[Ted Sturges]

The first Players Championship was conducted at TPC Sawgrass in 1982.  Who could forget Jerry Pate jumping into the pond?  Moving to this venue in 1982, there have now been 31 Players Championships played on this Pete Dye design. I find it interesting that in 31 tournaments, there has NEVER been a repeat winner, and only 3 players have won more than once on this course (Elkington, Love III, and Sutton).  Perhaps even more interesting is that several past champions have failed to make the cut the very next year (including this year when Choi missed the cut).  Often times, courses are known for identifying a certain type of champion.  The Open Championship has identified players who could best deal with the elements and the wind (Watson), the US Open has had a history of identifying great ball strikers (Nicklaus, Hogan, Woods et al), while The Masters (prior to them "updating" the course) had a history of identifying players capable of creative recovery and scrambling skills. 

What do the championship results of TPC Sawgrass say about the course?  The results suggest that no "player type" is consistently identified.  Is it just who got hot that week?  Do the results suggest that the course is a great examination of one's game, or a chamber of lucky bounces?  What do the features of the course most strictly examine in a golfer's game?  Is this place any good?

TS

PS:   I'm back...

[Matthew Petersen]

The first Players Championship was conducted at TPC Sawgrass in 1982.  Who could forget Jerry Pate jumping into the pond?  Moving to this venue in 1982, there have now been 31 Players Championships played on this Pete Dye design. I find it interesting that in 31 tournaments, there has NEVER been a repeat winner, and only 3 players have won more than once on this course (Elkington, Love III, and Sutton).  Perhaps even more interesting is that several past champions have failed to make the cut the very next year (including this year when Choi missed the cut).  Often times, courses are known for identifying a certain type of champion.  The Open Championship has identified players who could best deal with the elements and the wind (Watson), the US Open has had a history of identifying great ball strikers (Nicklaus, Hogan, Woods et al), while The Masters (prior to them "updating" the course) had a history of identifying players capable of creative recovery and scrambling skills. 

What do the championship results of TPC Sawgrass say about the course?  The results suggest that no "player type" is consistently identified.  Is it just who got hot that week?  Do the results suggest that the course is a great examination of one's game, or a chamber of lucky bounces?  What do the features of the course most strictly examine in a golfer's game?  Is this place any good?

TS

PS:   I'm back...

Couples has won twice as well.

We also had several threads last week before the tournament addressing these same thoughts (lack of multiple winners and what role the course has in that vs. the depth of the field.)

[Richard Choi]

Welcome to the treehouse, Ted.

May I suggest reading a few pages of previous threads before posting a new one?

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52026.0.html

[John Kavanaugh]

Note:  Ted is one of the founding fathers of this site and the art of internet discussion.  He does not need tips on how to participate.

You may want to look at the amazing list of players who have won both at TPC Sawgrass and the US Amateur. There may be a correlation between match play success and this venue.

[Richard Choi]

My apologies...

[Ben Sims]

...while The Masters (prior to them "updating" the course) had a history of identifying players capable of creative recovery and scrambling skills. 

The three most iconic shots of the past decade's worth of Masters has been a chip in by Wood from off the green, a six iron between pine trees by Mickelson on 13, and a hooked gap wedge from Magnolia leaves and pine straw by Watson.  I would say that the Master's legacy of ID'ing players with creativity and scrambling skills is safe. 

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Hey Ted, good to hear from you.

I too haven't read all the previous talk about this course, but it is true that all types of players have won here.  Sunday, Miller gave a stat about Kuchar and Na having the best week in the field on shortest putts.  I would bet that if you look at the previous winners they were probably in the top 3 that week in putting.  I think you miss a lot of greens and thus putting, not necessarily chipping, becomes crticial.  I think sometimes one seems to be in a position that even a good chip will end 8-12 feet from the hole.  Thus putting is the game there.

Do you still get down to Yeamans Hall?

[Doug Wright]

Welcome back Ted.

[Ted Sturges]

True I did not look back to see if this topic had been debated prior to posting.  Sorry.  True I left this site several years ago because I felt the site had become long on put downs and short on informed opinions and opportunities for real learning.  Ran has suggested to me that things are different these days.  Decided to put my toe back in the water.  Hoping my immediate scolding is not an indication that Ran has misled me.

To Lynn:  I dropped my membership to YHC a few years back.  I sure do miss that place.  My most recent visit there was last year with Ran.  Always a pleasure to play with Golf's Most Beloved Figure (GMBF) at the site of his career best (69) round.  There are not too many places I would rather enjoy a round than at Yeamans.

To:  Ben Simms:  Agree with your highlight of those 3 shots, but prior to the "tree-ifying" at Augusta, we often had 3 great recovery-type shots by one of the leaders during ONE round (in addition to Augusta formerly being more "open", there used to be no rough either, remember?).  How many shots have we witnessed that have simply been put back into the fairway due to new trees taking away the chance of an heroic recovery since the re-do?  Augusta definitely plays much different now than it did prior to the tree planting and rough growing.

I do think there is something to the fact that nobody has been a repeat winner at TPC Sawgrass and that former champions have often missed the cut the following year.  What I'm not sure of is if it is a good thing architecture-wise, or a negative on the course.  I was hoping to find some answers architecture-wise from this post.  Does anyone have any ideas as to what affect the architecture may have on this situation? (I went back and read the previous thread and didn't find an answer).

