Should a tough championship caliber design....

[T_MacWood]

Perhaps I don't understand what a championship caliber test is. What is it?

When I see PVGC, HVGC, Oakland Hills, Bethpage, Oakmont and Winged Foot given as good examples...MacKenzie and Jones' ANGC (and the Old Course) would be the antithesis of those courses IMO.

Another interesting contrast is ANGC 1934 vs ANGC 2005...are they both championship tests? Is Columbia a championship caliber test? Cypress Point?

Championship tests in my mind are built first and foremost to be extreme tests for the very best, designed to host major championships (and I don't believe this is only a modern phenomenon or attitude). The ANGC (that MacKenzie and Jones concieved) was not designed first and foresmost to be a championship venue--unless I missed something that Jones and MacKenzie intended.

The course today reflects more Roberts intent than Jones or MacKenzie intent, and is closer to what I see as the prototypical championship test.

[BCrosby]

Tom MacW says:

"Championship tests in my mind are built first and foremost to be extreme tests for the very best, designed to host major championships (and I don't believe this is only a modern phenomenon or attitude)."

I think the issue here is "extreme tests". What does that mean? That's where the rubber meets the road.

Seems to me there are two ways of creating "extreme tests". One is basically penal. Any misshit is punished. Par is a good score. Oakmont is the poster child.

The MacK/Jones notion is that "extreme tests" are involved only if you want to go low. Misshits may or may not be punished. Good play yields under par scores. Not so good play yields over par scores. There would be a wide spectrum of scores. Even for the same player. TOC or ANGC are the poster children.

It is a function of the USGA's domination of the way the public thinks about architecture that almost everyone thinks the former is what a championship course is all about. But MacK and Jones certainly didn't think that way. None of us should either, imho.

Jones never said so directly, but from everything I've read I don't think he liked playing the Merions or Oakmonts or WF's. His silence about those courses is telling. Jones was a very polite southern boy.

Otoh, there is ample evidence that Jones loved TOC, CP, Pasa and Lakeside. He said so early and often. If I'm right about Jones's likes and dislikes, they correspond pretty neatly with the two different ways of creating "extreme tests" above.

Finally, I agree that this "championship test" stuff is not a modern phenomenon. The issue goes back as far as Colt. Or maybe earlier. Don't know.

Bob

[Geoffrey Childs]

This is a very interesting discussion.

TEPaul-  You speak over and over about Seminole and how within the course of 24 hours it can be transformed from a tournament tough track to a great members venue simply by controling the "maintenance meld".  

Would you say that Seminole is a "tough championship quality design"?

If so then I contend that Coore and Crenshaw have indeed built such courses.  What do you think a firm and fast and windy Friars Head would do with regard to scoring?  Those greens are quite a bit more interesting then Seminole's and you can make them fast and tuck the pins.

What say you-  Is Friars Head a "tough championship quality design"?

Yes in my mind although its also a dreamy heaven for the members.

[TEPaul]

"Would you say that Seminole is a "tough championship quality design"?'

Geoffrey:

Not exactly. I think Seminole just happens to be highly adaptable as a design. As far as the course being accomodating of membership play or being set-up for championships it's just highly adaptable and mostly through maintenance melding. When Seminole sets up for championship tournament conditions the most they do is pretty high caliber mid-amateur championships. Put the pros on that course in its tournament conditions and it would be a different story for most.

Seminole doesn't narrow their fairways or really grow their rough extra long to set up for championships---all they really do is speed their greens up and firm them up---and that has a huge effect. When they do this it is not exactly taking the course over the top in playability--not really at all. What it does is just make the course so much more strategic to play than when it is in a "members" set-up.

How does that strategic ratching up take place? It's actually remarkably simple and it very representative of a lot of Ross courses. To play Seminole or some other Ross courses like it well in a "championship" set up you just have to understand the various arrangements he seems to use design-wise.

Ross uses a lot of back to front sloping greens and most of them have open fronts. You just have to do everything you can on those all day to stay below pins for either recovery or putting. If you don't do that on those holes you're going to have to play remarkably defensive all day or else you have a real problem. On his holes that have greens that are well guarded by water, bunkers etc which may not be that sloped or contoured you have to play higher softer shots (if they're par 3s) or simply get closer to the greens for shorter higher, softer approaches if they're the par 4s and 5s.

