My Main Takeaway from Houston

[John Kavanaugh]

Are we the second best in Texas yet? I played Colonial a couple of years back in a tournament and have no problem with Memorial ahead of it.

[Pat Burke]

Looked like a good solid course with sound design and challenges without insane length or craziness


And it challenged the best


Sounds like a helluva job Tom

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I noticed during coverage, it seemed there were very few fairway bunkers on the course.  After reviewing the aerial it looks like there are only 3 on the entire course, (as opposed to 16 greenside bunkers). Was this a function of the clay-like soil or perhaps a tip from Brooks that fairway bunkers aren't much of a deterrent to pros, or perhaps why build many if they can just hit over them?

My first interaction with Brooks was to send him a bunch of questions by email, and I was surprised to get some long answers back the next day - I guess he was having trouble sleeping in Korea.  One of the things I asked was if he would care if we didn't have many bunkers.  They're a pain to clean up if you have rain for an event, and it seems like the pros either ignore them entirely or play around the nasty ones.  He had several ideas of other ways to make approach shots tricky.


Originally I was thinking we would dig extensions of the ravine hazards that were already there, but once I understood the need to reclaim water for irrigation, we needed a bigger lake, and couldn't get the water to go that way if we dug anything deep.

[Jason Topp]

I did not watch a lot of the tournament but was struck by how many iron shots I saw bounding out of control around the greens.  Did the players struggle to figure out how to attack them?  Were they that difficult?  Or did I see a skewed sample of shots?


It was nice to see some variety in the challenge presented at a tour event. 

[Tom_Doak]

I did not watch a lot of the tournament but was struck by how many iron shots I saw bounding out of control around the greens.  Did the players struggle to figure out how to attack them?  Were they that difficult?  Or did I see a skewed sample of shots?

Shots out of the rough were just hard to control without spin.  I heard the winner on the radio today talking about how careful he had to be from the rough, and that his key to winning was driving it in the fairway so much on the weekend so he didn't have to play defensively.


And it did just occur to me that not many Tour courses have elevated greens with the banks mowed tight so the ball will get away.

[Edward Glidewell]

And it did just occur to me that not many Tour courses have elevated greens with the banks mowed tight so the ball will get away.

Even when they do, they can be neutered by the Tour's set-up. Either by deciding to grow rough around the greens or by putting the pins in areas where players don't really have to worry about those banks.

[Lou_Duran]

Congratulations to Tom Doak, Don Mahaffey, Nuzzo!, et. al.  The course as presented certainly challenged the best players without the need for crazy weather.  No longer a question- TD can design and build a championship course.


Ralph Plummer noted decades ago that rough was the most effective, controllable feature to hold tournament scores down.  Bermuda doesn't have to be more than an inch or two high to create uncertainty and diminish ball control.  Coupled with dry, firm conditions, even if the wind doesn't materialize, and scoring is very difficult.  Both can be moderated inexpensively when the competition is finished to make the course playable for the daily golfer.


From what I've heard from others who've played the course post renovation, it is greatly improved and well-worth the extra effort to get on the tee sheet.

[Andrew Harvie]

For those who have played/seen both (or Tom of course), how does Memorial Park compare to Rawls? Rawls looks more flashy, but perhaps Memorial Park has better putting surfaces? I really like Rawls, I think it's a clever design, so I'd be curious as to where Memorial Park lands

[JMEvensky]

Congratulations to Tom Doak, Don Mahaffey, Nuzzo!, et. al.  The course as presented certainly challenged the best players without the need for crazy weather.  No longer a question- TD can design and build a championship course.


Ralph Plummer noted decades ago that rough was the most effective, controllable feature to hold tournament scores down.  Bermuda doesn't have to be more than an inch or two high to create uncertainty and diminish ball control.  Coupled with dry, firm conditions, even if the wind doesn't materialize, and scoring is very difficult.  Both can be moderated inexpensively when the competition is finished to make the course playable for the daily golfer.


From what I've heard from others who've played the course post renovation, it is greatly improved and well-worth the extra effort to get on the tee sheet.

I think your first sentence is dead on. The players seemed to like the course and it was a compelling tournament to watch on TV.


As to Bermuda rough, anyone who grew up playing in the South has known forever there's nothing more challenging than an inch of it to play out of. Diminishing ball control/creating uncertainty ain't the half of it.

[Peter Pallotta]

JM -
Yes, it was a revelation/disconnect for someone who has not played Bermuda. I kept hearing players say how important it was to hit the fairway, and I kept seeing their approach shots from the rough not holding the greens, and so I expected the rough to be of the ‘5 inch US Open variety’ — only to be amazed that it was in fact this relatively itty-bitty Bermuda that was so effective!

Don’t remember if it’s been mentioned here, but for me the most interesting and telling comment from a tour pro was that Memorial was [a rare] ‘2nd shot golf course where the tee shot is really important too’.

