e lakes, bunkers and Bermuda grass approaching the greens.
There are, at most, five holes that don't allow a run-up approach. Most of them will see a player hitting a wedge or short iron to reach the green in regulation, which is hardly a situation where the ground game is relevant. You're digging yourself a pretty big credibility hole by sticking to a narrative that demonstrates that you aren't really paying attention to the course and, on top of that, that you don't understand the inherent firmness in newly constructed putting surfaces. Your observations of the course are contrary to those of EVERYONE who has seen it in person. Perhaps you should reconsider your outlook or withhold some judgment until you've gained more than a cursory familiarity with the course.
-
You've answered your own question Jason except on lots of holes in a breeze there isn't a position A. Only the player has the option of selecting the lesser of two evils as you describe. That's basic course management on a lousy course. I'd prefer the player attempt to hit the correct shot. With a reasonable chance of reward for the level of risk taken. If a player is aiming for a hazard, to my mind, that's a defect.
If a player is not expected to curve a ball to counter the wind,(DJ ala 15 Doral friday)
and if a hole is lousy when a player's best choice is a bunker due to "a breeze"
haven't you pretty much eliminated many links holes?
Isn't it OK to have a hole in certain conditions that the green can't be hit and held? even if it means going over?
Isn't course management and figuring out the best score possible part of the test?
I say if there's a perfect, doable shot for every circumstance, you got a poor design that's failing to test the patience and thougtfulness of a player
No on a links course you play away from and around the hazards. The hazards tend to be what is punitive. Rather than landing on the front of the green. And going into water over the back. Play the shot again and have it stay near its pitch mark just short of the green.
A good course in enhanced by a wind. Apply that test to Doral and the current set up fails. I'll wager the redo will be redone.
Let's assume there's no way to really have the fairways play as firm as the greens since you never see that in the US, esp on bermuda.
Wouldn't the fact that the greens are substantially larger help?
Why is Reed able to negotiate all these impossible shots?
Look I'm disappointed to see more water introduced to play lines at Doral as I don't care for water as a frequent hazard.
It's not on my short list to play even though I'm quite connected there.
But as a Tour site I enjoy it a lot.
I really like the greens and width of fairways..
By the way, in general I'm a big fan of waaaaay fewer bunkers that are far more penal.
the problem is they are attempting to honor Dick Wilson at a Tour site called The Blue Monster for Donald Trump, and I think they served these masters well, even if those four masters aren't synonomous with classic design
The course is a symbol of an era in golf architecture, and that era was the dark ages ::) ::)
Kudos to Hanse for introducing some of the strategic features that were in the original plans but not built, and kudos to Hanse for introducing a few strategic features of his own.
I just happen to think this course has way more strategy of any of the tour courses I am familiar with(a relatively small #) except Augusta.
I am afraid they will do some tweaks, sadly they won't involve removing water, but no doubt will involve the best feature of the new course, the undulations on the greens. I heard a moronic announcer mention just that but the reality is they'd just run them a foot slower with the predicted forecast, nearly all of their problems would've gone away.
-
Ryan, you're continuing to operate on a set of assumptions that have been repeatedly discredited by people who have seen the course in person. Like this one:
I just think its lame when as with the US Open things are firmed up with no prospect of running the ball in. I.e lakes, bunkers and Bermuda grass approaching the greens.
There are, at most, five holes that don't allow a run-up approach. Most of them will see a player hitting a wedge or short iron to reach the green in regulation, which is hardly a situation where the ground game is relevant. You're digging yourself a pretty big credibility hole by sticking to a narrative that demonstrates that you aren't really paying attention to the course and, on top of that, that you don't understand the inherent firmness in newly constructed putting surfaces. Your observations of the course are contrary to those of EVERYONE who has seen it in person. Perhaps you should reconsider your outlook or withhold some judgment until you've gained more than a cursory familiarity with the course.
Jason
It's always best to keep a open mind, I agree.
However, I'm sceptical of what EVERYONE thinks and prefer to think for myself rather than rely on much of the received wisdom and romanticised idealism perpetuated by many on here who laud on one hand and criticise with another and switch 360 degrees depending on who the designer is. There is too much rigid thinking that firm and fast, trees removal etc etc equals good, even when some courses are just not suitable. Which, in my view is the category this course falls into.
I have no problem with courses with water or those that promote an aerial game. But if they become a nonsense in a reasonable wind, I'm afraid that blaming the player for a lack of course management and avoiding the obvious is credibility sapping in itself.
No one manages their game better than a tour pro. Course management is the big separator from top amateur to journeyman. Blaming the pros, over egging the strength of the wind, saying the greens will soften, that Phil is a know it all, Tiger slept around, is all well and nice but the truth is one of the golden boys has put his name to a course that to many with an open mind, was farcical in places this week.
-
You've answered your own question Jason except on lots of holes in a breeze there isn't a position A. Only the player has the option of selecting the lesser of two evils as you describe. That's basic course management on a lousy course. I'd prefer the player attempt to hit the correct shot. With a reasonable chance of reward for the level of risk taken. If a player is aiming for a hazard, to my mind, that's a defect.
If a player is not expected to curve a ball to counter the wind,(DJ ala 15 Doral friday)
and if a hole is lousy when a player's best choice is a bunker due to "a breeze"
haven't you pretty much eliminated many links holes?
Isn't it OK to have a hole in certain conditions that the green can't be hit and held? even if it means going over?
Isn't course management and figuring out the best score possible part of the test?
I say if there's a perfect, doable shot for every circumstance, you got a poor design that's failing to test the patience and thougtfulness of a player
No on a links course you play away from and around the hazards. The hazards tend to be what is punitive. Rather than landing on the front of the green. And going into water over the back. Play the shot again and have it stay near its pitch mark just short of the green.
A good course in enhanced by a wind. Apply that test to Doral and the current set up fails. I'll wager the redo will be redone.
Let's assume there's no way to really have the fairways play as firm as the greens since you never see that in the US, esp on bermuda.
Wouldn't the fact that the greens are substantially larger help?
Why is Reed able to negotiate all these impossible shots?
Look I'm disappointed to see more water introduced to play lines at Doral as I don't care for water as a frequent hazard.
It's not on my short list to play even though I'm quite connected there.
But as a Tour site I enjoy it a lot.
I really like the greens and width of fairways..
By the way, in general I'm a big fan of waaaaay fewer bunkers that are far more penal.
the problem is they are attempting to honor Dick Wilson at a Tour site called The Blue Monster for Donald Trump, and I think they served these masters well, even if those four masters aren't synonomous with classic design
The course is a symbol of an era in golf architecture, and that era was the dark ages ::) ::)
Kudos to Hanse for introducing some of the strategic features that were in the original plans but not built, and kudos to Hanse for introducing a few strategic features of his own.
I just happen to think this course has way more strategy of any of the tour courses I am familiar with(a relatively small #) except Augusta.
I am afraid they will do some tweaks, sadly they won't involve removing water, but no doubt will involve the best feature of the new course, the undulations on the greens. I heard a moronic announcer mention just that but the reality is they'd just run them a foot slower with the predicted forecast, nearly all of their problems would've gone away.
Jeff
Your caveats are my criticisms.
Too many bunkers and none of them penal enough. Agree
Too much water. Agree
Yes, there is little they can do with Bermuda approaches. But this means the option to run the ball isn't really viable. Which means that the player doesn't have the option of keeping his ball out of the wind with more club and bouncing the ball up. In my view this is a fundamental requisite if the course is set up fast. Therefore with water all around the only option is to have softer greens or make it less penal in terms of water hazards. They've done neither. Hence on the day there was a decent wind they had a joke course.
-
Ryan,
In 1999 at Carnoustie, the wind blew 20 on average, with gusts to 30 mph (the same as Friday at Doral)
The average score that day was 78.3 -7 over par, and the best score was even par.
Was that course farcical?
Surely they expect the wind to blow on the coast of Scotland
BTW, at Doral, as the greens mature and thatch develops, the greens will accept more shots.
Hard to see that being Hanse's fault, and glad he didn't design to accomodate a first year only issue
-
This final round is becoming more and more fun to watch. There's nothing wrong with a hard golf course that provokes final round drama.
-
Ryan,
In 1999 at Carnoustie, the wind blew 20 on average, with gusts to 30 mph (the same as Friday at Doral)
The average score that day was 78.3 -7 over par, and the best score was even par.
Was that course farcical?
Surely they expect the wind to blow on the coast of Scotland
BTW, at Doral, as the greens mature and thatch develops, the greens will accept more shots.
Hard to see that being Hanse's fault, and glad he didn't design to accomodate a first year only issue
Jeff
The course that week was beyond farcical. It was way too narrow and they over fertilised and left the rough too long.
Carnoustie is a sound design that set up correctly is a great course. I don't wish to make a comparison, but if forced, I would say that Dorals flaw lay as much in its design as the way it's set up. In any event, this discussion isn't a Ryder cup style, your courses are lousier than ours contest.
-
This final round is becoming more and more fun to watch. There's nothing wrong with a hard golf course that provokes final round drama.
On a flat calm day........
-
Carnasty in '99 was one of the worst set ups ever for a major.
Fertilized rough, narrowed fwys, it was a torture chamber.
Worst yet, it was blamed on a rouge greenkeeper and since then all the associations that run tournaments think they have to come in and take over the course for the years leading up to a tournament. Or, maybe it was just an excuse to do so.
I remember some from the USGA trying to say the same about Shinny, but I think it was quickly proven that the USGA were the ones who had gone rogue.
-
This final round is becoming more and more fun to watch. There's nothing wrong with a hard golf course that provokes final round drama.
On a flat calm day........
Friday was interesting as well. There are a lot of robots on the circuit who don't know how to adjust or understand how new greens react – generally like car hoods.