In 24 hours they can take the course back out of that set-up and you can pretty much two putt or recovery from anywhere. Could this be said about any golf course? Absolutely not because most courses don't have as much of what Ross used so much of----basically some real sloping greens and those that aren't he guarded them really well. To play something like that well you have to play real strategically to stay below pins whether recoverying or putting. Again, if you don't do that most all day you will have problem or problems along the way.

Many to most all Ross courses are not that demanding of driving in and of itself---in other words you never get as penalized DIRECTLY on drives as most all other architects. Ross was a second shot architect---maybe the subtlest second-shot architect there ever was---but it really can have an effect on scoring in a "championship" set-up. That's probably precisely why in the US Open in 1999 the USGA used much shorter rough than they have in years and have since. Ross's ultimate "second shot" course--Pinehurst #2--pretty much accomplished everything it needed to as a "championship" test simply because of its greens and green-ends.

[Scott Coan]

I do think it would be interesting to see what I could do on a true championship course.  My sense is that it would be easy to do a course that is testing for the Tour pros, as long as you don't worry about making it fun for the average golfer the rest of the year.  But I would want to accomplish both, and that will be very hard with today's conditions.

Tom, I am curious as to your thoughts on Cape Kidnappers in regards to this thread.  I would think that if the pins were placed with the pros in mind that they would be well and truly tested, especially if the wind kicks up.

Cheers,
Scott

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

Appreciate the Main Line put down.

If you didn't understand my argument then maybe you need to re-read it. I may be selling beer my friend but at least I'm in the ball park and not barking from the cheap seats as some are wont to do -- hint, hint.

If an architect only designs one particular style of course -- as Tom Fazio, Inc. seems to do (with exceptions noted) then I have to wonder if that architect has the capacity to design "outside the convenient box" they are most comfortable with.

The baseball analogy deals with the ultimate ball player -- those who can throw, run, hit and hit for power are the rare breed. Willie Mays is clearly in that category. The same applies to the ultimate architect. I don't doubt what Tom Doak said regarding the fact that certain architects design certain courses because clients want a layout of their to resemble what was done previously by the designer. Nonetheless, the onus is on the designer to avoid being tagged as a "johnny one note" in taking such jobs over and over and over again. Fazio, Inc. doesn't seem to mind but I agree with a number of his detractors who see the great number of his courses being commercially successfully but from an art and long range perspective being equivalent to the food you get at Applebee's or TGIF's.

Clearly, having the wherewithal to design a "tough championship caliber design" may not be necessary for someone to establish a solid reputation but I believe the benefit of the doubt goes to the designer fully capable in being able to add something more to their portfolio than just simply a tired copy from previous efforts.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Wayne's put-down was not a "Main Line" put-down--not even close---it was just a good old fashioned everyday, everywhere put-down!  

And I don't think anyone on here really needs to re-read your posts, or smell coffee, or anything else. Most just don't agree with you pretty plain and simple, despite how many courses you keep reminding us you visit and play. In your case, like in most with RTJ, quantity just ain't working for some reason.

I have every confidence that Tom Fazio very easily could design and build some excellent championship tests or some highly strategic tests for the average golfer too. I believe he has the talent to do it. The quandry with Fazio is only why he never has or never does and probably never will! If you've ever listened to Fazio speak about architecture you will know that there is another very closely connected factor that he mentions himself every time without fail. It's called MONEY!

But that's another story altogether!  

[T_MacWood]

What was the first example of such a design?

What are some the great courses in the world that aren't championship caliber designs?

Bob
I agree with you. I don't recall Jones even using the term championship caliber design (nor MacKenzie), as it was defined in those days, he made it clear that style of golf or golf architecture did not appeal to him.

[TEPaul]

"What was the first example of such a design?"

In America, it seems like Leeds tried over a period of much time to evolve Myopia into more and more of a championship course. The old guys who designed and played tournaments certainly did refer to it as the best course in America at that early time and it did seem to be mentioned by them as the premier tournament venue for them way back.