[Kalen Braley]

I think even more importantly, it wasn't so much that they had Bermuda rough, it was that MP still provided ample room to hit the fairways as opposed to so many other setups we see on tour with 25 yard fairways and countless pitch outs.

I've never played Bermuda rough, but I didn't see anyone pitch out in 5-6 hours of viewing time, which would suggest that good players can usually still hit their next shot around the green and perhaps find even more trouble, instead of the one-dimensional 80 yard pitch outs...

[jeffwarne]

it was fun watching many of the best players in the world tackle our course this week.  It made them hit drives in the fairway, hit careful approaches, make difficult recoveries around the greens, and putt well, too.  The maintenance meld was perfect and kudos to Jason Harsh and his crew, with Don Mahaffey's crew assisting.


I was invited to dinner on Friday night with a couple of young Tour players, and as part of the conversation about the setup, I mentioned that this was how things used to be:  you'd take a good old course with slopey greens that were 9 or 9 1/2 on the Stimpmeter, dial them up to 12.5 and let the rough grow, and the same course would provide a reasonable challenge for the pros.  (It's really the only way to make a course "playable for the members, but challenging for the pros," as everyone always promises but fails to accomplish.)


But the problem, I said, is that if this course was a private club for Jim Crane, instead of a muni, he'd want the greens 12.5 every day - and then I'd be forced to choose between making the course too hard for the members, or not challenging enough for the pros, because there is no slack in the maintenance to take advantage of.


Everyday green speeds of 11 and 12 have made a mess of golf, IMO.  The game was plenty fun before that was possible.  Just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you should.

bingo- the Lake Wobegon effect.
Everybody's above average,and has to have "fast" greens and design suffers.
Modern greens  are designed for 12 so at 13 they're not really scary, but simply inviting for pros.
"Slack in the maintenance"-that's a good phrase, and soooo true.


a bit off topic but another dirty little secret about greens designed to stimp about "8" which Long Cove's were when I started there in '88, is that the slopes allowable at that pace DEMAND solid contact on everything but a downhiller, and large variance in stroke size(something you rarely see today)

[jeffwarne]

I sopke today on air about Augusta missing a golden opportunity to play The Masters in October, on non overseeded fairways(leavng time to overseed for the members and the following Masters AFTER the event)
I cited Houston and MP as a glowing example of how ANGC could've shined with bermuda firm fast fairways, fall colors and actual color contrast-and balls bounding into the trees rather than stopping in the soft fairways or second cut.
The current rain may well render that point moot, but I played a public outside Augusta Monday where the bermuda fairways were fiery firm and fast from the 8 days(at least) of no rain leading up to that.
Poulter posted a video of ANGC the same day with sprinklers going everywhere keeping the immature rye green and alive in the unseasonably warm weather(which was also making the bermuda pop underneath)
Adding rain to an already soft, heavily irrigated course has an adverse cumulative effect that may have been avoided if firm and lean going into the rain event.
A shame that so many want to blather and wax poetically about the sub air, as if that's the way forward, rather than a more practical, sustainable and frankly more attractive solution.


I get the overseed when dialing in for April after a long winter, but an October Masters was an opportunity missed.

[SL_Solow]

I really enjoyed the tournament and have little to add in that regard.  I will comment on the observations about green speed started by Tom.  I am old enough to remember when really fast bent greens rolled at slightly over 8 on the stimpmeter.  Speed is relative and I can remember seeing good players putt off greens on steep downhill putts even though the greens would now be viewed as very slow. Strokes were developed to handle those greens and thus the perception of fast and slow was different than today. Improved grasses and greens keeping techniques have allowed courses to maintain greens for long periods of time at speeds which only 30 -35 years ago were unimaginable. I salute the abilities of those who developed the grasses and learned how to maintain the greens. Superintendents do an amazing job today and are generally better informed than their predecessors who were remarkable in their own way.  I suspect that there is no turning back.  Moreover, it appears that the newer strains are actually requiring less inputs.  But I fear that these developments have made the design of greens less interesting except for those who are willing to risk making areas unputtable.  Moreover as noted, the increased speeds are only more difficult for the average players; the pros prefer fast greens with smaller breaks as they can control speed easier than playing extreme breaks.  It would be interesting to see the putting stats for a tournament played on golden age greens running under 9.  I suspect that we will never find out.  Incidentally, the game was just as fun but try to attract members to a course maintained with greens in that range.

[Ben Attwood]

I really enjoyed watching the tournament. It seemed that as the week progressed the players honed their strategy, which wasn't always obvious, and once they worked it out the best ones separated themselves from the field. How much of this was because it was a new tour stop or because of the architecture I don't know. Probably both.


It may have just been me but I haven't seen the pros miss so many short putts in a while. It really added tension to the viewing - a big difference to just seeing them bang in straight 6fter after 6fter.


It may have required a bit of extra attention but it can surely be a good thing to see pros challenged on a course with very few bunkers, width and at a public course. It proposes an agenda for the future of golf that is much more sustainable. Well done.