-
So I think we can all agree that the course works on a calm to typically windy South Florida spring day (10-15 mph)
Is it such a disaster that for 9 million $$$ the players were asked to play 18 holes under very trying conditions where they had to shape the ball and found it difficult to stop it downwind and might not have gotten the exact release they wanted if landing short? (no PGA Tour players were harmed in the filming of this event) ;D ;D
Last I checked they got their balls for free ;)
-
So I think we can all agree that the course works on a calm to typically windy South Florida spring day (10-15 mph)
Is it such a disaster that for 9 million $$$ the players were asked to play 18 holes under very trying conditions where they had to shape the ball and found it difficult to stop it downwind and might not have gotten the exact release they wanted if landing short? (no PGA Tour players were harmed in the filming of this event) ;D ;D
Last I checked they got their balls for free ;)
Again, all the onus on the player. A more sobering thought is that one of the top guys with a huge budget delivered a bit of a turkey that fairway width aside belies everything preached about what is good in modern architecture. 300 balls in the water indeed.
No pga players hurt, but a few people on here as upset as when they found out there was no Santa Claus.
-
So I think we can all agree that the course works on a calm to typically windy South Florida spring day (10-15 mph)
Is it such a disaster that for 9 million $$$ the players were asked to play 18 holes under very trying conditions where they had to shape the ball and found it difficult to stop it downwind and might not have gotten the exact release they wanted if landing short? (no PGA Tour players were harmed in the filming of this event) ;D ;D
Last I checked they got their balls for free ;)
Again, all the onus on the player. A more sobering thought is that one of the top guys with a huge budget delivered a bit of a turkey that fairway width aside belies everything preached about what is good in modern architecture. 300 balls in the water indeed.
No pga players hurt, but a few people on here as upset as when they found out there was no Santa Claus.
yep 9 million onuses
It's.....called.....The......Blue....................Monster.
-
But Jeff, now they've all gone home, what's left? The Blue Monstrosity?
-
But Jeff, now they've all gone home, what's left? The Blue Monstrosity?
Call and see if you can get a tee time for the next month.
There's a great classic course I really enjoy 1 mile from there. They will do 1/20 the revenue of the Blue over the same time period.
Nobody said you needed to embody all principles of GCA.com to max revenue
-
Golf, like Baskin-Robbins, needs more than one flavor.
-
A golf course, on A day with the wind up, played a bit unfair.
And everyone has their dress over their head.
Does anyone think anyone but Reed played the best this week? Was a champion indentified?
BTW, if Reed has that thousand yard stare, I want him as the anchorman for singles at the Ryder Cup. He was not going to lose today.
-
It will be interesting to see if they make any changes. My sense is the tour doesn't like seeing their stars get embarrassed.
Birdies drive the tour, not balls hitting the middle of the green and rolling into the water.
I didn't watch a lot of the tournament, but I did catch a shot by Justin Rose on Sat, hole #3? where he was in a left fwy bunker, flew it right over a front pin, hit, checked, and then trickled into the water. I though that was severe, but I guess he shouldn't have hit it past the hole from that angle.
I don't think they should change a thing until the course has a chance to age, but the tour is the tour, and it wouldn't be the first time.
-
Several players including woods have mentioned trying to do just that in post round interviews. I suspect any hole where you can't land the ball short and run it up. Or any hole where you cannot land on the green and stop it.
Ryan,
With 87 posts, I know you are new here, so I'll try to be kind. But when you make bold statements criticizing a course, be prepared to back it up with facts. At least know the hole where players intentionally aimed for the bunker. I asked you, and you could not answer. There clearly was no hole at Doral where the best option was to aim at a bunker.
You can't criticize an entire course as lacking strategic options because one or two pros aimed a bunker. Tell us the circumstances. What hole was it? Was the pro out of position after his drive? Don't take a comment made by a PRO out of context. 2 plus 2 does not equal 22.
-
Several players including woods have mentioned trying to do just that in post round interviews. I suspect any hole where you can't land the ball short and run it up. Or any hole where you cannot land on the green and stop it.
Ryan,
With 87 posts, I know you are new here, so I'll try to be kind. But when you make bold statements criticizing a course, be prepared to back it up with facts. At least know the hole where players intentionally aimed for the bunker. I asked you, and you could not answer. There clearly was no hole at Doral where the best option was to aim at a bunker.
You can't criticize an entire course as lacking strategic options because one or two pros aimed a bunker. Tell us the circumstances. What hole was it? Was the pro out of position after his drive? Don't take a comment made by a PRO out of context. 2 plus 2 does not equal 22.
Quality, not quantity William!
My opinions are just that. They are no more or less factual than yours. Like and dislike are qualitative rather than quantitative.
I assure you Tiger Woods said in his post round interview yesterday with Sky Sports as did at least one other I can't recall, that they tried to hit into the green side bunker. I note you said earlier in the thread that 'perhaps it was a par five'. In my view this shows that perhaps you don't have the grasp of strategy that you think you do. Par is just an arbitrary number and I can see no reason why par should dictate or excuse why anyone, least of all a pro would choose to play a hole a certain way. The aim is to go round in the fewest strokes.
If you're going to make lofty, grandiose 'you're new here son' comments you should perhaps live up to this yourself and read and debate with a little more care. I watched a fair bit of this over the weekend and at times, particularly on Friday, it made for embarrassing viewing with the course producing completely disproportionate punishment to shots, good and bad. Just my view as I saw it. Not based on a couple of whinging pro's. more like dozens of balls rolling into a watery grave after landing on a green with bunkers and Bermuda fairways short of it.
I can and do criticise courses as I see fit. As do you. Rather than try and find a bunch of excuses and caveats, perhaps you could rebutt my criticism that the course has far too much water. Far too much sand. Very few penal bunkers. Is farcical in a reasonable wind and is not suitable for firm and fast conditions and given both becomes a Mickey Mouse course. This course is the antithesis of everything preached on here and yet because one of the favourite sons has his name attached, you and others are wriggling with weasel words rather than call it like it is.
-
What is the hole number Ryan?
-
Several players including woods have mentioned trying to do just that in post round interviews. I suspect any hole where you can't land the ball short and run it up. Or any hole where you cannot land on the green and stop it.
Ryan,
With 87 posts, I know you are new here, so I'll try to be kind. But when you make bold statements criticizing a course, be prepared to back it up with facts. At least know the hole where players intentionally aimed for the bunker. I asked you, and you could not answer. There clearly was no hole at Doral where the best option was to aim at a bunker.
You can't criticize an entire course as lacking strategic options because one or two pros aimed a bunker. Tell us the circumstances. What hole was it? Was the pro out of position after his drive? Don't take a comment made by a PRO out of context. 2 plus 2 does not equal 22.
Quality, not quantity William!
My opinions are just that. They are no more or less factual than yours. Like and dislike are qualitative rather than quantitative.
I assure you Tiger Woods said in his post round interview yesterday with Sky Sports as did at least one other I can't recall, that they tried to hit into the green side bunker. I note you said earlier in the thread that 'perhaps it was a par five'. In my view this shows that perhaps you don't have the grasp of strategy that you think you do. Par is just an arbitrary number and I can see no reason why par should dictate or excuse why anyone, least of all a pro would choose to play a hole a certain way. The aim is to go round in the fewest strokes.
If you're going to make lofty, grandiose 'you're new here son' comments you should perhaps live up to this yourself and read and debate with a little more care. I watched a fair bit of this over the weekend and at times, particularly on Friday, it made for embarrassing viewing with the course producing completely disproportionate punishment to shots, good and bad. Just my view as I saw it. Not based on a couple of whinging pro's. more like dozens of balls rolling into a watery grave after landing on a green with bunkers and Bermuda fairways short of it.
I can and do criticise courses as I see fit. As do you. Rather than try and find a bunch of excuses and caveats, perhaps you could rebutt my criticism that the course has far too much water. Far too much sand. Very few penal bunkers. Is farcical in a reasonable wind and is not suitable for firm and fast conditions and given both becomes a Mickey Mouse course. This course is the antithesis of everything preached on here and yet because one of the favourite sons has his name attached, you and others are wriggling with weasel words rather than call it like it is.
Quality, not quantity William!
Yeah!
Proceeds to write long post of debatable quality...
-
Jeff,
Was the Blue Monster named after the 18th hole at Doral or the 12+ water hazards on the course?
-
My opinions are just that. They are no more or less factual than yours.
This sounds reasonable, until you read the next three paragraphs and realize just how wrong the opinions expressed in them are.
-
What is the hole number Ryan?
16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.
-
''Let's assume there's no way to really have the fairways play as firm as the greens since you never see that in the US, esp on bermuda.
Wouldn't the fact that the greens are substantially larger help?
Why is Reed able to negotiate all these impossible shots?
Look I'm disappointed to see more water introduced to play lines at Doral as I don't care for water as a frequent hazard.
It's not on my short list to play even though I'm quite connected there.
But as a Tour site I enjoy it a lot.
I really like the greens and width of fairways..
By the way, in general I'm a big fan of waaaaay fewer bunkers that are far more penal.
the problem is they are attempting to honor Dick Wilson at a Tour site called The Blue Monster for Donald Trump, and I think they served these masters well, even if those four masters aren't synonomous with classic design
The course is a symbol of an era in golf architecture, and that era was the dark ages Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Kudos to Hanse for introducing some of the strategic features that were in the original plans but not built, and kudos to Hanse for introducing a few strategic features of his own.
I just happen to think this course has way more strategy of any of the tour courses I am familiar with(a relatively small #) except Augusta.