After that some referred to NGLA as a championship design but it seems MacDonald strove right off the bat to make it more user friendly for a greater spectrum of players too. When Tillinghast mentioned that Taylor said that some American courses were too hard and apparently undemocratic Tillinghast felt Taylor was referring to NGLA.

There's no question at all that Pine Valley was conceived to be an out and out championship design right after the winter golf idea was dropped early on as the primary purpose for the course.

It does not matter that PVGC has never really held major championships (that's a totally different story). The course was designed with the expert player only in mind and that Crump himself definitely did mention. He thought of it as a training ground to make the best players of the area better competitors on higher levels--eg the national level----and that too is mentioned numerous times in all kinds ways in all kinds of material. Perhaps in your voluminous research, Tom, you too have run across it.

[T_MacWood]

TE
What characteristics made Myopia a championship caliber design? Shinnecock was Leeds original inspiration (prior to his journey abroad in 1902) at MHC..was that first Shinnecock a championship caliber design?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I think a "championship test" was inherent in ANGC's design.

The intent was to host a tournament for the best players in the world.  And, RTJ was one of the elite players of the day.

I can't see how anyone could maintain that ANGC was just a little old member's course in Georgia that accidently fell into hosting a tourmament for the best players in the world as they stopped off for a rest from their travels from Florida to points north.

If that was the case, Ross's Augusta Country Club would have been the site six years earlier.

The design and yardage for the golf course are indicative of its dual use.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
When looking at a design is it either "a little old member's course" or "championship" course? I'm not sure Jones would agree with you.

What did Jones say about his intention to have ANGC host a tournament?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

When it comes to what ANGC was intended to be, to answer your questions I'd refer to Bob Crosby's post #26. At this point I believe he knows a whole lot more about ANGC and Jones's ideas than most of us do.  

[T_MacWood]

TE
I agree with Bob's post #26, but it doesn't address Jones' original intention to have ANGC host a tournament...I don't believe it even mentions tournament.

The early examples you cite of Myopia and PVGC are in my mind pure championship designs....there was really no desire to give the average or beginning golfer a break. There are others as well...Bethpage comes to mind with its warning on the first tee.

At the other extreme you have courses that were never intended to test the highly skilled golfer...some resort courses, public courses and private clubs.

Most of the golf courses fall somewhere in between, often leaning one direction more than the other. ANGC, and historically St. Andrews, would fall in between. I think most would agree those two courses were standout examples of a type of a hybrid design, that was able to both test the most skilled golfers, while at the same time giving the average guy a fairly large break.

Many of the golf architects of the golden age strived to accomplish this ballance, but few were as successful as St. Andrews and ANGC. To call them championship caliber designs is no doubt true, but it is also misleading because it groups them with courses that were never designed to placate the weak.

[Brian Phillips]

Bob,

In the books that I have about Augusta, I can never find the word championship being used in relation to the design and construction of the course...ever.  Would you agree?

In the book by Roberts 'The Story of Augusta National' he says:

'Bob Jones had planned for some years to build a golf course to his own liking.  It was a creative instinct on his part.

In playing various courses, Bob had become a student of golf course architecture and was eager to try his hand at it.  His idea was to utilize the natural advantages of the property that might be selected, rather than be to impose a particular type of golf hole which might result in artificiality rather than the nature-made layout he had in mind.'

The course was so well routed that no one ever had to think about whether it was 'championship' standard or not.  I really don't think they cared anyway.

Tom Paul,

Let's throw your question back another way.  Can an architect be whole if he or she has never had to work on tough ground with tough a budget?

Brian

[BCrosby]

Both Bobby's and his wife Mary's families wintered in Augusta for many years. The area (including Aiken, S.C. about 20 miles away) was at the time a very popular Eastern big money winter resort. The Morgans, the Lowells, the Fricks, the whole bit, spent a couple of months every year in the area. Massive hotels were built, a large number of golf and riding clubs existed (some of which still exist). It was the place to be in the cold months until Florida resorts began to be developed in the mid-20's.

I mention that only to give background to the kind of club (not course) Jones wanted to found. His model, I think, was Cypress Point GC, also located in a vacation spot for the rich. It was to be a small private club composed of wealthy men that would afford Jones lots of privacy.

