[John Moore II]

To go away from Trahan a bit (not sure if this is here all ready, I didn't read every post) but Geoff Ogilvy sure made it seem like he was quite the fan of Kapalua during his interview with the Golf Channel yesterday. I'd take Ogilvy's opinion on architecture, as an actual strategic player, long before I'd listen to Trahan who is basically a bomb-gouge player.

[Michael Moore]

D.J. TRAHAN: . . . So, I mean, you kind of just have to come here this week and accept the course for what it is, play the course the way it asks to be played, because this course demands that you play it a certain way. There's really no way around it.

Based on what I have seen on television, it seems that the slopes at Kapalua are causing the greatest players in the world to play their approaches from very similar spots and that on certain greens that everyone is trying to feed the ball onto a certain slope and see what happens.

This is my interpretation of the comments from Mr. Trahan.

[BCrosby]

Perhaps my bicycle analogy was too clever by half.

My point is that Trahan thinks that Plantation dictates play because it is that rare course whose architectural features, in combination with the windy conditions, mean that even the mega long knockers have to pay attention to the course's design features.

Specifically, the course dictates play not with narrow playing corridors. It has extraordinarily wide corridors with relatively few bunker and fewer trees. It dictates play by reason of its contours and angles. 

Unlike the standard PGA architectural fare, they can't hit the ball just anywhere at Plantation. That's why this is one of my favorite tournaments.

Bob

[Matthew Rose]

It's a good example of a course that needs to be firm and fast to play properly, I think. I played it when it was very wet and got no roll at all; needless to say I was hitting mid and long irons all day and didn't particularly have a lot of fun. When we got to #6, all of our tee balls hit the downslope and plugged.

I loved the course though, especially #1, #6, #8, #14, #15, and #17. I couldn't play #18 because it was too dark, which was a shame.

[Adam Clayman]

This stat was thrown out during today's telecast. I believe they were Tour stats.

Easiest greens to hit, hardest to putt.

What's the likely hood Trahan was speaking to reporters the way Tim Robbins spoke in Bull Durham? All Cliche'.

Plus, Lets say on any given day, there's one better way to play the course. It's largely Dependent on pin positions, firmness and wind. On a quality design there's a wide range of different ways to be better positioned, day in day out, as the variables change. On a not so quality design, that range is significantly narrower, day to day, because the architecture always dictates the same best positions. Anti-strategy esque.

 

[Kevin_Reilly]

I was hitting mid and long irons all day and didn't particularly have a lot of fun.

I loved the course though

Just curious...the conclusion doesn't seem to fit the buildup.  What did you love about the course, given you weren't having fun?  Did you mentally make adjustments for the fact that conditions weren't ideal?

[Damon Groves]

It seems that Trahan's comments are a reflection of the type of golfers that are being groomed for the PGA. If you look at most Nationwide tour courses they are primarily Bomb and Gouge type courses with little strategy and that is the type of golfers that are graduating from the Nationwide to the PGA. After years of playing those type of courses and being that type of player, when those same players get to the PGA and run into strategic designs like Plantation and Riviera it is almost as if they are not sure what to do.

This is the difference between Tiger and most of the rest of the Tour. He shows his mental prowess most when he plays strategic courses. I am sure we have all played our local favorite that after years of playing we have figured out the way to play the course for our game. We are able to score much better than we did when we first started playing that course. We then play with someone playing the course for the first time, maybe even a better golfer than us, and they struggle. Tiger just figures it out after a few practice rounds and then his physical talents allow him to stick to it. 

[Rich Goodale]

Mr. Strategy (Ogilvy) and Mr. Anti-Strategy (Trahan) together in the final pairing, with Mr. Shotmaker (Leonard) thrown in for a bonus.  It will be like Mothra vs. Godzilla with Rodan waiting in the wings, as it were......

Let me know what happens, as British TV cables don't reach all the way to Hawaii (nasty budget cutting...)

[Matthew Rose]

I was hitting mid and long irons all day and didn't particularly have a lot of fun.

