[Llye Smith]

A point was made in a previous thread about Winged Foot's premium on accuracy off the tee, long par-4s, elevated greens and deep bunkers not being much fun. And then... "But maybe the West is a good tournament course, so who cares."

This statement struck me a bit funny.

I wonder...
There are different types of tournaments. Shouldn't it follow that there are different types of tournament courses. Horses for courses, no?

The Am is one type of tournament.  Certainly, some courses are better-suited to match play and up close and personal gallery contact than others.

On the other hand, a modern Open venue on either side of the Atlantic has a suite of requirements that have little to do with the golf.  Infrastructure, TV, parking, transportation, hotel rooms, cooperation from the local constabulary and/or membership, etc. So some of the best courses can't even be considered.

So a couple of questions:
- What makes it a good tournament course vs. some kind of good "non-tourney" course?
- What makes a good tournament course vs. what makes a good tournament venue - - - and are they mutually exclusive?
- Can a "fun" course also be a good tournament course? Or can a good tournament course be "fun?"

[Mark Brown]

Lyle

First let's define a tournament course as one that hosts majors and other premier events like the Ryder Cup.

Ideally, it should be a stern, but fair (not like the Shinnecock Open) examination of the players skill and mettle that tests every essential aspect of the game in an equal measure -- driving, long and short irons, and short game skills including pitching, chipping, sand play and putt. I

In reality, each major favors some aspects of the game more than others, ie. The Masters is known for its test of iron play and putting. The U.S. Open has traditonally tested driving accuracy, and mettle. The Open is a good all around test of golf in all types of weather conditions particularly wind. There is a little less pressure in the area of putting. In recent years, I think the PGA has been the best all around test of golf because of the tournament sites and their wisdom in setting up the course and maintaining the condition of the course fairly and wisely.

I think most of the tournament sites in the past few years are also fun to play in normal conditions, with the exception of the U.S. Open several times.

Some of the stern tournament courses that may not be a lot of fun for us average golfers are Medinah, Winged Foot, Oakmont, Carnoustie(?), Oakland Hills, Olympic-Lake, Bethpage-Black, Baltusrol, Congressional, Firestone-South and possibly Aronomink. But, of course, this is all subjective.
 

[Llye Smith]

Ok… I think my point is being missed. Perhaps I've asked the wrong question.

You said you enjoy Winged Foot's East course more than the West as more playable, enjoyable, fun. Not a completely unpopular sentiment.

The West consistently ranks significantly higher than the East year after year. So what is it that makes the West rank so highly? Is it the specificity and or length of shots required? Is it the severity of the greens and penalty for missing them? Is it the long championship history and trying to make that curling 12 footer that Jones made on 18 to force a playoff in '29? I've never played the East and only seen the West as a spectator so it's difficult for me to make specific comments about Winged Foot, however…

…  take another course you mention. Baltusrol. The Lower course consistently ranks higher than the Upper, often to its complete exclusion. I know many people who believe the Upper is a better, more interesting test of golf. Certainly the features of the greens on the Upper are more interesting. But the Lower is the "tournament course" (2000 US Am, notwithstanding) with all that length and narrowness and green speed and probably most important, championship history.

Does that stern nature and history automatically make it a better ground upon which to play golf?

[Llye Smith]

RM –
Accepted. And agreed on the "good match play courses" assessment. My own personal belief is "quirky" and "unfair" are as integral to the game as wind and weather. IMHO, those who argue divots as GUR should get over their big, bad selves and play it down like the rest of us.

That said, I do enjoy a good, long stretch of the legs once in awhile. I played Bethpage Black for the first time back in June (sorry, I seem to be on a bit of Tillinghast jag). I played the Blue in the morning trying to qualify (in vain) for the US Publinks, so my afternoon was free to wander over onto the big ol' bear.

I played from the back tees (including the new one on #5) on a damp-ish, drizzly, breezy afternoon. Obviously very impressed and had a ball playing with another single – an off-duty starter at the park. I couldn't help but think, though, that this very, very tough 7,300 experience (both physically and between the ears) might have more of it's interesting features come out at 6,980.

[A_Clay_Man]

Ideally, it should be a stern, but fair (not like the Shinnecock Open)

 But, of course, this is all subjective.
 

Mark- Are you saying SHGC at this years open was too stern a test?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()