How would McKenzie et al design a course for pros

[LeeHarris]

As a sort of continuation of the thread on strategy for professionals, but with a twist linked to Geoffs superb book The Good Doctor Returns (which I am using to recreate Pendleton Links for my PC golf game)

If McKenzie, Tillinghast, Thomas, Colt etc etc, if they did turn up today and were asked to design a course for the PGA Tour pros (I imagine for us mortals their ideals would be the same as they were then - golf hasnt changed much for the duffer;-), but what would they come up with for the PGA Tour pros, after taking a few minutes to get their breath back from seeing how that had developed!

I would be really interested to hear the thoughts of the people here about that.

[TEPaul]

I think most of them would have advocated a high degree of difficulty for the touring pro somehow! It has really struck me how much Tillinghast particularly pushed for designs and architecture that was really intended to test the best players and that very much included making them hit some long club approach shots! Certainly Ross was intent on "testing" this part of a good golfer's repetoire when he said the ability to hit a good long iron approach was extremely important! Certainly William Flynn was part of this thinking too!

Tillinghast actually took J.H. Taylor to task for criticizing this apparently common "real high degree of difficulty" advocacy that a lot of the "Golden Age" designers in America were into! I think you could certainly put Crump in that group too!

But what would they have done about it with what's going on today? Well, we know Flynn recommended back in 1927 that there might be a need for 8,000yd courses one day and we also know that most of those old guys were as much or more freaked out about the advances in the distance of new style balls back then as some of us are today.

So, in my opinon, today a lot of those old guys (if they could come back today) would probably be lobbying strongly for either a serious overall distance rollback with the ball or possibly a "competition ball".

[Jim_Kennedy]

LeeHarris,
I agree more with TEPaul's assessment that they would create a higher degree of difficulty than just increasing yardage. If technology can be kept at it's present levels, pertaining to distance, then I feel architects from any era could and would design more challenging courses for the Pro while still making them playable for the rest of the golfing population.
I think capping distance would encourage more use of bunkers and swales in landing areas and a return to more strategic design. Left unbridled, distance doesn't encourage this because sooner or later the placement of the hazard is going to become non threatening, even to the lesser skilled. Couple this with more imaginative greens and the need to hit different types of shots and golf courses become more challenging and attention getting.
I feel for architects from this era. At least the old boys had larger time frames to work in before changes in technology threatened to make their works obsolete.  

[Dan Kelly]

I don't know what those old guys would do, though I'm guessing Tom I is right: They'd make the courses difficult for the pros.

(Of course, the PGA Tour -- apparently believing that fans prefer these-guys-are-good birdies to this-game-is-great struggle -- would set the courses up easy. Did you guys see the tee at Doral 18 on Saturday, when the field staff -- seeing the wind in the face -- set the tee markers 50 YARDS AHEAD of the back of the tee? Johnny Miller was nearly apoplectic! And good for him for saying: The hole was not designed to be played this way, with wedge 2nds.)

For my part: Give me struggle! Give me pain! Give me potential disaster at every turn!

If the land would allow, here's what I envision as a prototype course for the touring pros (and I'd love to play it, too -- from the Whites):

In general, I'd do everything possible to make the shots to the green as long and/or as difficult as possible.

That means: Few 380- to 430-yard par-4s. Those that survive would have to have extremely tight driving areas AND  extremely difficult or well-protected greens.

The standard two-shot par-4 on my Course for Pros would be 450-470 yards long. Make 'em hit some 2- and 3- and 4-irons to the greens.

Driveable par-4s seem to make things interesting for the pros. I'd build a couple of REALLY TEMPTING ones (driveable for EVERY touring pro) on every course -- to go with a couple of short, very tight par-4s and half a dozen par-4 brutes.

(By the way: I'd always leave a ground-game opening on the long holes. ALWAYS. There's nothing more exciting in the pro game, to my eyes, than the Recovery Shots -- the manufactured, bouncing and rolling shots. And I'd do everything possible to make those shots possible.)

I'd have two short par-5s that all of the pros could reach with two woods; one par-5 that only the longest could reach (and with risk); and one par-5 that none of them could reach on a calm day, with a tiny green demanding a precise approach.

I'd have one wedge-length par-3, one wood-length par-3, one par-3 favoring a mid-iron fade, and one par-3 favoring a mid-iron draw.

[LeeHarris]

"By the way: I'd always leave a ground-game opening on the long holes. ALWAYS. There's nothing more exciting in the pro game, to my eyes, than the Recovery Shots -- the manufactured, bouncing and rolling shots. And I'd do everything possible to make those shots possible"

Dan - I share your enthusiasm with this aspect a great deal!

[Jeff_McDowell]

Dan,

I threw some yardages to your ideas, and came up with about 7,500 yards.

[Dan Kelly]

Jeff --

That sounds about right, doesn't it, for a Pro course in 2002 (i.e., pre-Competition Ball), at sea level?

[Chris Hervochon]

In my opinion, the courses that are 7200 yards now really do not warrant the pros having to hit many long irons into greens.  Make it 7500 yards, and now you have  ballgame.  I also think you might have to throw in a 500+ yard par 5 too.  Young guys are getting longer, and we have routinely seen wedges hit into 470 yard par 4's.  470 is not long enough to command a long iron; unless it's uphill into the wind.

Dan Kelly- right on the money! i tip my hat to you

[APBernstein]

The key is to make it play long without actually having to play 7,500 yards.  Here is my distribution of holes...

Par Threes:

140
180
210
230

Par Fours:

320
360
380
410
430
440
440
460
480
480

Par Fives:

500
570
590
630

That comes out to a very reasonable 7,250 yards.  Unfortunately, in this equipment age, that is about as low as you can get.  Theoretically, you could replace a long par four with another short par four.  Also, you could drop down to a par of 70 and have more variety in your three pars.

It all can be done below 7,500 yards.

[Keith Williams]

Everything sounds good so far, but I would toss in another aspect to add to the challenge... fairway undulations.  The tour pros are very accustomed to hitting routine shots off of relatively flat lies, but give them a course where their fairway lies are consistently leaving the ball a couple of inches above and below their feet and see what happens; especially if the green complex is designed to tie into the contouring i.e. a draw receptive green complex coupled with a fairway that provides fade lies...

[Dan Kelly]

OK. I know this is silly, but here are my yardages (on level ground). I'll add when I'm finished:

Par 3s

120
170
190
250

Par 4s
280
300
360
370
450
460
470
480
490
500

Par 5s
510
520
575
620

OK ... do the math ... 7215!