I am afraid they will do some tweaks, sadly they won't involve removing water, but no doubt will involve the best feature of the new course, the undulations on the greens. I heard a moronic announcer mention just that but the reality is they'd just run them a foot slower with the predicted forecast, nearly all of their problems would've gone away.''
I agree with most of what you said. There was positives with the width and green complex's but the increase in the introduction of more water was lame. The best part of it was the improvement to the Range, don't you think? Looks really cool, couldn't believe how small the old one was for that place.
-
What is the hole number Ryan?
16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.
Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!
I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.
-
Bcown,
the range is better, but there were mistakes made-not real well thought out on the teaching end
The range is the reason the drive on 10 is so awkward-to say nothing of the goofy trees they used to screen it
-
Things GCA loves:
Gil Hanse
Firm and fast
Wind
Green contours
Courses that require playing away from the "line of charm"
Courses that fight bomb and gouge
Things GCA hates:
Water
Difficulty
Lost balls
Donald Trump
Any aesthetic style that can't be described as "minimalist"
Expensive courses
CCFAD atmospheres
Idiots spectators who pick up balls from the rough during a tournament and walk off with them
I often lament that there's no "blind taste test" with golf design. There's no way to ask a GCA Kool Aid drinker to evaluate a course objectively, because their take is always cluttered by their knowledge of who the designer is, their general perception of courses from its era, and numerous other influences. The closest we can get to seeing what people REALLY think is to show them a course that presents such an interesting dichotomy of features that GCA loves crossed with features that GCA hates.
I just spent almost an hour reading all seven pages of these post and Jason really summed it well on early on with the above post. I can only add that in any business sometimes you have to take risk and the best seem to know when... or do they just get lucky? We lived through an era where tougher golf courses were labled as better golf courses and there are a few that still think this way but the tide has changed and has been changing for about fifteen years. To me in this day and era Trump took a huge gamble by putting more teeth into a monstor and Gill also by being involved in something so controversial. An owner who seems to have an attitude of, I pay, I say and also I am sure the pga tour was throwing in their two cents. A good warm up for Brazil in my opinion and can´t wait to see how that turns out. The board likes to group Gill in the same catagory of Doak & Coore and I don´t get it, D & C have solid foundations and have coinsistently produce winners (correct clients and correct lands helped a shit load IMO). Also, IMO, Gill is still forming his foundation and as much controversery that this re-design has created can be a positive thing or could be the road to destruction. The same holds true for the Olympic course with all the hands in that pot of soup. I am not saying either one has mistaken, just saying, both took huge risk. Now if anybody can forward me, Mr. Trumps email, I would like to send my resume to him and see if I can be in charge of maintaining the grounds of one of his mansions! It´s nice to play General after the war but I need to freaking eat!
-
What is the hole number Ryan?
16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.
OK, so we are talking about PROS playing a drivable Par 4. Some decided that missing the green in a greenside bunker is ok, far better than the water on the left. Pros have been making that type of choice for years... They do it a Winged Foot, and the Five and Dime at Ridgewood in the Barclays.
Tillinghast designed GREAT short par 4's. The fact that pros can now bomb driver 300-350 pros AND are extremely skilled at getting up and down from bunkers, in and of itself, does not mean the architect did a poor job.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Doral. I've said repeatedly on this thread that there is far too much water as a hazard around the putting surfaces for my taste. I have little desire to play the course.
My point is that you made a ridiculous statement. You took a pro's strategic plan on a short par 4 and implied that the entire course design was faulty. That was wrong.
I view Doral as exhibit A for the lengths an architect must go to to really challenge pros. Exhibit B is the US Open set ups we see every June. They are horrendous from the perspective of 99% of the golfing public, and I can't believe the memberships put up with these setups for the year leading up to the tournament. (I played Merion before the Open and felt sad.) But the pros are SO damned good, these are the kind of crazy things you have to do to really get in their heads. I think that's why Tom Doak seems to have little interest in designing courses that could host a US Open. And make no doubt about it, the Doral we saw this weekend was intended to be US Open-hard.
If we are not going to roll the ball back or reign in equipment, this is what we have to do to our golf courses if the goal is to make a course truly hard for pros. I happen to love watching pros really put to the test by a golf course, even if I have no business being on that course... I love hearing them whine after a round. I know what it means to be truly unsettled standing over a golf ball because of the architecture, and I know it takes a lot to make a pro feel that way.
The last thing you should know is that there is very little to be learned about golf course architecture by watching how pros play. A course designed with pros in mind should be judged on that basis.
-
What is the hole number Ryan?
16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.
Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!
I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57846.0.html
Bill Brightly can hopefully make you understand with the assistance of CB Macdonald in the thread above. As Bill eloquently states in his letter: Don't go there
All this money, all this expertise and people in 2014 think its perfectly logical to play into a hazard as part of a strategy? And ludicrously say that the design of the bunker is not flawed! You really couldn't make this up. What do you think the purpose of bunkers are? So you can display your 'sand game'? Good luck with it at muirfield and St. Andrews.
A bunker is a hazard to be avoided. If people go into them deliberately, they're not doing their job and they should either be made more penal or removed. Can anyone who knows anything about golf really argue with this? Or perhaps we should use bunkers to practice our long jump skills whilst waiting for the green to clear?
-
What is the hole number Ryan?
16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.
OK, so we are talking about PROS playing a drivable Par 4. Some decided that missing the green in a greenside bunker is ok, far better than the water on the left. Pros have been making that type of choice for years... They do it a Winged Foot, and the Five and Dime at Ridgewood in the Barclays.
Tillinghast designed GREAT short par 4's. The fact that pros can now bomb driver 300-350 pros AND are extremely skilled at getting up and down from bunkers, in and of itself, does not mean the architect did a poor job.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Doral. I've said repeatedly on this thread that there is far too much water as a hazard around the putting surfaces for my taste. I have little desire to play the course.
My point is that you made a ridiculous statement. You took a pro's strategic plan on a short par 4 and implied that the entire course design was faulty. That was wrong.
I view Doral as exhibit A for the lengths an architect must go to to really challenge pros. Exhibit B is the US Open set ups we see every June. They are horrendous from the perspective of 99% of the golfing public, and I can't believe the memberships put up with these setups for the year leading up to the tournament. (I played Merion before the Open and felt sad.) But the pros are SO damned good, these are the kind of crazy things you have to do to really get in their heads. I think that's why Tom Doak seems to have little interest in designing courses that could host a US Open. And make no doubt about it, the Doral we saw this weekend was intended to be US Open-hard.
If we are not going to roll the ball back or reign in equipment, this is what we have to do to our golf courses if the goal is to make a course truly hard for pros. I happen to love watching pros really put to the test by a golf course, even if I have no business being on that course... I love hearing them whine after a round. I know what it means to be truly unsettled standing over a golf ball, and I know it takes a lot to make a pro feel that way.
The last thing you should know is that there is very little to be learned about golf course architecture by watching how pros play. A course designed with pros in mind should be judged on that basis.
Bill
I believe I've elaborated at length on my criticisms of the course. They are broadly the same as yours.
Assuming you're correct about pro golf and the aims of this course, please can you explain what you think the purpose of the great swathes of sand / bunkers is?
-
Ryan,
I agree with some/most of what you say, but the PGA tour I believe doesn't like PENAL bunkers. So possibly Gil is handicapped in this aspect. The sad thing is Sawgrass and Doral have been the model for most everyday Florida golf courses built after them. Streamsong, Ft Myers (renovation), WW, and Ocala Golf club will just work fine for me. No Yo Yo courses for me...
-
Ryan,
OK, I'll take your last response as an admission that you were wrong.
As for your question about the sand, did you watch the flyovers I posted? Doral ALWAYS had a ton of sand. From what I can tell, Gil merely re-positioned the bunkers to reflect the length players can hit their drivers. I think his purpose was to restore to original architect's intent.
Would I prefer Macdonald-Raynor bunkers? Sure. Gil could have filled in all the ponds and re-built Lido while he was at it. I would fly to Florida tomorrow to go play it... But I'm pretty sure that's not what he was asked to do...
-
BTW..I actually worked the ball (with) the wind for the most part.
Pat,
That's really interesting. Don't you find it difficult to judge the "run out" working the ball with the wind as opposed to the quick bite working against the wind?
Ken
Ken,
I did say, for the most part :D
I had the belief that i was a good wind player. I also believe that I was a good wind player, due to the fact
that I was pretty good at adjusting my "par" in those conditions. I had a pretty good idea that a course would
play, (however many) shots harder if it was howling. I would take what the wind and the course gave me.
I guess it would have been better to say that I didn't fight the wind on most approach shots, I let the wind move it.
My lines were certainly more conservative on those shots.
Being pretty comfortable moving the ball both ways, there were certainly times when I had to try to hold the ball against
the wind the be able to stop it.
My biggest complaint, was that we didn't play in enough days like Friday at Doral! ;D
-
What is the hole number Ryan?
16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.
Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!
I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57846.0.html
Bill Brightly can hopefully make you understand with the assistance of CB Macdonald in the thread above. As Bill eloquently states in his letter: Don't go there
All this money, all this expertise and people in 2014 think its perfectly logical to play into a hazard as part of a strategy? And ludicrously say that the design of the bunker is not flawed! You really couldn't make this up. What do you think the purpose of bunkers are? So you can display your 'sand game'? Good luck with it at muirfield and St. Andrews.
A bunker is a hazard to be avoided. If people go into them deliberately, they're not doing their job and they should either be made more penal or removed. Can anyone who knows anything about golf really argue with this? Or perhaps we should use bunkers to practice our long jump skills whilst waiting for the green to clear?
Bunkers are something to be avoided generally speaking, yes. But if the options presented to the player present a decision so that the player decides playing to a greenside bunker off the tee on a par 4 is the play, then I have no problem with it.