TS

[Tony Weiler]

Hey, Ted.  Welcome back.  Was Rock Creek really almost a year ago!  Glad the World's Most Beloved Photographer was able to get you to return.  Take care.  Tony

[Tim Gavrich]

I think that when a regular Tour venue produces big diversity in the winners from year to year, two main potential conclusions arise: either the course is a better test than those that yield a more homogenous (in terms of playing style) set of winners or the course is not such a great test of golf and deals more in randomness that just tends to victimize all sorts of players.  Based on the praise that Sawgrass now seems to get from players, I've got to believe it's just a really, really good test for the best players in the world.

It seems to me that courses with smaller greens tend to produce more varied lists of winners.  Harbour Town, Pebble Beach, Sawgrass. By contrast, the winners of the Shell Houston Open since it moved to Redstone--two courses with bigger greens--have been longer hitters except for one (Johnson Wagner).  Rory McIlroy bullied Congressional's bigger greens last year.  Look at the rest of the top ten: almost all longer hitters too.  In the 2010 US Open, the top ten was a lot more diverse, as playing styles go.

Increasing length is a crutch for courses whose greens and green complexes aren't good enough to serve as the course's strong defense.  Sawgrass is one of the Tour's best venues, qua big-time tournament golf at least, because its greens are smaller, undulating and thoughtfully defended.

[Ted Sturges]

Tim G:  Very thoughtful comments.  I think your first paragraph is spot on...though I'm not certain which theory is accurate (but I tend to believe the course is a thorough test that is identifying the best player in the field that week).

Tony:  That Rock Creek trip was a fun one!  And...though my ex-wife said only a couple of funny things in 23 years...the "Golf's Most Beloved Photographer" comment by her ranks at the top.  Priceless.

TS

[Jason Thurman]

Ted, I don't know the answer either. My only thought is that the demands on accuracy placed by Sawgrass, both in the landing areas and in the green areas, combined with its extremely penal nature for certain missed shots, make it one of the most challenging ball-striking courses anywhere. It also seems to require very good putting.

Of all the skills in golf, there's a reasonable argument that those two skills it requires most are the most fickle. Even great putters are hot one week and lipping putts out the next. Even great ballstrikers will hit 17 greens on Friday and then 12 on Saturday. Long hitters always hit it long, Phil Mickelson's short game is always pretty great, and Colin Montgomerie rarely hit a crappy drive. But accuracy and putting come and go for everyone, though some obviously excel more often than others.

The only thing I can guess is that it puts unique demands on two highly variable skills and thus rewards the "hot" player of the week better than other courses where a player with a certain type of game might retain an advantage.

[Matthew Petersen]

Ted, I don't know the answer either. My only thought is that the demands on accuracy placed by Sawgrass, both in the landing areas and in the green areas, combined with its extremely penal nature for certain missed shots, make it one of the most challenging ball-striking courses anywhere. It also seems to require very good putting.

Of all the skills in golf, there's a reasonable argument that those two skills it requires most are the most fickle. Even great putters are hot one week and lipping putts out the next. Even great ballstrikers will hit 17 greens on Friday and then 12 on Saturday. Long hitters always hit it long, Phil Mickelson's short game is always pretty great, and Colin Montgomerie rarely hit a crappy drive. But accuracy and putting come and go for everyone, though some obviously excel more often than others.

The only thing I can guess is that it puts unique demands on two highly variable skills and thus rewards the "hot" player of the week better than other courses where a player with a certain type of game might retain an advantage.

I think this is all true, and I also think the course demands so many different shots and shot shapes that it never favors a certain player. McIlroy said that he feels he's missed the cut there in every try because he can never get into a flow. This seems to me to be a player's way of describing the features we often discuss here: like the way 14 requires a left-to-right drive and right-to-left approach, and then 15 asks for the exact opposite. The course is full of those kinds of demands and angles.

Phil put it pretty well (pulled from a CBS article):

"Of all the courses on tour, there are some where particular players always play well, year in and year out," Mickelson said Friday, listing a couple of examples. "If we go to Augusta, I always seem to play well regardless of what I have done to that point in the year.

"But here, it's a different group on top of the leaderboard every year. That tells me there's no way to play this course other than perfectly. There is no way to miss your way around the golf course, no correct side to miss on.

"You just have to flat play perfectly."

[hhuffines]

Glad to see you're back on Ted!!!  Hart

[Bill_McBride]

I think there are a lot of tee shots and approach shots that are razor's edge situations.  A bounce the wrong way, an unexpected gust of wind...With the punitive hazards it's easy to run up a big number or a sudden string of bogies.   

So the same player who escapes trouble and bad bounces one year can go in the opposite direction the next and miss the cut.

[RJ_Daley]

Happy return, Ted.

I think Wild Bill and Matthew and Mickelson have zeroed in on it.  The razor thin margin of misses, are extremely penal, in that missing the wrong side on many courses, can result in a dropped shot but also more chances for nice up and downs from short side bunkers or depressions, etc.  Those razor thin misses on most courses have recovery sometimes and maybe extract half or on average through rounds 3/4 strokes penalty.  But Sawgrass seems to have more of the misses in water, and more full stroke penalties per round.  So, the good players that win have an exceptional week when they win, and probably lead in the least water balls, but the returning year are just a tad off, short side or bound into water even after decent shots to a green, and the sure penal full stroke drop hazards take their toll.  So in the win year they just get that razor thin good break, luck, fewer full penalty shot hazards, yet they otherwise play pretty well another year but just don't get the breaks or keep it out of the water hazards.

It seems to me it is good tournament architecture, but suspect it isn't so much of an enjoyable round for the average player, even at appropriate tee yardages.  But, I never played there, so I'm guessing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()