[Tom_Doak]

It would be interesting to see the putting stats for a tournament played on golden age greens running under 9.  I suspect that we will never find out.

I am fairly certain the putting stats would be worse if this were done as an experiment- it takes all golfers time to adjust to a new green speed, and having to hit the ball harder is notveasily done with some of the newfangled putting strokes.


It would be more revealing if it was a year-long experiment, but that I am sure we will never see.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


Sorry I missed the TV coverage, but did review a lot of the pre-tourney drone shots and blog spots.  I have read your responses, but wonder more specifically, what, if anything, did you takeaway that may be considered a change to design philosophy moving forward?


You typically opine for very wide fw, yet you mention the medium (?) depth rough made it hard to hold greens.  Are narrower fw to be expected from you in the future?


You mentioned greens being sub divided with internal contours, but being gentler than your usual.  They still seemed to be a challenge, so are gentler greens more a considerations now?


Lastly, you mention shots scooting off the green from the rough.  Did you grade some sections of the green as fall away greens to enhance that?  Or was the fw chipping area and downslope to carry a shot to the fringe away enough?


Thanks in advance.

[Pat Burke]

It would be interesting to see the putting stats for a tournament played on golden age greens running under 9.  I suspect that we will never find out.

I am fairly certain the putting stats would be worse if this were done as an experiment- it takes all golfers time to adjust to a new green speed, and having to hit the ball harder is notveasily done with some of the newfangled putting strokes.


It would be more revealing if it was a year-long experiment, but that I am sure we will never see.

I agree from my experiences Tom
Traveling week in week out, sometimes around the world, I had a much more difficult time making the adjustment to slow greens.
Going from Australia to Asia was always a major challenge for me. The greens from one week to the next were more than 2-3 feet different speed wise


But even after a heavy rain delay, making an adjustment when we restarted was always tougher for me


Some players did it well obviously but I know quite a few struggled

[Tom_Doak]

 

You typically opine for very wide fw, yet you mention the medium (?) depth rough made it hard to hold greens.  Are narrower fw to be expected from you in the future?   --  Depends on the setting and the client's focus.  At a place like Ballyneal or Tara Iti, I'd rather have nearly all of the grass be cut tight, so we don't create a bunch of extra mowing lines that distract the eye. We aren't building those places to challenge Tour players or keep golfers' scores to a certain standard, and the wind and the firm surface are really the main challenges.  But, I do think the trend toward ever wider fairways has to end soon, so I have been working on cutting back widths and mixing in some narrower holes.  [Always the contrarian!]
    Memorial Park was a good setting for something different, both because we wanted to challenge the pros, and because in the parkland setting you have to stop mowing the fairway somewhere!  You can't mow it tight all the way under the trees, so then it doesn't matter much whether the fairway is wider or narrower.  We did not vary those widths too much at Memorial . . . the sand cap is usually about 40 yards wide to include 30-35 yards of fairway and a bit of the rough on each side.




You mentioned greens being sub divided with internal contours, but being gentler than your usual.  They still seemed to be a challenge, so are gentler greens more a considerations now?   --   Partly, the greens are gentler because they were all very flat to start with, and introducing a lot of tilt was unnatural on that site.  But I knew the Tour wouldn't use hole locations at greater than 2% so we just tried to work within those confines and see what we could come up with, similar to what we did at Pacific Dunes when Mr. Keiser said he didn't want "severe greens".  I'd still prefer to build greens with more variety of slopes where holes can be cut.




Lastly, you mention shots scooting off the green from the rough.  Did you grade some sections of the green as fall away greens to enhance that?  Or was the fw chipping area and downslope to carry a shot to the fringe away enough?   -- Many greens are crowned at the edges, Robby Ware from the Tour remarked that they couldn't go quite as close to the edge of the greens for hole locations as they normally do because of those slopes, but functionally the hole locations were 3-4 paces from where the ball would get away from the green. 
     The 14th and 18th greens tilt almost entirely to the back, and portions of the 4th, 7th, 8th and 11th do as well.  That doesn't work so well visually at Memorial as it would if the site was a bit hillier and we could build those on the downhill approach shots; I heard a handful of complaints about "blind shots" but to me it really doesn't matter for the pros since they are playing to a certain yardage and they know exactly how far left or right of the flag they want to be.




Thanks in advance.

[Garland Bayley]

.

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:


Thanks for reposting my response to Jeff, legibly.  I will try to fix the initial post now.  Using bold must have screwed something up?

[David_Elvins]

FWIW, to paraphrase Max Homa's comment on the course - more courses should be like that on tour.  The only issue was the fairways were too narrow and it would be better if you could open up an angle into some pins and still be on the fairway.

[Tom_Doak]

The only issue was the fairways were too narrow and it would be better if you could open up an angle into some pins and still be on the fairway.

Ideally, yes, but trying to do that was complicated by the existing fairway corridors, the trees, and the need to sand cap the fairways.