Just because the player decides that is the play he wants, it doesn't mean that the bunker is preferable to the fairway, green, etc... It just means that in his case the risk/reward options have tilted that scale toward firing toward a bunker. This was not a universal decision and not as crazy to me as you see it. These are tour pros, and their bunker play is the exception and not the rule. If a couple of them made this decision I don't believe much can be taken away from it other than they have a unique set of talents and it opens up different options for a few of them than most other players.
-
In practice the approaches are nowhere near as firm as the greens.
From what I can see, the rare ball that lands short, stays short.
That cultured shotmaker Kuchar hit right on the front of the green on the long par 3 and still ended up in the water.
I've never seen anyone hit a great recovery from the water.
Name a PGA Tour site with firm greens that has approaches equally as firm
Jeff,
What most of the morons forget is that new greens are invariably firm.
The old rule of thumb was for between 2 and 5 years.
Didn't this course just open ? ;D
[/quote]
-
What is the hole number Ryan?
16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.
Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!
I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57846.0.html
Bill Brightly can hopefully make you understand with the assistance of CB Macdonald in the thread above. As Bill eloquently states in his letter: Don't go there
All this money, all this expertise and people in 2014 think its perfectly logical to play into a hazard as part of a strategy? And ludicrously say that the design of the bunker is not flawed! You really couldn't make this up. What do you think the purpose of bunkers are? So you can display your 'sand game'? Good luck with it at muirfield and St. Andrews.
A bunker is a hazard to be avoided. If people go into them deliberately, they're not doing their job and they should either be made more penal or removed. Can anyone who knows anything about golf really argue with this? Or perhaps we should use bunkers to practice our long jump skills whilst waiting for the green to clear?
Bunkers are something to be avoided generally speaking, yes. But if the options presented to the player present a decision so that the player decides playing to a greenside bunker off the tee on a par 4 is the play, then I have no problem with it.
Just because the player decides that is the play he wants, it doesn't mean that the bunker is preferable to the fairway, green, etc... It just means that in his case the risk/reward options have tilted that scale toward firing toward a bunker. This was not a universal decision and not as crazy to me as you see it. These are tour pros, and their bunker play is the exception and not the rule. If a couple of them made this decision I don't believe much can be taken away from it other than they have a unique set of talents and it opens up different options for a few of them than most other players.
Right, so these guys felt they will score better, on average, by being in a greenside bunker vs fairway 140 yards out. How penal should/could a bunker be that you wouldn't make the same decision?
-
If greenside bunkers need to present a serious challenge to pros for a course's architecture to be good, there can't be more than about 15 or 20 good courses in the world.
-
Ryan,
OK, I'll take your last response as an admission that you were wrong.
As for your question about the sand, did you watch the flyovers I posted? Doral ALWAYS had a ton of sand. From what I can tell, Gil merely re-positioned the bunkers to reflect the length players can hit their drivers. I think his purpose was to restore to original architect's intent.
Would I prefer Macdonald-Raynor bunkers? Sure. Gil could have filled in all the ponds and re-built Lido while he was at it. I would fly to Florida tomorrow to go play it... But I'm pretty sure that's not what he was asked to do...
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/blogs/local-knowledge/2014/03/7-things-gil-hanse-would-have-you-know-about-the-new-blue-mo.html
No, Bill it isn't. I maintain the design is flawed on a number of levels. The bunkering being one of them.
You're evading the question. Did the original architect intend players to play into his hazards? What was their purpose in 1962?
-
Ryan, you keep repeating the same mistake... You can't criticize an ENTIRE COURSE because a few pros chose to to hit driver on a short par 4...
I'm about to change my font to green and refer to you as Pat would... :)
-
In practice the approaches are nowhere near as firm as the greens.
From what I can see, the rare ball that lands short, stays short.
That cultured shotmaker Kuchar hit right on the front of the green on the long par 3 and still ended up in the water.
I've never seen anyone hit a great recovery from the water.
Name a PGA Tour site with firm greens that has approaches equally as firm
Jeff,
What most of the morons forget is that new greens are invariably firm.
The old rule of thumb was for between 2 and 5 years.
Didn't this course just open ? ;D
Jeff, wouldn't you say that Bay Hill plays as firm as Doral did this past week assuming there is no rain. PM firm greens are great more of them, just the greens were too fast for Friday especially!
-
If greenside bunkers need to present a serious challenge to pros for a course's architecture to be good, there can't be more than about 15 or 20 good courses in the world.
I'd say around 80 in the UK alone have excellent bunkering.
Your attempt would better be described as "lots of otherwise excellent courses are let down by their bunkers not being proper hazards. We should get rid of of lots of the meaningless bunkers and make the few remaining ones worthwhile and genuinely to be avoided.
-
Mark,
I've yet to see any bunker, UK,NGLA, anywhere that I wouldn't prefer to be in (on average) moreso than being 140 out.
BTW, Iwasn't crazy about new 16
too short,and greenside bunker or green was easily attainable.
Would've liked to have seen the hole a bit longer,more tilt in green ala 10 at Riviera, and/or less sand in the area of fairway 40-70 yards out on the right(nobody went for that)
and an area of fairway a bit more short left with the furthest point of the water ending up there and diagonally making the carry shorter the further one went right.
I want to see longer hiitters go for 16, not everybody in the field.(didn't see anybody not make the carry)
that's what #13 was for when it was 242 30 years ago-should've made 13 250-260 yards
-
Bill,
I'm anxious to learn more about the opinions of those who have actually played the course.
How many rendering an opinion on Trump Doral have actually played it ?
-
What is the hole number Ryan?
16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.
Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!
I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57846.0.html
Bill Brightly can hopefully make you understand with the assistance of CB Macdonald in the thread above. As Bill eloquently states in his letter: Don't go there
All this money, all this expertise and people in 2014 think its perfectly logical to play into a hazard as part of a strategy? And ludicrously say that the design of the bunker is not flawed! You really couldn't make this up. What do you think the purpose of bunkers are? So you can display your 'sand game'? Good luck with it at muirfield and St. Andrews.
A bunker is a hazard to be avoided. If people go into them deliberately, they're not doing their job and they should either be made more penal or removed. Can anyone who knows anything about golf really argue with this? Or perhaps we should use bunkers to practice our long jump skills whilst waiting for the green to clear?
Bunkers are something to be avoided generally speaking, yes. But if the options presented to the player present a decision so that the player decides playing to a greenside bunker off the tee on a par 4 is the play, then I have no problem with it.
Just because the player decides that is the play he wants, it doesn't mean that the bunker is preferable to the fairway, green, etc... It just means that in his case the risk/reward options have tilted that scale toward firing toward a bunker. This was not a universal decision and not as crazy to me as you see it. These are tour pros, and their bunker play is the exception and not the rule. If a couple of them made this decision I don't believe much can be taken away from it other than they have a unique set of talents and it opens up different options for a few of them than most other players.
You don't see that the bunker in question has completely failed and therefore serves no purpose on the course other than to boost maintenance spending?
-
Bill,
I'm anxious to learn more about the opinions of those who have actually played the course.
How many rendering an opinion on Trump Doral have actually played it ?
I have :)
-
Bill,
I'm anxious to learn more about the opinions of those who have actually played the course.
How many rendering an opinion on Trump Doral have actually played it ?
Pat
How many times have you played it since the renovation we're talking about?
How many played it the week of the WGC? Oh Phil Mickelson et al whose views were dismissed as whinging pros.
-
Mark,
I've yet to see any bunker, UK,NGLA, anywhere that I wouldn't prefer to be in (on average) moreso than being 140 out.
BTW, Iwasn't crazy about new 16
too short,and greenside bunker or green was easily attainable.
Would've liked to have seen the hole a bit longer,more tilt in green ala 10 at Riviera, and/or less sand in the area of fairway 40-70 yards out on the right(nobody went for that)
and an area of fairway a bit more short left with the furthest point of the water ending up there and diagonally making the carry shorter the further one went right.
I want to see longer hiitters go for 16, not everybody in the field.(didn't see anybody not make the carry)
that's what #13 was for when it was 242 30 years ago-should've made 13 250-260 yards
Jeff, I'm with you on 16, especially regarding the area 50 yards short of the green. When I played there, with absolutely no chance of making the carry over the water, there was zero incentive to hit a long club into that area. Angles not improved and the shot to get there too risky. Not a great hole.
-
Ryan, you keep repeating the same mistake... You can't criticize an ENTIRE COURSE because a few pros chose to to hit driver on a short par 4...
I'm about to change my font to green and refer to you as Pat would... :)
How many more times, Bill?
My criticisms are numerous, in addition to the point you highlight. Hope this clarifies.
-
Mark, that area also is small, and runs away, and it's a downhill lie to the green.
Very odd to protect an undesireable area so well
When I heard they were moving the green behind the lake I was excited but that was a real letdown.
many, many ways that hole could've been better.
maybe even put the green tilted towards that area we are discussing leaving the best angle from the left where the green is , but protected a la Riviera
Even the previous incarnation was more interesting in the ProV1 era because many tried to drive it, yet few birdied it,especially those who drove it close
-
What is the hole number Ryan?
16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.
Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!
I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57846.0.html
Bill Brightly can hopefully make you understand with the assistance of CB Macdonald in the thread above. As Bill eloquently states in his letter: Don't go there
All this money, all this expertise and people in 2014 think its perfectly logical to play into a hazard as part of a strategy? And ludicrously say that the design of the bunker is not flawed! You really couldn't make this up. What do you think the purpose of bunkers are? So you can display your 'sand game'? Good luck with it at muirfield and St. Andrews.
A bunker is a hazard to be avoided. If people go into them deliberately, they're not doing their job and they should either be made more penal or removed. Can anyone who knows anything about golf really argue with this? Or perhaps we should use bunkers to practice our long jump skills whilst waiting for the green to clear?