I loved the course though

Just curious...the conclusion doesn't seem to fit the buildup.  What did you love about the course, given you weren't having fun?  Did you mentally make adjustments for the fact that conditions weren't ideal?

Well, I had a rather frustrating round, but I found that after awhile it was going to ruin my experience if I worried too much about how I played. Once I separated my game from the architecture, I obviously appreciated it more.

[David Druzisky]

Having played Plantation a couple times I marvel at how well the tour players score there, but I understand it.  At their level they can over power those variables that Tom listed better than the rest of us. And yes if they game plan it correctly - which they do not often need to do - they can do what they do.  It is a resort course and not necessarily designed for Easter Sunday mass.  I love it and would love it more with just a little less elevation change.

[TEPaul]

"The question is not what defines a good golfer but what defines a good golf course.  My argument is that for the pros the line between good and bad is shrinking, and for we hackers it is getting terribly blurred, in part because there is such a disconnect these days betweeen what we can do (and do do) vs. the pros."


Interesting post there Richard! 

It seems to me your 'argument' is pretty much a nonsequitor in relation to what you say the 'question' is. 

[George Pazin]

don't know if this course fits anybody's game. I think you just have to take this course for what it is, because I don't think we see anything remotely close to this throughout the year. It's just there's so much up-and-down, there's so many sidehill lies. The greens are just wild and crazy. So, I mean, you kind of just have to come here this week and accept the course for what it is, play the course the way it asks to be played, because this course demands that you play it a certain way. There's really no way around it.

If you can hit the shots, and maybe make some putts, you'll be right in there to contend. So I think you really just have to, like I said, take this place for what it presents you and then try and go from there.

My only thought is, too bad they don't play more courses like this the rest of the year. DJ explains why the course is special, even if he doesn't realize it (I can't tell from the statements).

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

I do not think you understood what I was trying to say, i.e., since the great golfers (i.e. Trahan, Ogilvy, Leonard et. al.) are so much better today that even the relatively elite golfers such as yourself, they play courses much different than you (and even I).  In the olden days, the relatively elite golfer could tack his or her way around a well deisgned course and occasionally scare the pro (or shamateur) who was slightly of his or her game.  Now, even the most cunningly designed courses (e.g. Kapalua, Dornoch, Old Course, Merion, etc.) are reduced by the pros to target golf, i.e. find the right line and length, hit it ther and then find and hit it again.  To we mortals, these courses get harder and offer more options as they lengthen themselves to accomodate the pros.  Oops, maybe that is a good thing?

Rich

[JMEvensky]

How do we reconcile DJ's statement that.....

"So, I mean, you kind of just have to come here this week and accept the course for what it is, play the course the way it asks to be played, because this course demands that you play it a certain way. There's really no way around it."

...with the seemingly common belief on this site that C&C courses offer many strategic options?

Couldn't Trahan be saying that,normally,a PGA Tour course can be played the way a player wants to play it but,for reasons previously mentioned,that mind-set doesn't work at Kapalua?

Put another way,all the usual stuff(those things that go into Player X choosing to attack a course a certain way) is rendered difficult/impossible by the greater number of variables at work on Kapalua.

Maybe "this course demands that you play it a certain way" is tour-player code for "there are just too many options for me to use my usual, one-dimensional strategy".

[TEPaul]

JMEvensky:

I think your last post absolutely gets across what Trahan was trying to say and actually meant to say.

Rich:

Regarding your post #37, so what if today's pros play a far different game then the rest do? Does that mean that a course like a Kapalu gets less strategic for them? That is the question and not one that is about a greater difference between them and the rest of us compared to yesteryear.

And what is strategic golf for them anyway? Does it have to be something that always offers them all kinds of multiple options of directions to go or different distances to hit various shots? It certainly can be that but it can also be something that is just not particularly obvious with one ideal way to go for them which they don't necessarily have to utilize but can if they want to take a certain risk for an appropriate reward. That isn't much different from what some of the most strategic old courses of the linksland offered and offer.

