[Mike Sweeney]

Even if a course is put back for the members, the image of what a "Championship" challenging course looks like and plays like for top players is already forever imprinted into the collective public consciousness.

Would that public even know if the new bunker on 4 at Bethpage was removed afterwards?  I think they might feel that they were being patronized, frankly.

It's even worse when you start talking about green(s) changes.  How exactly do you "put back" levelling changes to greens?  Who would do that work and how would they ensure that they got it right?  Also, that often also would affect greenside bunkering, and built up lips....would they be levelled as well, and then built back up after?

I can't see it.

Tom,

After a week of NBC and ESPN showing highlights of tour players hacking out of US Open rough and Johnny Miller commenting  on how these conditions can torture a PGA tour players mind, you can't expect a press release on USGA.org to wipe these images out of the publics mind.

How many courses turn off the sprinklers and go brown (firm and fast) after Masters weekend?

[Mike_Cirba]

From another thread, I think Jeff Mingay's response to Tom Doak (copied below) gets to the heart of the matter;


Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 13, 2007, 07:17:45 am
In my experience of consulting at older clubs, there is a universal fear that our suggestions (for removing trees, widening fairways to their original width, even making greens larger to bring the corner pin placements back into play) might make the course "easier" or reduce the slope rating.  It's not just the good players -- nearly everybody thinks "easier" is a step backwards, or else they just don't want to be seen as wimps who need to make the course less challenging for themselves.

It has taken me a long time to perfect the explanation that some changes will make the course "easier" or "harder" but we are not trying for one or the other, we are just trying to make it more interesting and to bring back a lost nuance of the original design.

This "harder" mantra is a significant cause of the defacing of good old golf courses.
 
 

I think Robert Trent Jones' work at making a number of high-profile 1920s era courses "more difficult" for championship play, beginning in 1951 at Oakland Hills, are undoubtedly several of the most influential events in the history of golf in America.

Amazing. Fifty-six years later, the Oakland Hills hangover remains.

[JESII]

The 'hangover remains' because the membership of the club (any club) think there is some value to being difficult for the sake of being difficult. That is the mentality the needs to be addressed...

[Bill Brightly]

BillB:

I just read your post. Thanks for that. I guess in the back of my mind that's where I was hoping some responses would go.

The USGA is now getting on board with a architectural archive. Obvioiusly the gist of it and the meat of it will be historical architecture in America, and I think they will be an important clearing house of architectural information.

But when clubs get into using that information on their courses what should the USGA's position be then?

I dont see what the USGA CAN do other than provide information and perhaps explanations. I suppose they could eventually hire a golf architectural history expert, say a guy like Wayne Morrison,  , who would convey all the information to the clubs and be able to provide a full explanation of the history behind the architect, and what happened to their course over the years, etc. They probably could give a list of current renovation architects and shapers and what courses each has worked on. But I don't see the USGA taking a position on any proposed changes. If the members are bound and determined to screw up a great old course, there is not much the USGA can do. On the other hand, having access to a lot of good information will likely prevent a few disasters, and facilitate many other good restoration efforts.

 

[JESII]

The USGA actually does hold its event for a field of players that need the course to be maxed out...maybe you guys disagree with their method of narrow fairways and all and that's fine...I don't want this conversation to go there...but the reality is why does every course need to protect par against the one scratch player that will show up there this week? That is why the USGA can, in fact, get away with 'do as I say, not as I do'...

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I certainly hope not...look how they totally dropped the ball and allowed technology run away from them.
They already send a somewhat limited and not very constuctive message in thier sey up of US Open courses, so I dont really know how much input we want then to have.

Of course thier input on turf management has been invaluable to the game, so in that resopect they do influence architecture, but directly with the design and building...leave that to the guys who do it all the time.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good post, JES.  Yes, for both those who like the USGA and for those who don't, the messages it sends out have a lot of power. That’s why I wish they’d do it more officially, in words as much as in deeds. I mean, even the Pope occasionally explains himself publicly/widely.

Peter

[Jerry Kluger]

What about the members of the US Open clubs - perhaps it should be their responsibility to preserve the integrity of their courses.  The USGA can go to public venues such as Bethpage, Torrey Pines and Pinehurst and they will agree to their demands because of the almighty buck, but the private clubs need to stand up and say no to their demands.  The members of these clubs should recognize that they don't have to agree to the changes demanded by the USGA and for that matter the PGA of America.  

I am wondering if Shinnecock will make major changes if so demanded by the USGA - I hope not.  What if the USGA had told Oakmont not to take down the trees - would the membership have agreed - I hope not.  These memberships don't need the USGA to give their courses the prestige and credibility which they deserve - if it means that the events will be moved to newly constructed courses then so be it.  

[JESII]

True Jerry, but a buck is a buck and these things apparently generate a load of money for the clubs...

[Jerry Kluger]

I just can't imagine that the memberships at these clubs really care that much about the money.  They have initiation fees, substantial dues and long waiting lists.  Does anyone believe that Merion, Congressional, Winged Foot, Shinnecock, etc.., would have any problem attracting members if they refused to ever have an Open again?  