Bunkers are something to be avoided generally speaking, yes. But if the options presented to the player present a decision so that the player decides playing to a greenside bunker off the tee on a par 4 is the play, then I have no problem with it.
Just because the player decides that is the play he wants, it doesn't mean that the bunker is preferable to the fairway, green, etc... It just means that in his case the risk/reward options have tilted that scale toward firing toward a bunker. This was not a universal decision and not as crazy to me as you see it. These are tour pros, and their bunker play is the exception and not the rule. If a couple of them made this decision I don't believe much can be taken away from it other than they have a unique set of talents and it opens up different options for a few of them than most other players.
You don't see that the bunker in question has completely failed and therefore serves no purpose on the course other than to boost maintenance spending?
No. I'm amazed that you can see that. You've drawn quite a conclusion from 2 players choosing to play a hole a certain way.
-
Your attempt would better be described as "lots of otherwise excellent courses are let down by their bunkers not being proper hazards. We should get rid of of lots of the meaningless bunkers and make the few remaining ones worthwhile and genuinely to be avoided.
No, it wouldn't. Your thesis just doesn't hold. Your whole premise is flawed and reflects a lack of understanding of drainage, shaping, risk/reward, and aesthetics as they pertain to golf course architecture, along with a total lack of perspective for how the pro game relates to the evaluation of golf courses. Bunkers serve a great many purposes beyond just dissuading professionals from hitting the ball to a certain spot.
We know that you've never seen Trump Doral in person. Have you seen any of those 80 correctly-bunkered courses you so admire in Great Britain in person?
-
Your attempt would better be described as "lots of otherwise excellent courses are let down by their bunkers not being proper hazards. We should get rid of of lots of the meaningless bunkers and make the few remaining ones worthwhile and genuinely to be avoided.
No, it wouldn't. Your thesis just doesn't hold. Your whole premise is flawed and reflects a lack of understanding of drainage, shaping, risk/reward, and aesthetics as they pertain to golf course architecture, along with a total lack of perspective for how the pro game relates to the evaluation of golf courses. Bunkers serve a great many purposes beyond just dissuading professionals from hitting the ball to a certain spot.His comments don't lack understanding of drainage, there is no risk with #16, just reward. Gotta focus on them aesthetics, like that hasn't been overdone. What Golf Construction have you done? Sitting on greens committees don't count.
We know that you've never seen Trump Doral in person. Have you seen any of those 80 correctly-bunkered courses you so admire in Great Britain in person?Have you seen Doral in person, or the less than 20 courses you stated across the pond?
-
Bill,
I'm anxious to learn more about the opinions of those who have actually played the course.
How many rendering an opinion on Trump Doral have actually played it ?
Pat
How many times have you played it since the renovation we're talking about?
As of next week, once
How many played it the week of the WGC? Oh Phil Mickelson et al whose views were dismissed as whinging pros.
As of next week, once.
I can tell you that the wind on Friday was most unusual, and ferocious
-
What is the hole number Ryan?
16th, Bill. Round 3. Saturday afternoon.
Oh no! The tour pros couldn't hold the green with a driver!
I've played for bunkers on short par 4's before because I have confidence in my sand game. Moreso than my full wedge game sometimes. I don't understand how this is a design fault. Especially since players were able to put the ball on the green by running it up through a 10 yard wide gap if they had the carry distance. There were quite a few eagle putts on that hole, but there were also players laying up. What's wrong with playing for the greenside bunker too? I think the 16th is much improved, stylistic bunkers or not.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57846.0.html
Bill Brightly can hopefully make you understand with the assistance of CB Macdonald in the thread above. As Bill eloquently states in his letter: Don't go there
All this money, all this expertise and people in 2014 think its perfectly logical to play into a hazard as part of a strategy? And ludicrously say that the design of the bunker is not flawed! You really couldn't make this up. What do you think the purpose of bunkers are? So you can display your 'sand game'? Good luck with it at muirfield and St. Andrews.
A bunker is a hazard to be avoided. If people go into them deliberately, they're not doing their job and they should either be made more penal or removed. Can anyone who knows anything about golf really argue with this? Or perhaps we should use bunkers to practice our long jump skills whilst waiting for the green to clear?
Bunkers are something to be avoided generally speaking, yes. But if the options presented to the player present a decision so that the player decides playing to a greenside bunker off the tee on a par 4 is the play, then I have no problem with it.
Just because the player decides that is the play he wants, it doesn't mean that the bunker is preferable to the fairway, green, etc... It just means that in his case the risk/reward options have tilted that scale toward firing toward a bunker. This was not a universal decision and not as crazy to me as you see it. These are tour pros, and their bunker play is the exception and not the rule. If a couple of them made this decision I don't believe much can be taken away from it other than they have a unique set of talents and it opens up different options for a few of them than most other players.
You don't see that the bunker in question has completely failed and therefore serves no purpose on the course other than to boost maintenance spending?
No. I'm amazed that you can see that. You've drawn quite a conclusion from 2 players choosing to play a hole a certain way.
I don't believe players should aim to lay up in a bunker anymore than they should aim to hit into a water hazard or out of bounds. I held that view before this week. In my view a bunker should be penal and the player should be playing away from them rather than into them. As you alluded to earlier, you do this yourself and lots of golfers now do this due to a combination of high loft wedges, manicured sand and large flat bunkers with no lips on them. The game is poorer for this development in my view. Architects would find it bizarre that their hazards are now a desirable places to play from.
-
Bill,
I'm anxious to learn more about the opinions of those who have actually played the course.
How many rendering an opinion on Trump Doral have actually played it ?
Pat
How many times have you played it since the renovation we're talking about?
As of next week, once
How many played it the week of the WGC? Oh Phil Mickelson et al whose views were dismissed as whinging pros.
As of next week, once.
I can tell you that the wind on Friday was most unusual, and ferocious
Its all relative I suppose. 20 gusting 25 is nothing unusual over here. In Miami it's described as ferocious.
Hope you enjoy the trip.
-
''I can tell you that the wind on Friday was most unusual, and ferocious''
Pat Burke who stated in a prior post that Friday wind was a frequent occurrence when he played, is a PGA tour pro who played in the event wrong?
-
Ryan,
I understand that wind frequency and velocity differ from site to site.
There are prevailing winds in south Florida, but, nothing like Friday.
And, I've been playing golf for over 60 years at a variety of locations and know the difference between wind and really windy conditions.
I love the wind, and I loved playing in the wind on Friday, but, I was playing match play and had a partner.
At medal play, I might not have been so enthusiastic, especially if I was doing it for a living.
I'm not a fan of Trump WPB, nor Trump Westchester, so I would tend to think that my assessment of Doral will be objective. ;D
-
Your attempt would better be described as "lots of otherwise excellent courses are let down by their bunkers not being proper hazards. We should get rid of of lots of the meaningless bunkers and make the few remaining ones worthwhile and genuinely to be avoided.
No, it wouldn't. Your thesis just doesn't hold. Your whole premise is flawed and reflects a lack of understanding of drainage, shaping, risk/reward, and aesthetics as they pertain to golf course architecture, along with a total lack of perspective for how the pro game relates to the evaluation of golf courses. Bunkers serve a great many purposes beyond just dissuading professionals from hitting the ball to a certain spot.
We know that you've never seen Trump Doral in person. Have you seen any of those 80 correctly-bunkered courses you so admire in Great Britain in person?
Hi Jason
Yes indeed. In fact I've failed to avoid most of them. I've only played one Gil Hanse course in Castle Stuart and I can't believe same guy has his name on this course.
Perhaps you can elaborate on the great many purposes that a bunker serves, other than as a hazard?
-
Ben, your questions reflect an unsurprising lack of contextual understanding of the discussion at hand. It's also unsurprising that you would rush to defend someone evaluating through a ridiculous prism a course that he's never seen. I probably shouldn't respond, but then I'd deprive myself and many others the unbridled joy of reading any replies you write while at work on Monday morning.
I'll simply ask you this - is it your assertion that golf courses the world over can have bunkers constructed like those at The Old Course and Muirfield, with no negative ramifications to drainage, shaping quality, or aesthetics? And if that is NOT your assertion, then please describe five bunker styles that routinely extract from professionals a penalty on par with water or OB, as Ryan suggested is ideal.
Also, describe the relationship between professional bunker play and the bunker play of the average golfer. Thanks in advance for getting the week started right.
-
In terms of the number, size and location of bunkers, I believe that Hollywood had over 200 and no one complained.
And, I wouldn't say that the bunkering at Pine Valley is "sparse" ;D
-
Ben, your questions reflect an unsurprising lack of contextual understanding of the discussion at hand. It's also unsurprising that you would rush to defend someone evaluating through a ridiculous prism a course that he's never seen. I probably shouldn't respond, but then I'd deprive myself and many others the unbridled joy of reading any replies you write while at work on Monday morning.
I'll simply ask you this - is it your assertion that golf courses the world over can have bunkers constructed like those at The Old Course and Muirfield, with no negative ramifications to drainage, shaping quality, or aesthetics? And if that is NOT your assertion, then please describe five bunker styles that routinely extract from professionals a penalty on par with water or OB, as Ryan suggested is ideal.
Also, describe the relationship between professional bunker play and the bunker play of the average golfer. Thanks in advance for getting the week started right.
Jason
You display a considerable lack of understanding yourself. I did not mention an ideal penalty. Nor on par with anything. I believe a bunker should be avoided and should be penal. Be fortunate to be in the middle of it and the penalty is rather benign. Have a half backswing or be up against a steep face and the penalty will be as malignant as your rather unfortunate DG demeanour. The point being that you will avoid the risk of going in there if you can. You may recover, you may not. Even you can see the difference between this and OB and a water hazard?