As BobC mentioned on this thread some time ago that is what Kapalu offers not with mulitple bunkers here and there but with remarkable slopes and contours throughout that golf course.

As Behr said about basically strategic golf there can be various ways to go but generally one way that offers THE SHOT that must weather Hell. The point is with good strategic architecture that WAY may take a good deal of thought to determine as it is not necessarily obvious like it may be and generally is on courses that offer essentially only one real way to go for all----eg generally right down the middle of fairly narrow fairways with hazards on either side.

[JMEvensky]

And what is strategic golf for them anyway? Does it have to be something that always offers them all kinds of multiple options of directions to go or different distances to hit various shots? It certainly can be that but it can also be something that is just not particularly obvious with one ideal way to go for them which they don't necessarily have to utilize but can if they want to take a certain risk for an appropriate reward. That isn't much different from what some of the most strategic old courses of the linksland offered and offer.

"And what is strategic golf for them anyway",IMO,is where the PGA Tour-caliber player has made the greatest break from high level amateurs.

I think that the adage "golf is a game of misses" is rendered irrelevant for Tour players.Almost with the sole exception of a US Open set up,the risk/reward formula has gotten so out of whack that,at a normal venue,a "miss" has little consequence.So,a Tour Pro's strategy is one dimensional-almost spiteful of the architecture and the risks.They just don't worry about anything but the shortest distance between 2 points.

However,even high level amateurs must be mindful of the miss.Their strategy must take the hiccup into consideration.Tour Pro's consider hiccups to come around as frequently as Halley's Comet.

Like many here,I'm old enough to remember when good amateurs could be "competitive" against Tour Pro's.I don't believe that's the case now.The skill level of Tour Pro's is staggering.Trying to compare their "strategy" to any other player's strategy is probably a waste of time.

[Rich Goodale]

How do we reconcile DJ's statement that.....

"So, I mean, you kind of just have to come here this week and accept the course for what it is, play the course the way it asks to be played, because this course demands that you play it a certain way. There's really no way around it."

...with the seemingly common belief on this site that C&C courses offer many strategic options?

Couldn't Trahan be saying that,normally,a PGA Tour course can be played the way a player wants to play it but,for reasons previously mentioned,that mind-set doesn't work at Kapalua?

Put another way,all the usual stuff(those things that go into Player X choosing to attack a course a certain way) is rendered difficult/impossible by the greater number of variables at work on Kapalua.

Maybe "this course demands that you play it a certain way" is tour-player code for "there are just too many options for me to use my usual, one-dimensional strategy".

JM

My interest in participating in this thread is best expressed by analysing the confusion of your post above.  One one hand you say.....

"...normally,a PGA Tour course can be played the way a player wants to play it..."

.....and then on the other you say:

"....the usual stuff(those things that go into Player X choosing to attack a course a certain way)..."

As far as I can see, the conventional wisdom on this site is that good (i.e. golden age, coore and crenshaw, doak, etc.) courses allow the player to play them "the way a player wants to play it" (i.e. offer alternative strategies), whereas bad (i.e. dark ages, fazio, rees, etc.) courses dictate the line of play, i.e. "to attack a course a certain way."

So, this thread seems to say that Kapalua is more a Fazio course than a Doak one, or does it not?

Confused in Fife......

[Kalen Braley]

Rich,

The big mistake your making here is assuming D.J. is the authority on golf course architecture....especially in light of seeing all the different ways those guys actually played it over the weekend.

Some played the low shot running game, others the aerial game.  Some hit long bombs to find speed slots, others layed up to preferred yardages and flatter lies.  Some guys really got aggressive and went after pins, others played a lot more conservative to avoid the gunch and big numbers.  Some tried flop shots and high chips arounds the greens, while others played bump and run style.

From there its very easy to infer that what DJ meant to say was, one can't play in typical bomb and gouge fashion with aerial attacks into every hole as is prevelant on most other courses they play. They were forced to play in a style different from thier norm and really think about what they wanted to do with the ball.   In other words they were actually made to think and do a bit of planning in finding thier own individual way around the course instead of the obvious path always being "right there in front of you".

