European talent needs world-class courses on Tour
GREG TURNER
A SOURCE of much discussion at Troon this week has been the relative lack of European success in recent major championships. Indeed since Nick Faldo’s memorable comeback victory at the ’96 Masters only Olazabal and Lawrie (both in ’99) have taken a major trophy. This is not to say there is not some real strength. Harrington, Garcia, Clarke, Jacobson, Casey, Jimenez, Bjorn and Haeggman are all currently ranked in the world’s top 50 but none have quite made that step to greatness.
So how can it be that from a tour that has grown and prospered at an astonishing rate more champion golfers have not emerged? In the Eighties and early Nineties there were European names that dominated the game. Lyle, Faldo, Ballesteros, Woosnam, Langer and, to a lesser extent Olazabal, all reigned supreme. They were among the dominant figures in golf and at a time when the European Tour was a relative minnow (total prizemoney in ’84 was under £3million - around a fifth of that available in the US. Last year it was over £70m - around half of the US pot). Today Europe undoubtedly produces a depth of talent far in excess of the Eightie however has failed to spawn pre-eminent individuals.
To find the answers for this riddle we need to again go back to the Eighties. Traditional venues were paid a hosting fee and as the tour expanded and infra-structural requirements grew, so too did the financial expectations of the host clubs.
At the same time there was the emergence of proprietorial clubs who could see a real value in the visibility they could gain from hosting a tour event. Being paid to come beat the hell out of having to pay to be there so the tour, both understandably and enthusiastically, courted these new suitors.
The result was an explosion in prize funds that unquestionably broadened the base of European professional golf. It significantly increased the number of players able to view golf as a legitimate career option and enabled them to go about their business in a far more professional and structured manner. Not only did players improve but so too did the support structures around them.
The injection of money into the game at the top end had a trickle down effect allowing coaches, nutritionists, psychologists, physiotherapists and any number of financial advisers to assist in the process and share in the bounty. Everything in the garden was, ostensibly, rosy. But this seemingly symbiotic relationship was not without its drawbacks. Most of these new courses were significantly inferior to their more traditional predecessors. Mostly built on farmland so as to fulfil the commercial requirements of the projects (the driving force usually being residential development rather than utilising the most appropriate golfing land) the turfs were poorer, the grasses less ideal and the layouts rudimentary.
Money was in abundance to disguise these problems through carefully managed presentation but in the end these venues had insurmountable problems.
Essentially, many of the new courses stank. The most effective formula remained the same week in, week out - long and high from the tee, dead aim at the flag.
Manufacturers adapted their equipment to player demands and designers reacted to player expectation. Flat fairways, long grass, one shot around the greens and one swing for everywhere else. Rewards were for the ability to repeat the same swing over and over rather than anything that resembled creativity.
The great players of the Eighties, on the other hand, developed their games on courses designed and conditioned to provide a far more varied and wide-ranging test. In needing to hit a far greater variety of shots they also learned much more about their swings and how to control the ball. They became great because the courses they played honed rather than blunted their skills.
So what is the answer? The current money obsession must be replaced with a more balanced outlook where quality is also rewarded. A means must be found to reward promoters and federations for selecting the best courses to host their events (currently dates are essentially awarded on the basis of prize-money alone).
The courses most suited as preparation for majors should be awarded dates leading into those majors (a swing of links venues in the lead up to the Open Championship would be a good start) although quite how one would prepare for that annual madness of the US Open I’m not sure (perhaps a couple of weeks in an psychiatric asylum).
A ranking system that gave added value to high-quality venues would also act as an incentive.
To be overly critical of the Tour for its chosen path would, however, be uncharitable in the extreme. Given the financial realities it faced there were few alternative options available, but now is the time to react to the unfortunate side effects.
If a means is found to compete more often on quality courses it is more likely Europe’s elite will develop their full potential and podium finishes in major championships will again become the norm rather than the exception.