-
Ben, your questions reflect an unsurprising lack of contextual understanding of the discussion at hand. It's also unsurprising that you would rush to defend someone evaluating through a ridiculous prism a course that he's never seen. I probably shouldn't respond, but then I'd deprive myself and many others the unbridled joy of reading any replies you write while at work on Monday morning.I understand and actually have discussed Doral with Archies, have you? Oh, so you can't look at a hot n ready pizza and determine that it prob isn't good? Have you seen courses that you wouldn't play just by seeing them on TV? Yeah, having like minded tools who have narrow views like yourself and try and use big words to make themselves sound intelligent.
I'll simply ask you this - is it your assertion that golf courses the world over can have bunkers constructed like those at The Old Course and Muirfield, with no negative ramifications to drainage, shaping quality, or aesthetics? And if that is NOT your assertion, then please describe five bunker styles that routinely extract from professionals a penalty on par with water or OB, as Ryan suggested is ideal.
They necessarily can't be copied exactly, there are re-enforcements that can be made (wood) to make them hold up and sod doesn't have to be used. Has bunker drainage improvements been made better in the last 10 years? I am not going to play your game (name 5 courses), u lack any imagination!
Also, describe the relationship between professional bunker play and the bunker play of the average golfer. Thanks in advance for getting the week started right.The course was designed with the professional in mind, was it not? You are welcome, thanks for proving to me and some others with how narrow minded you are and how much common sense you lack!
-
''And, I wouldn't say that the bunkering at Pine Valley is "sparse" Grin''
Do you aim at bunkers at Pine Valley? Rather Penal course wouldn't you say? Do they have water on 12+ holes?
-
Sand and water look good on tv. I say the more the better!
-
I'm watching the replay now, I enjoyed the tournament. I think folks here are torn, they want to hate it because of Trump but they wanna love it because of Hanse.
-
I'm watching the replay now, I enjoyed the tournament. I think folks here are torn, they want to hate it because of Trump but they wanna love it because of Hanse.
Bingo. Replace the name Trump with Keiser and see how different the reactions would be.
-
I'm watching the replay now, I enjoyed the tournament. I think folks here are torn, they want to hate it because of Trump but they wanna love it because of Hanse.
Bingo. Replace the name Trump with Keiser and see how different the reactions would be.
That's another thread.
-
I'm watching the replay now, I enjoyed the tournament. I think folks here are torn, they want to hate it because of Trump but they wanna love it because of Hanse.
Bingo. Replace the name Trump with Keiser and see how different the reactions would be.
I'm not a big fan of fantasy games, so no.
-
Total nonsense
if this were the TPC there'd be GCA orgasms spewing
30 mph winds at Royal Portrush or Bethpage Black would produce the exact same results-except they would be walking back to the tees hitting three after countless 5 minute searches::) ::)
Amazing how the US Open produces the same scores with no weather and that's expected and applauded.
It's called the Blue Monster-not the pink kitten
a tough weather day, and the PGA can't fathom pacing the greens appropriately.
The weather has been predicted since monday.
As Mike Young says, the weekend will be more benign.
But even so, where does that leave the punter?
I wasn't terribly interested in making an effort to see Doral prior to this event and I am even less inclined to do so now.
Ciao
My guess is it leaves the punter in the same position as the punter at Portrush-filling every available tee time. ;) ;D
Your last sentence summarizes this thread (and the $450 Doral thread)
People that weren't interested in playing Doral, still aren't, or probably are even less so (but what's the difference? they're not coming anyway)
and people that WERE, are at least as interested if not more (and will line up to play it).
The criticisms about Doral for the last 20ish years were always that if the wind didn't blow that it was pretty benign course (and the scores reflected that), certainly not as "jazzed up" as say a TPC, Bay Hill, or ANY of the fly by night water laden, optionless Honda sites.
The same criticisms came from the media and hotel guests about the more pedestrian holes.
At TPC there is water penally in play on nearly EVERY hole, whereas at Doral it is least strategically placed as opposed to just punishing EVERY wayward shot. and Doral has way more width, except 10. and 18 for those who can't fly water-though 18 has more fairway than before
the unfortunate thing is that a lot of really good architectural improvements at Doral are being missed, or ignored, even by those smart enough to know better, by setup and weather. Yes there's a bit too much water in a couple places for my tastes-I wasn't that big of a fan of the course to start with-but a fan of the event.
One note:In many, many case the ball scurried across the slick greens,down a slope and into the water.
The drop was often right next to the green, and many players got up and down from that spot.
that's not much different than a really penal bunker or heavy rough.
Jeff
I would have thought those interested in tour stop golf were playing Doral before any splash of cash for a redo. In any case, the use of water is far too redundant for my tastes even if the design works well around the water (which I seriously question if there is wind). Its no different to me if these were bunkers rather than ponds; its question of variety. The stupidly high green fee is merely the crap on the cake ensuring I tick the no box. I will leave you to all the Doral soup you can stand, it doesn't suit my palate ;D
Ciao
-
Ryan, you keep repeating the same mistake... You can't criticize an ENTIRE COURSE because a few pros chose to to hit driver on a short par 4...
I'm about to change my font to green and refer to you as Pat would... :)
How many more times, Bill?
My criticisms are numerous, in addition to the point you highlight. Hope this clarifies.
Ryan, you sound pretty young. I'll guess that you are in your 20's. Here's a really good piece of advice: when you make a mistake, freely admit it. People will be impressed. But it is a hard skill to master... The flip side of admitting a mistake is babbling on and on trying to shift away from the mistake. People make different assumptions about you when do this...
Here is what you SHOULD be saying: OK, I was wrong to use the comments of a couple of pros (who were going for the green on a short par 4) as the basis for for criticizing ALL the bunkering at Doral. I took those comments out of context. I now realize that the players were not aiming at bunkers on a consistent basis as I implied. That was dumb of me. I realize that it hurt my argument. Even though I may have come to a correct conclusion, when I make my case with specious statements, my thesis will not be well-received.
-
Total nonsense
if this were the TPC there'd be GCA orgasms spewing
30 mph winds at Royal Portrush or Bethpage Black would produce the exact same results-except they would be walking back to the tees hitting three after countless 5 minute searches::) ::)
Amazing how the US Open produces the same scores with no weather and that's expected and applauded.
It's called the Blue Monster-not the pink kitten
a tough weather day, and the PGA can't fathom pacing the greens appropriately.
The weather has been predicted since monday.
As Mike Young says, the weekend will be more benign.
But even so, where does that leave the punter?
I wasn't terribly interested in making an effort to see Doral prior to this event and I am even less inclined to do so now.
Ciao
My guess is it leaves the punter in the same position as the punter at Portrush-filling every available tee time. ;) ;D
Your last sentence summarizes this thread (and the $450 Doral thread)
People that weren't interested in playing Doral, still aren't, or probably are even less so (but what's the difference? they're not coming anyway)
and people that WERE, are at least as interested if not more (and will line up to play it).
The criticisms about Doral for the last 20ish years were always that if the wind didn't blow that it was pretty benign course (and the scores reflected that), certainly not as "jazzed up" as say a TPC, Bay Hill, or ANY of the fly by night water laden, optionless Honda sites.
The same criticisms came from the media and hotel guests about the more pedestrian holes.
At TPC there is water penally in play on nearly EVERY hole, whereas at Doral it is least strategically placed as opposed to just punishing EVERY wayward shot. and Doral has way more width, except 10. and 18 for those who can't fly water-though 18 has more fairway than before
the unfortunate thing is that a lot of really good architectural improvements at Doral are being missed, or ignored, even by those smart enough to know better, by setup and weather. Yes there's a bit too much water in a couple places for my tastes-I wasn't that big of a fan of the course to start with-but a fan of the event.
One note:In many, many case the ball scurried across the slick greens,down a slope and into the water.
The drop was often right next to the green, and many players got up and down from that spot.
that's not much different than a really penal bunker or heavy rough.
Jeff
I would have thought those interested in tour stop golf were playing Doral before any splash of cash for a redo. In any case, the use of water is far too redundant for my tastes even if the design works well around the water (which I seriously question if there is wind). Its no different to me if these were bunkers rather than ponds; its question of variety. The stupidly high green fee is merely the crap on the cake ensuring I tick the no box. I will leave you to all the Doral soup you can stand, it doesn't suit my palate ;D
Ciao
Sean,
Doral's price tag immediately eliminates from your consideration.
For that price tag, they can't present a subtle thoughtful test such as the one presented a mile away at Miami Springs for $35.
The average Doral customer wants glitz, bells, and whistles, particularly now that the hotel and grounds are a case study in Trumpishness.
I remember guests coming for lessons in their bathrobes from the spa.
It was never any different at Doral, just that the course was tired and more over the top destinations were getting all the attention.
It's a palm tree waving, glitzy throwback to the 60's featuring big, bold bunkers and frequent water hazards that originally begat the courses name. As i said, Hanse served many masters at Doral, not the least of which was serving the Wilson heritage of the place, and the childhood memories and dreams of a generation of high rolling, New York fast money, nightlife,beach weather,white sand,big spending, and palm tree loving high handicappers.
it was never the kind of place you and I would frequent as players, but Trump, in this case, knows his market.
I question whether this same clientele will fly all night to enjoy a links course in crappy weather in Scotland or Ireland-If you think Doral is unplayable for a high handicap, I can't even imagine a hack in the hay(can't wait for someone to chime in about wispy rough-an occasional weather and frequent maintenace occurrance) and pot bunkers in Aberdeen---in the wind and rain.
Kudos to Hanse for not trying to build that would serve a bunch of GCA nerds,require a public reeducation, and be a commercial disaster.
