[JESII]

The problem is more that most TV viewers don't like to watch guys playing defensively.

This to me is the vey reason the roll-back / bifurcation conversations are a complete waste of time. For the Tour, golf is entertainment. Period. Full stop.


How can designing, playing, maintaining and/or managing a golf course for 99.9% of people to be interesting and interactive be conflated with a television set? I should have started this sentence with Why Should...


If equipment is rolled back 10%, BDC and DJ will find that 10% in a matter of 2 or 3 years while the rest of us will have to deal...and nobody has floated the idea of going back 30% or more to make a real difference.


Let the TV guys put on their show and shoot 35 under par and let the rest of us enjoy the spoils the game has to offer.

[Tom_Doak]

If equipment is rolled back 10%, BDC and DJ will find that 10% in a matter of 2 or 3 years while the rest of us will have to deal...and nobody has floated the idea of going back 30% or more to make a real difference.

Let the TV guys put on their show and shoot 35 under par and let the rest of us enjoy the spoils the game has to offer.

WTF did somebody come in and hold a pistol to your head?  That's a remarkable 180 from ten posts ago.


Rolling back the ball is not going to make these guys play more defensively; it's just going to make it harder for them to hit great shots that yield easy birdies and especially easy two-putt birdies.  I don't think it will make watching on TV any less exciting, unless a birdie is your only idea of excitement.

[JESII]

Not if the Tour wants them to make birdies, Tom...which they do.

[JMEvensky]

Sully's just playing Devil's Advocate--he's actually a huge rollback proponent.

[Kalen Braley]

In the interest of providing a bit more context:

I think that pin location would work just fine if the green was stimping at 9 or 10. I don't think the green or hole location is intrinsically bad, its actually quite good... my comment was about the absurdity of the setup.  I'm reminded of a post a few weeks back where VK suggested varying green speeds on the same course, and there was a chorus of boos about how artificial or contrived that would be.

Well those are good words to describe what I saw with that Sunday setup on 3...artificially contrived to get the best players in the world ping ponging back and forth and griefing over incredibly short shots that had to land within a few inches of a "correct" aiming spot to stay on the green.

The pursuit to faster and faster greens has indeed been a slippery slope...

[Mark Kiely]

Well those are good words to describe what I saw with that Sunday setup on 3...artificially contrived to get the best players in the world ping ponging back and forth and griefing over incredibly short shots that had to land within a few inches of a "correct" aiming spot to stay on the green.

Pretty sure this point was made earlier in the thread, but you're not seeming to accept it. The "land within a few inches" argument only holds water if the players are forced to aim at the pin. They could've played safer shots out to the right but chose not to, and in many cases, paid the price for that lack of restraint.

[JESII]

Tom, you may have covered this in other threads these last few years, but, are there examples in your Memorial Park project in which either Brooks Koepka or the Tour folks made recommendations that would make scoring more difficult?

[Jeff Schley]

Let's not turn this into a rollback thread. Blimey we have enough of those.
Watching the front 9 in all it's glory the last 15/20 years has balanced the view that the course is a birdie/eagle fest on the back 9 starting at 13-16. The scoring holes make for great Sunday finishes, but those in contention would have had to negotiate the gauntlet of 3-6 as well as Amen Corner. Only if they have passed those tests do they get to make it matter on the back 9 late.
With so many dogleg left holes, my only criticism is there isn't anywhere equal number of dogleg right holes. Only 18 really is a true dogleg right, slightly 11. But with prodigious doglegs 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14 it isn't balanced. With the huge trees it makes moving the ball right to left an asset, or at least playing to the proper side of the fairway to allow for a straight or fade possible.

[JESII]

From a distance, I’d guess left to right is the preferred shot shape on 1, 3, 8, 11, 15, 17 & 18.

[Wayne_Kozun]

From a distance, I’d guess left to right is the preferred shot shape on 1, 3, 8, 11, 15, 17 & 18.

But interesting to note that lefties seem to have an advantage at Augusta.  60%(3/5) of the lefties in the field were past champions and the two that were not finished in the top 13. Lefties (Weirsy, FIGJAM, Bubba) won 6 out of 12 Masters from 2003-14.  Given that fact you would think that a right to left ball flight would be favoured - assuming that a fade is the more natural shot for all golfers.

[Tom_Doak]

With so many dogleg left holes, my only criticism is there isn't anywhere equal number of dogleg right holes. Only 18 really is a true dogleg right, slightly 11. But with prodigious doglegs 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14 it isn't balanced.

Yet another data point that balance is not important.  Many of the world's best courses are not balanced, but they are still the world's best courses.

[Peter Pallotta]

I wish an architect would pair up with Pat Burke one day to design a golf course. Judging from his posts on this thread (and over the years), not only does he 'know', he also 'understands'!

[Paul Jones]

I think the 3rd green is one of the scariest greens on the course.  The only safe bail out is to the right, then you have a lighting fast chip and/or putt. 