Also like Cypress, there was no intention (at least early on) to hold national tournaments at ANGC. The Great Depression changed their thinking on that. The suvival of the club became  an issue. The idea of the Masters came only after the USGA told them they wouldn't set an early spring date for the US Open. So Roberts suggested they hold an invitational tournament, trading on Jones's name. Jones did not like the idea initially, but eventually came around. And the rest is history.

So no, I don't think there was much thought given to ANGC as a championship venue at the time it was built.  

More to the point, the concept of a "championship" course is just not the way MacK or Jones thought about architecture. That is more like the way the USGA or real estate developers talk.

Bob

[TEPaul]

BobC:

I hope I showed you that letter hanging on the wall at GMGC from Jones inviting members of the club to catch one of the private trains that ANGC had going down the East Coast to take prospective members to see ANGC. I'm sure that letter from Jones must have gone out to a lot of clubs to encourage members to catch that train in various cities down the Eastern seaboard.

Do you think they'd welcome me to ANGC if I called them now and told them I'm sorry I was about 70 years late for that train but I'd like to come anyway?

[PThomas]

re the original question:  IMHO, no

if none of Tom D's courses ever host a championship, I'd still say he's had a pretty fair career, wouldn't you agree?

[TEPaul]

PaulT:

I agree with you---eg a famous championship course is not necessary to make a respected career. On the other hand, name me a respected championship course whose architect is not respected or famous? Even redesigning championship courses has probably made the reputation of a few.  

Which architect has the most courses in his career inventory that could be considered championship courses? Would it be Ross? Tillinghast? Perhaps Pete Dye?

[PThomas]

Tom -- your first question is a tough one -- I cna't think of any offhand

a more complex version of your question would be at the time the championship was played, how many of the courses were done by an architect who was well-known at that time...e.g., was Trent Jones really well known at the time of the 51 open??

re your second, that would be another interesting one to research who are the leaders in that category....Dye is the one that comes to my mind for relatively recent courses

[Sean_A]

Guys

What is a championship design/course?  Seems to me that championships have to be played on a course to be called a championship course.  Augusta National certainly qualifies.  The degree of difficulty the course poses is beside the point.  Few people would dream of saying TOC is not a championship course, but we all know there are far tougher courses out there that will never get a championship.  Championship=difficulty is for the most part a USGA invention.  Most championships in various parts of the world don't follow the USGA mould.

Does it matter whether or not this was the intent of the designers?  I personally don't think Jones/Mac had any idea what the course would come to symbolize because of The Masters.  How could they?

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

"Guys
What is a championship design/course?"

I guess that's part of this thread's question. When was the term "championship" first mentioned in the context of golf architecture and what did it mean?

I don't know when it was first mentioned but this from Flynn in 1927;

"While in the past 10 years or more the yardage held up as being suitable for a "championship" course ranged between 6000 to 6500 yards, this year's open championship was decided on a course approximately 7,000 yards long. But all courses can not be "championship" courses, that is, links where championships are decided, for that would be too expensive for the average club."

Flynn also mentioned that the 'bunker scheme' on a championship course should be different. Flynn also proposed that the USGA should have app six of their own golf courses;

         "The United States Golf Association might develop, sponsor and subsidize sectional courses, say six in all, which would be used for all major championships and which could be developed to the nth degree.
         The above courses could be developed by arrangement with existing clubs or could be built entirely new, the latter perhaps the better plan.
         In this way it would be possible for the best architects collarborating with the Golf Association to develop their courses and thus establish a standard from which other clubs might profit.
         Under this arrangement it would be possible to modify or improve each course for any condition that might come up in relation to the development of the game such as the ball question or other important factors that might have a bearing on the case without creating controversy among the members.
         Experiments supervised by the USGA Green Section might be carried out under actual playing conditions and the experience gained distributed to the member clubs.
         In a measure this would eliminate the misnomer "championship course" as used at present. There would actually be six championship courses and not the greater number that are now so-called perhaps by an overzealous arhitect of enthusiatic members.*

         *The above suggestion by Mr Flynn is interesting and well worth consideration. The USGA has not at present any such scheme in view, but it has been informally discussed by the members of the Executive Committee as individuals.

The above is from the USGA Green Section Report, October 1927

(as to what a "championship" course was, obviously in Flynn's mind length and various bunkering schemes had a lot to do with it).