If I were hiring an architect to build a course as a business, not a labor of love, I'd want to hit my target market, and that's a certain type who doesn't flinch at a $1000 dinner check or a $450 green fee.
the good news is Hanse worked in a tremendous amount of width, and very interesting greens which TV just does not make clear.
I'd say Trump got exactly what he wanted out of this event.
Hanse doesn't need our unconditional approval, but his employer does need the spender's attention and atttendance
-
Jeff,
You're spot-on in your analysis. I'd short-cut it by saying that Gil did a good impersonation of Rees Jones. He gave the customer what he wanted: toughen up my tour stop. Let's hope the end result is better than what happened at Cog Hill in Chicago where the Dubsdread course was pilloried by the players and the event moved to the decidedly pedestrian Conway Farms.
Thus far, the Blue Monster experience is pretty similar.
-
Jeff,
I think you are spot on.
I also think Gil knew exactly what he was getting into, and I think he delivered exactly what was asked of him. I have no criticism of his work.
What is interesting is to listen to his supporters. In the past, they would have railed against this type of work. Now, it is strategic, well thought out, and all the pros are wimps. Old Geoff S would have been all over this, now, it is a great restoration.
This is a lesson in how we view and critique architecture.
If Nicklaus, Fazio or Dye had built a course with balls hitting into the middle of the greens and trickling into the water, these pages would be on fire.
I thought it was a good test for these players, and there were enough under par to show they could play it just fine.
Short of playing courses 8500 yards long, how else do we test these guys and make them hit shots? We can say score doesn't matter, but I'm not watching a tournament where 30 under is winning. We have to test them to see them at their best.
-
Jeff,
You're spot-on in your analysis. I'd short-cut it by saying that Gil did a good impersonation of Rees Jones. He gave the customer what he wanted: toughen up my tour stop. Let's hope the end result is better than what happened at Cog Hill in Chicago where the Dubsdread course was pilloried by the players and the event moved to the decidedly pedestrian Conway Farms.
Thus far, the Blue Monster experience is pretty similar.
Thanks Terry,
But he also gave GCAers many of the things they want, but they are getting distracted by a freak weather occurrance.
I worked there 10 years-we never had a day like that during the event-plenty of windy days,but frankly many calm days, and none like that.
the problem is people hear 22-30 mph winds and think they often play in that-they don't- as people always overestimate wind.
Gmac was quoted as saying the winds were 30-40 mph and he knows a thing or two about wind.
Hanse honored the heritage of Doral, and added a few modern GCA twists(width, strategy, centerline hazards), as well as adding a few PGA tour twists (more water).
can't speak for Dubsdread-never been
Don,
thanks
and understand that I can respect the process and the course for what it is (Tour stop and glitzy resort) and much prefer to play elsewhere.
What would I rather see?
Wooden clubs and balata balls and the old 1970 Blue Monster(though I thought hanses's greens and bunker placement were way better) -but I know that's a fantasy as too many amateurs cling to their crutches they hit no better, whil pros hit it 320 routinely now.
If we aren't going to address equipment look for longer, tougher designs and/or goofy setups, all of which make the game take longer
-
I haven't wanted to play a course more after watching it on TV than Doral this week.
Now just gotta wait for GolfNow to get some tee times :)
-
In the context of producing a thoughtful and interesting renovation, while re-introducing the strategic merit of the course, I think Gil did an outstanding job given what he had to work with. As I stated in another thread, if you didn't like the original premise of Doral (that is, flat Florida golf with lots of sand and water), you were never going to like the post-Gil Doral. The argument of water as a hazard, in my mind, is totally separate from the argument about the quality of Gil's work on the course.
-
I haven't wanted to play a course more after watching it on TV than Doral this week.
Now just gotta wait for GolfNow to get some tee times :)
There's your proof that Gil Hanse is the Paul George of GCA. Those tickets for April 13 are getting cheaper all the time. I'm laughing on the outside, but I'm crying on the inside. America needs the Pacers to beat the Heat this season.
If you get a Hot Deal, I'll come too. I hear the strategy is to aim at the bunkers.
-
Can someone share where width was added? I don't know the course so could not tell on TV.
-
Interesting points throughout this thread. I hope they give the course a few years to mature before they decide to make any major changes.
I enjoyed watching the tournament but was shocked at how many apparently good shots wound up in the water. I wo
I agree if this would have been a Rees Jones project, he would have been burned at the stake on this board by now. I wouldn't be surprised if I were a part of the chorus.
The course seems like a great test for the pros off the tee - it rewards distance, accuracy and the ability to work the ball.
-
Jeff,
I think you are spot on.
I also think Gil knew exactly what he was getting into, and I think he delivered exactly what was asked of him. I have no criticism of his work.
What is interesting is to listen to his supporters. In the past, they would have railed against this type of work. Now, it is strategic, well thought out, and all the pros are wimps. Old Geoff S would have been all over this, now, it is a great restoration.
This is a lesson in how we view and critique architecture.
If Nicklaus, Fazio or Dye had built a course with balls hitting into the middle of the greens and trickling into the water, these pages would be on fire.
I thought it was a good test for these players, and there were enough under par to show they could play it just fine.
Short of playing courses 8500 yards long, how else do we test these guys and make them hit shots? We can say score doesn't matter, but I'm not watching a tournament where 30 under is winning. We have to test them to see them at their best.
Don and they did it with 4 par 5's, the only way to test a longer approach these days,
rather than taking the USGA copout of making a par 5 a par 4
JIm,
Several posters have posted links to an overlay of new fairways vs. old I'd say 40% more greens area and 20-30% more fairway
-
Can someone share where width was added? I don't know the course so could not tell on TV.
Jim, have you had the chance to look at these links?
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/morning-drive-doral-front-9-then-and-now/
http://www.golfchannel.com/media/morning-drive-doral-back-9-then-and-now/
-
Having watched the final round I thought that the course would be better suited for a swimming meet.
I sympathise with Jiminez and his club throwing; the fall off from the greens into water seemed bizarre.
Bob
-
Thanks Jeff and Bill...will check them out.
-
"Hanse served many masters at Doral, not the least of which was serving the Wilson heritage of the place, and the childhood memories and dreams of a generation of high rolling, New York fast money, nightlife,beach weather,white sand,big spending, and palm tree loving high handicappers."
Jeff - I thought this was really cool, a very good insight. There are lots of kinds of history in gca, and I guess one kind is the history of a place, of an idea and an ideal of the good life. For some, that good life would be Dornoch, very late in the day on a long summer evening, alone, with a pint awaiting in a small inn, and the quiet of it all. For others, the good life is up tempo high rolling and big spending both day and night, in the sun and vibrancy of south Florida. (I have to admit, for better or worse I think both lives just great!) Again, really good point that Hanse was serving a history/legacy....had never thought of that.
Peter
-
'Struth.
Miami specifically and South Florida more generally are the very i.e. of the sort of place I wouldn't care to set foot ever. And come to think of it, Doral (new version or old) is the sort of golf course I wouldn't choose to play even if the green fee were comp'd. So it's perfectly emblematic of the Platonic ideal of South Florida.
-
Bill,
I'm anxious to learn more about the opinions of those who have actually played the course.
How many rendering an opinion on Trump Doral have actually played it ?
I'm a SoFla local which played the course in Late Jan/ Early Feb 2014 with a member. As I expected, the new course was going to be great for PGA tour viewing.
As for the mortal amongst us that go and play it, well, it only got tougher. Quick Synopsis - More water creeping alongside green complexes, more sand on the fairways, more convoluted sight lines from tees and longer water carries to greens & fairways.
By itself those additions are a good challenge for a course that goes by the name of the Blue Monster with PGA pedigree, but when I had to deal with a steady 20+ mph wind thats when this 12 hdcp thought it was too much.
Will this turn recreational resort golfers and local members away from Trump Doral? The answer is No.
Why? It is my conclusion that there are many golfers amongst us which have a sadistic streak for punishment. Don't count me in as one, but file this course for the crowd that digs places like TPC Sawgrass, Oakmont and Bethpage Black. The folks which no matter how shitty they played will say, I played Kiawah (another example).
Trump Doral needs to be cognizant of the natural winds and adjust accordingly for the non sadistic mortal golfers. The course with a club or less of wind is a fine challenge, but not even Trump can instruct the wind not to blow harder. As for the pros, I could care less about their plight, they are getting their paychecks. Let them duke it out, it makes for good TV. The rest of us who wish to consider playing Trump Doral better bring their A game or check the weather forecast before showing up.
-
back to Dufner...
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTA_uVxJa2ZfZ_6m2_uNPBCqU196cniD8s5izJlIKC-Bvxt4PgIew)
and his doppleganger (Buzz from the Melvins)
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRnZR-hhqdG6VdTXgGNALmVN1Qi7cGSAyTPVnsfMrvT14vVMYEHiA)
-
'Struth.
Miami specifically and South Florida more generally are the very i.e. of the sort of place I wouldn't care to set foot ever. And come to think of it, Doral (new version or old) is the sort of golf course I wouldn't choose to play even if the green fee were comp'd. So it's perfectly emblematic of the Platonic ideal of South Florida.
Brent Hutto
Your comments do not add anything towards the discussion about the changes to the Trump Doral except to indicate your judgmental and disapproving nature towards a geographic area of the country which you probably are not entirely familiar with. IMHO, you sir waste your time and ours with such a petulent post.
Lastly, anybody which calls himself a golfer would aways play a course for free!
-
Actually, we had a whole thread get derailed back before The Great Crash of '14 on the topic of courses one wouldn't play for free.