[jeffwarne]

With so many dogleg left holes, my only criticism is there isn't anywhere equal number of dogleg right holes. Only 18 really is a true dogleg right, slightly 11. But with prodigious doglegs 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14 it isn't balanced.

Yet another data point that balance is not important.  Many of the world's best courses are not balanced, but they are still the world's best courses.

1,8,11,15(less so now) even 3(right to left slope in landing area) favor a fade off the tee.
5 doesn't really favor a draw anymore(but I'll concede it)


so 2, second shot 8, 9,10, 13, 14 favor a draw
Pretty balanced

[Peter Pallotta]

One point not often mentioned is that we discuss & judge Tom D's courses (or C&C's or Pinehurst #2 etc) as played from the set of tees that regular golfers actually play from, day after day, and by the tens of thousands; but we discuss & judge Augusta National from the set of tees (and pin placements) that some 45-50 of the very best golfers in the world play exactly 4 times a year, and during a major championship. To compound the issue, we then don't even seem to recognize that we're doing it, and thus we conflate & confuse discussions about -architecture- (ie in general, and as it applies to the interested amateur) with critiques about championship -set-ups- (for a specific major, as it applies to paid professionals).

[Jeff Schley]

With so many dogleg left holes, my only criticism is there isn't anywhere equal number of dogleg right holes. Only 18 really is a true dogleg right, slightly 11. But with prodigious doglegs 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14 it isn't balanced.

Yet another data point that balance is not important.  Many of the world's best courses are not balanced, but they are still the world's best courses.

1,8,11,15(less so now) even 3(right to left slope in landing area) favor a fade off the tee.
5 doesn't really favor a draw anymore(but I'll concede it)


so 2, second shot 8, 9,10, 13, 14 favor a draw
Pretty balanced

Never said the course isnt great, just it wasnt balanced.


Jeff for 8 off the tee I dont recall the players hitting many fades with the bunker on the right off the tee. Straight balls up the rigth side. Did i not watch enough?


I actually like the bunker there for it forces guys to aim farther left if their preferred shit shape is a fade.  Many guys ended up in the trees right of the bunker even. I'm sure they were trying to fade it next to the bunker, I'd like to see each days tees shots on 8 and see what happened more.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, you may have covered this in other threads these last few years, but, are there examples in your Memorial Park project in which either Brooks Koepka or the Tour folks made recommendations that would make scoring more difficult?

The Tour largely stayed away from the process; their only comments on the design were at the beginning [if you put too much slope in hole locations we won't use them] and trying to soften the contour in the 18th fairway [players won't like it !].  They are afraid of having any feature in the middle of the fairway because the players think that is unfair under their new proven method of how to play holes.  [How can you aim 37.5 yards away from a bunker in the middle of the fairway?]


Part of Brooks' input was talking me down on various ideas that WOULDN'T have much real impact, so I could forget about those.  His dismissive comments about bunkers were the reason we moved toward using bermuda rough and subtle contour at the edges of the fairways in combination with short grass and slopes around the greens to make it hard to hit greens in regulation, even though we couldn't make the greens small.  He was a big fan of making the par-3's shorter but very difficult.  There were a couple of greens where we made very shallow tiers for hole locations, and I was very surprised at what a small depth he recommended for those, even for wedge shot approaches.

[JESII]

Thanks Tom, for that insight.


I'm sure you're on the other side of this, but if the people that make decisions around golf course design (architects and owners) could simply forget about what the guys on TV might shoot if they show up at their course, a great majority of the perceived problems with equipment would go away.


I think we should ignore the TV guys in this context for exactly the reason you stated, that I quoted. They are going to set up their courses and event for maximum entertainment. Despite what some on here wish, watching a player try to cut a 4 iron into a 430 yard par 4 and finishing the event 5 under par for the win is not seen as entertaining by the people that make that decision.


So, if the ball was rolled back 10% they would play the courses 10% shorter, in my opinion. Or at least do what they had to do to create similar scoring to current.


So, if the roll back is not going to achieve one of it's primary objectives (maintaining "relevance" for the top courses), why worry about it? If it happens, great...if not, it's still a hell of a lot of fun to play.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm sure you're on the other side of this, but if the people that make decisions around golf course design (architects and owners) could simply forget about what the guys on TV might shoot if they show up at their course, a great majority of the perceived problems with equipment would go away.


I think we should ignore the TV guys in this context for exactly the reason you stated, that I quoted. They are going to set up their courses and event for maximum entertainment. Despite what some on here wish, watching a player try to cut a 4 iron into a 430 yard par 4 and finishing the event 5 under par for the win is not seen as entertaining by the people that make that decision.


So, if the ball was rolled back 10% they would play the courses 10% shorter, in my opinion. Or at least do what they had to do to create similar scoring to current.


So, if the roll back is not going to achieve one of it's primary objectives (maintaining "relevance" for the top courses), why worry about it? If it happens, great...if not, it's still a hell of a lot of fun to play.