[JMEvensky]

How do we reconcile DJ's statement that.....

"So, I mean, you kind of just have to come here this week and accept the course for what it is, play the course the way it asks to be played, because this course demands that you play it a certain way. There's really no way around it."

...with the seemingly common belief on this site that C&C courses offer many strategic options?

Couldn't Trahan be saying that,normally,a PGA Tour course can be played the way a player wants to play it but,for reasons previously mentioned,that mind-set doesn't work at Kapalua?

Put another way,all the usual stuff(those things that go into Player X choosing to attack a course a certain way) is rendered difficult/impossible by the greater number of variables at work on Kapalua.

Maybe "this course demands that you play it a certain way" is tour-player code for "there are just too many options for me to use my usual, one-dimensional strategy".

JM

My interest in participating in this thread is best expressed by analysing the confusion of your post above.  One one hand you say.....

"...normally,a PGA Tour course can be played the way a player wants to play it..."

.....and then on the other you say:

"....the usual stuff(those things that go into Player X choosing to attack a course a certain way)..."

As far as I can see, the conventional wisdom on this site is that good (i.e. golden age, coore and crenshaw, doak, etc.) courses allow the player to play them "the way a player wants to play it" (i.e. offer alternative strategies), whereas bad (i.e. dark ages, fazio, rees, etc.) courses dictate the line of play, i.e. "to attack a course a certain way."

So, this thread seems to say that Kapalua is more a Fazio course than a Doak one, or does it not?

Confused in Fife......

Dear Confused,I don't know whether Kapalua is more Fazio or Doak nor would I try to interpret the website's conventional wisdom.

I guess the point that I'm having trouble making is that,IMO,Trahan is discomfited by the unusually high number of options at Kapalua.Relative to a "normal" course set up which allows Tour players to play their usual one dimensional game,Kapalua(through either elevation,slope,grain,wind,or all the above)gets them out of their comfort zone.

The huge liberty I've taken is to interpret Trahan's comments as meaning exactly the opposite of what he actually said.Where he says "take what the course gives you" would normally mean a lack of options,I believe he means that "this course won't give me what I normally expect/get from Tour courses so I'm not going to bother computing all the extra variables necessary for a strategy-I'll just wing it".

My basis for this egotistical leap is that I believe that, not only are Tour players so much different than mortals on a playing level, but that they also "see' the game differently.They exist through the looking glass-what mortals see as good/fun/strategic,they see as something that just doesn't compute.

With apologies to Shaw(?),we're 2 peoples separated by the same game.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

The bottom line with the Plantation is course is that it a kick in the butt to play, I mean some serious fun, it is absolutely stunningly beautiful and there is no way I would be able to play it every day.  If only because its in Hawaii.  And secondly I couldn't pay the fee. 

It is what it is......Do we really care what a tour pro thinks? 

[Rob Rigg]

I also wish there were more courses like the Plantation on the Tour rota.

I think Trahan meant you have to deal with what the course gives you because from watching the coverage, there is a much larger element of chance than you would find at other courses.

ie) side hill lies, unpredictable drive run out, partially blind shots, severely sloped or undulating greens, grainy greens, tight grass around the greens versus rough, wonderful fairway contouring and a difficult walk.

Options tend to abound but most pros are forced to use shots they probably rarely use on the many flat fairway, tough rough, water laden courses they often play.

The difficulty of the greens was also evident as many of the guys could not figure them out.

Then there was Ogilvie taking the place apart with his driver and 60 degree wedge, pretty amazing.

Seems like Kapalua is special because it can challenge the amateur as much as it can challenge the pro.

[david h. carroll]

fyi, not sure this adds much to the DG, but DJ pretty much grew up playing everyday at HarborTown

[Richard Choi]

fyi, not sure this adds much to the DG, but DJ pretty much grew up playing everyday at HarborTown

A flat course!!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()