Any course with as continuous an experience as Doral of having to actively avoid hitting balls anywhere near the water is one I'd decline a free on. I"d rather go play somewhere else and pay for my round than try to defensively steer the ball around a course like that. The "torture test" that seems to draw a certain class of punters in droves (especially once it's been on TV) leaves me cold. Sorry.
-
So, I've posted a couple thoughts on this thread, watched the tournament a bit,
and for full disclosure, I consider myself a good friend of Tommy Nac. Guilt by association,
I want Gil to succeed and like what I see of his work.
From the tournament perspective, there seemed to be a broad mix of scores each day.
A good number of under par scores other than carnage day on Friday.
For the tournament, I of course, was not there, but it seemed like the course was reasonable.
I have been a person against bifurcation, would not be against a roll back across the board, but do not
think it would help the "business" of golf.
A course like Doral though, is where I get concerned. We are having a pretty large debate in this thread, about
the presentation of Doral for a tournament with a great field, and I want to know (because I haven't seen it),
how the paying golfers like/dislike the course in it's normal day-to-day maintenance presentation.
My favorite course in my career is Kingston Heath. I played one year when the first round was near ideal. I shot 69
(I think) in the first round and was somewhere just inside the top twenty.
The wind blew a gale in round two, I shot 67 and led by 2 at the end of the day. I don't remember if there were any other scores
under 70 that day, and the filed average soared. Nobody ever thought to say that Kingston Heath sucked because the wind made it a nightmare. The ONLY condition that regularly beats up tour players is wind, no matter the course.
ps I purposely aimed at 2 bunkers during that second round at Kingston Heath! ;D
-
I feel compelled to chime in here.
I played Doral Blue in mid February, just a few weeks ago. I played the Blue tees (6700 yards). My handicap is 13, though I can hit it a decent distance (can hit a driver 270-280 if I catch it) though I can be very erratic when not playing well.
I wanted to play the course to check it out after the re-do, regardless of what people thought. I go to Miami a couple times per winter and have not been overly enthused with the public golf options there. I was pretty excited by Mark Satlzman's photo tour, and the fact that he really liked it, but was a little afraid it would be too hard for me, since he said it was quite tough and is a low handicapper (or so I inferred):
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57652.0.html
When I did play it, I didn't just like the place, I thought it was terrific. I found most of the difficulty to be in the greens, and in the lines of play the course forces you into if you want to avoid trouble, NOT the water itself. Now, if I took an aggressive line and went for every pin, I'm sure I would have dunked in a few more balls than I did, but in general I played safe and avoided the blue stuff (notable exception: yanking my 2nd shot on 8 into the water with only a 7 iron in my hand and wind behind to get to the green). Off the top of my head, my other water adventures included #10 (when I took a too aggressive line and didn't give the wind the proper respect) and #1 (when I thinned/shanked a wedge into the pond right of the green). I think that's it, and probably put more balls in the water on Streamsong Red this past Saturday.
Do I think the course is easy? No. Did I score well? No (but not because of the course). Was it fun to play? ABSOLUTELY! In fact I liked it so much I went back the next day and played it again. Fairly generous fairways, huge greens, and oceans of sand - it was a real treat.
I don't really expect it to be a "golf destination" - more as a great golf option for people who are going to Miami anyway. It strikes me that a lot of the criticism here is due to 1) the look - ok, I guess you hate all south Florida golf (and would rather just go without playing in the North?); 2) the water - ok, what do you do if you hit it in the tall fescue at Shinnecock? at least with water you can drop 2 instead of re-tee shot #3, and 3) the fact that it is owned by Donald Trump (and if that's your issue, I can't help you). It's not Bandon, it's not Scotland, it's not the Hamptons, and it's not Streamsong, but in my estimation, it's a great golf course for what it is and where it is. Barring an invite to Indian Creek, I will be playing it again the next time I am in Miami. If you don't want to play it, well that's your call, but I think that's your loss.
Final point - I played Streamsong Blue on Friday, and had similar wind conditions to Doral. That was also borderline unplayable too. Bashing Hanse because the pros had a very tough day is just silly.
Cheers,
Kevin
-
I feel compelled to chime in here.
I played Doral Blue in mid February, just a few weeks ago. I played the Blue tees (6700 yards).
Having played WITH Kevin at Doral, I am in agreement.
We played 6700 yards. I think I lost two balls in the water. I know I lost the same or more balls at Streamsong as well.
I rather enjoyed myself at Doral. I thought the work on 8,9, 10 was especially terrific.
I rather enjoyed myself at Streamsong too.
I'd love the chance to go back to either.
-
I feel compelled to chime in here.
I played Doral Blue in mid February, just a few weeks ago. I played the Blue tees (6700 yards).
We played 6700 yards. I think I lost two balls in the water. I know I lost the same or more balls at Streamsong as well.
Well, after reading Bruce's post and this one,I guess there's no reason to read the first 9 pages.
case closed, Doak and C&C don't know what they're doing either. ;D ;D ;) ;)
and Pat Burke, a tour player, aimed at 2 bunkers while leading an eventplayed on a GCA sacred cow. ;) ;) ;D ;D
and Kevin, and Bruce, and Mark,
What do you know?
You only played the course ;)
and for that matter I only walked it.
It's not like we have the insight of someone who watched it on TV on an extreme day or saw a 2 dimensional picture . ;) ;D
Interesting that all 4 on this thread that saw it and played it appreciate the new version,for those keeping score at home that's 4-0.
but carry on-I'm getting quite an education. ;)
maybe I should get over and try some of this links golf stuff, and broaden my horizons.
-
I feel compelled to chime in here.
I played Doral Blue in mid February, just a few weeks ago. I played the Blue tees (6700 yards). My handicap is 13, though I can hit it a decent distance (can hit a driver 270-280 if I catch it) though I can be very erratic when not playing well.
When I did play it, I didn't just like the place, I thought it was terrific. I found most of the difficulty to be in the greens, and in the lines of play the course forces you into if you want to avoid trouble, NOT the water itself. Now, if I took an aggressive line and went for every pin, I'm sure I would have dunked in a few more balls than I did, but in general I played safe and avoided the blue stuff (notable exception: yanking my 2nd shot on 8 into the water with only a 7 iron in my hand and wind behind to get to the green). Off the top of my head, my other water adventures included #10 (when I took a too aggressive line and didn't give the wind the proper respect) and #1 (when I thinned/shanked a wedge into the pond right of the green). I think that's it, and probably put more balls in the water on Streamsong Red this past Saturday.
Do I think the course is easy? No. Did I score well? No (but not because of the course). Was it fun to play? ABSOLUTELY! In fact I liked it so much I went back the next day and played it again. Fairly generous fairways, huge greens, and oceans of sand - it was a real treat.
I don't really expect it to be a "golf destination" - more as a great golf option for people who are going to Miami anyway. It strikes me that a lot of the criticism here is due to 1) the look - ok, I guess you hate all south Florida golf (and would rather just go without playing in the North?); 2) the water - ok, what do you do if you hit it in the tall fescue at Shinnecock? at least with water you can drop 2 instead of re-tee shot #3, and 3) the fact that it is owned by Donald Trump (and if that's your issue, I can't help you). It's not Bandon, it's not Scotland, it's not the Hamptons, and it's not Streamsong, but in my estimation, it's a great golf course for what it is and where it is. Barring an invite to Indian Creek, I will be playing it again the next time I am in Miami. If you don't want to play it, well that's your call, but I think that's your loss.
Final point - I played Streamsong Blue on Friday, and had similar wind conditions to Doral. That was also borderline unplayable too. Bashing Hanse because the pros had a very tough day is just silly.
Cheers,
Kevin
Couldn't help but repost this.
carry on.
-
I feel compelled to chime in here.
I played Doral Blue in mid February, just a few weeks ago. I played the Blue tees (6700 yards). My handicap is 13, though I can hit it a decent distance (can hit a driver 270-280 if I catch it) though I can be very erratic when not playing well.
When I did play it, I didn't just like the place, I thought it was terrific. I found most of the difficulty to be in the greens, and in the lines of play the course forces you into if you want to avoid trouble, NOT the water itself. Now, if I took an aggressive line and went for every pin, I'm sure I would have dunked in a few more balls than I did, but in general I played safe and avoided the blue stuff (notable exception: yanking my 2nd shot on 8 into the water with only a 7 iron in my hand and wind behind to get to the green). Off the top of my head, my other water adventures included #10 (when I took a too aggressive line and didn't give the wind the proper respect) and #1 (when I thinned/shanked a wedge into the pond right of the green). I think that's it, and probably put more balls in the water on Streamsong Red this past Saturday.
Do I think the course is easy? No. Did I score well? No (but not because of the course). Was it fun to play? ABSOLUTELY! In fact I liked it so much I went back the next day and played it again. Fairly generous fairways, huge greens, and oceans of sand - it was a real treat.
I don't really expect it to be a "golf destination" - more as a great golf option for people who are going to Miami anyway. It strikes me that a lot of the criticism here is due to 1) the look - ok, I guess you hate all south Florida golf (and would rather just go without playing in the North?); 2) the water - ok, what do you do if you hit it in the tall fescue at Shinnecock? at least with water you can drop 2 instead of re-tee shot #3, and 3) the fact that it is owned by Donald Trump (and if that's your issue, I can't help you). It's not Bandon, it's not Scotland, it's not the Hamptons, and it's not Streamsong, but in my estimation, it's a great golf course for what it is and where it is. Barring an invite to Indian Creek, I will be playing it again the next time I am in Miami. If you don't want to play it, well that's your call, but I think that's your loss.
Final point - I played Streamsong Blue on Friday, and had similar wind conditions to Doral. That was also borderline unplayable too. Bashing Hanse because the pros had a very tough day is just silly.
Cheers,
Kevin
Couldn't help but repost this.
carry on.
GREAT post, Kevin!