Jim:


I agree completely with your first statement.  Clients, and many architects, are obsessing over the winning score and making the course seem challenging.  On the other hand, I've had some discussions with Padraig Harrington recently about The Renaissance Club, and tangentially Memorial Park, and he said as a player he would much rather see them start with a hard course and set it up easier if desired, instead of taking a course that isn't challenging and trying to make it challenging with the setup.


Importantly, it's the Tour that controls the setup.  And the weird part is that while at The Renaissance Club, they say they agree with the client that it should be harder, most of the individual things they support changing on the course are to make it more fair, which means easier in the instances I have seen.


I am not sure I agree with some of your assumptions in the second part of your reply, though.  I don't think that making courses play longer for the pros and bringing certain fairway hazards back to "relevance" will change the scoring as much as you are assuming, and it's wrong to focus on the scoring result anyway . . . we just want to make the players think about what they are doing again. 


The problem with moving the fairway bunkers on a par-4 is if you move them to where the guys drive it now, they still only have a 9-iron recovery if they hit it into the bunker, so they don't care if they do.  It would be much more effective to leave the bunker where it is, and find out if they can hit a 6-iron recovery as easily; at that point, they might have to play around the bunker.  But in general, fairway bunkers are not so effective anymore because the players are so consistent in their carry distance with a driver, that they are 100% confident about when they can just go over them.

[Sean_A]

With so many dogleg left holes, my only criticism is there isn't anywhere equal number of dogleg right holes. Only 18 really is a true dogleg right, slightly 11. But with prodigious doglegs 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14 it isn't balanced.

Yet another data point that balance is not important.  Many of the world's best courses are not balanced, but they are still the world's best courses.

A ballpark balance is not quite ideal, but there is a logic to this outcome. I am not sure anything is critical in design, so saying not important is a bit meaningless, no?

I notice if there is a preponderance of leggers in one direction, so I guess it bothers me on some level. The last time I recall running into this was at Cleveland and all the leggers left made me inclined to think less of the course. And yes, I do notice the lack of short holes at TOC and Elie, but they remain among my favourite courses. I am sure the same would be true of ANGC and its doglegs. Its just that these courses have other qualities that make it easier to overlook a shortcoming or two. Many courses don't enjoy this luxury.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Thanks Tom, for that insight.





So, if the ball was rolled back 10% they would play the courses 10% shorter, in my opinion. Or at least do what they had to do to create similar scoring to current.


So, if the roll back is not going to achieve one of it's primary objectives (maintaining "relevance" for the top courses), why worry about it? If it happens, great...if not, it's still a hell of a lot of fun to play.

Isn't that an overly simplistic argument?
Sure that may be true(simply play 10% shorter) in the case of modern courses, or courses that have been lengthened considerably..
But wouldn't a rolled back ball(equipment) restore the competitive interest at countless Golden Age venues considered too short(no room to lengthen) for a significant event? (Inwood, Apawamis,Southampton,Maidstone, The Creek, St. George's-all top courses IMHO etc. etc.)




But even if your theory was right, wouldn't walking back less often on classic courses be more desirable?
To say nothing of improved/reduced scale?


Back on topic, I think ANGC has done a great job with maintaining the scale of the game, a luxury few courses have, though no doubt it adds even more length to the time it takes to walk and play a tournament round there.

[Thomas Dai]

....
The problem with moving the fairway bunkers on a par-4 is if you move them to where the guys drive it now, they still only have a 9-iron recovery if they hit it into the bunker, so they don't care if they do.  It would be much more effective to leave the bunker where it is, and find out if they can hit a 6-iron recovery as easily; at that point, they might have to play around the bunker.  But in general, fairway bunkers are not so effective anymore because the players are so consistent in their carry distance with a driver, that they are 100% confident about when they can just go over them.

Interesting point and when combined with your comments on other threads about Brooks K’s Memorial course thoughts about greenside bunkers it seems that for elite players there’s no point in having any bunkers at all? Maybe there would be if we went to no raking however.
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

For the pros, more often than not it seems like its not a function of "Do they exist?".  But more about how deep they are or where they are positioned, like the fairway bunkers on 5 or 8 for depth, or the bunkers to the left of 13 for position.

[Jeff Schley]

For those that aren't familiar with pro visualizer, it gives perspective on hole elevations and routing. Quantifies elevation changes which you can see has some pronounced distances.  Here is ANGC:
https://www.provisualizer.com/courses/augustanational.php

[JESII]

JeffWarne,


My position may well by overly simplistic...


To be clear, I'm completely neutral as to the need for a roll back but am opposed to bifurcation. In that vein, I agree that bifurcation would result in a defacto roll back over a few years because each tier of player will want to play with the equipment better players do. If they roll me back 20%, I'll enjoy the game just as much.


My position is based on the belief that the Tour is for entertainment and they will manipulate the courses to create their desired entertainment objective. For now, it's driver distance and low scores. My suggestion (and this is really my only position) is that all Tour influences to play and maintenance should be ignored by 99% of golf courses. They should prepare their course for the people that play them.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()