[Bill Brightly]

Jerry is right, and you can be sure that each of these clubs has a vocal group that would rather NOT have any more Opens. Many members simply do not want the interruption that occurs to THEIR golf game.

As a result, I don't think the USGA "dictates" to these clubs at all. I think they make suggestions, but I think the USGA needs the old courses far more than the clubs need the Opens.

So much of the US Open "set up" is transitory and not worth talking about from an architectural standpoint. Rough height, green speed, watering practices, etc. are one year things, at most. Even new "Tiger tees" have little effect on the membeship, because most won't play those tees.

Major changes to the course are another topic, and I think each board has an obligation to "do the right thing" (don't screw up their great old course) irrespective of whether or not they are hosting an Open. The USGA has access to thousands of potential sites, but only a handful offer the USGA the rich history required to make Opens truly special.

[JESII]

My point is...even Bill Gates wouldn't turn down $1,000,000 if you offered it to him with the only stipulation being that he also accept an 'improved' image...

I know you don't think Merion's image needs any improvement and I agree...maybe my vocabulary is insufficient to place the appropriate phrase there...but there is no downside to this through their (the majority of Merion's membership) eyes.

Just thinking about it right now, there are actually a ton of shots that the guys will have to hit that the old guys had to hit...in the context of this thread, that's a very good thing...but is it the USGA's responsibility? I think they should take responsibility for any beneficial opportunity for the game of golf...and preserving the ideals that built golf up is certainly one of them.

[Mike Sweeney]

I just can't imagine that the memberships at these clubs really care that much about the money.  They have initiation fees, substantial dues and long waiting lists.  Does anyone believe that Merion, Congressional, Winged Foot, Shinnecock, etc.., would have any problem attracting members if they refused to ever have an Open again?  

In the case of Winged Foot, they have fairly low dues and arguably reasonable initiation. It is the legacy of the place (stemming from the founders) to keep things that way so that they do not get all Wall Street guys and so that they can retain their existing members, many who are salaried workers. Members include a number of priest and the Mayor of Mamaroneck who I am sure are getting a lower price.

They make a ton of money off their Monday outings where the charge roughly twice what The Creek Club charges. Why do they get it? US Open legacy which sells to the corporate crowd.

In the case of Merion, I think they still have their first dollar from their first member.  

Please be clear, this is another element of what makes these places great. They can afford to have diverse memberships which make up the foundation of the clubs. Newer clubs don't have this flexibility when they have to compete with a housing developer for the land. They pretty much have to have rich guys in order to pay off the acquisition cost of the modern land.

[Adam Clayman]

Lot's of good stuff here on both sides.

It would appear that whatever message they send, or want to send, it is increasingly difficult with the constant and frequent changes in top management. For those who know how the Org works, is this a valid observation?
As the one who likes to give the Tartan crowd crap for their lack of politicing legeslators, my thoughts are the USGA could do the same. Perhaps in a coordinated effort? That not only sends a message, it gets action where it counts. As opposed to creating a platform that speads it's message like advertising, in the wind.

[Bill Brightly]

My point is...even Bill Gates wouldn't turn down $1,000,000 if you offered it to him with the only stipulation being that he also accept an 'improved' image...

I know you don't think Merion's image needs any improvement and I agree...maybe my vocabulary is insufficient to place the appropriate phrase there...but there is no downside to this through their (the majority of Merion's membership) eyes.

Just thinking about it right now, there are actually a ton of shots that the guys will have to hit that the old guys had to hit...in the context of this thread, that's a very good thing...but is it the USGA's responsibility? I think they should take responsibility for any beneficial opportunity for the game of golf...and preserving the ideals that built golf up is certainly one of them.

Bill Gates? Add a comma and some zeroes, and maybe I'll agree...

These clubs are running annual budgets. Opens are one time events. Hosting an Open may be a great revenue source to get a lot of capital improvements done at once, such as a new practice facility, or clubhouse and course improvements that are needed anyway. But hosting an open really puts the membership through the wringer for a year. So sure, boards will be happy to make a profit, but they are NOT going to wreck their course, tick off a vast majority of the membership, for a one time payoff.

[JESII]

Bill,

I have no idea what you are taling about and it appears you have no idea what I am talking about...

You think Bill Gates would scoff at someone offering him a million dollars, a "better" public persona and an increased revenue stream? Seriously?

that's what the US Open does for each club that hosts it...name one course that has been "wrecked" in the name of the US Open.

[Pete Lavallee]

name one course that has been "wrecked" in the name of the US Open.

Torrey Pines?

The course went from a pleasant muni charging $25 for City residents and $30 for County residents to a golf course so tough that the locals no longer wish to play there. The green fees have been set for 2010, the first year the City can jack them up under their contract with the USGA, $75 for City residents and $229 for everyone else.

Bethpage improved under the changes and is better maintained. The State still runs it as a benefit to it resdients, keeping green fees reasonable. I wish I could say the same thing for Torrey Pines.

[Mark_Fine]

There are lots of great ideas listed here but frankly everything else the USGA does pales in comparison to the example they set with their U.S. Opens.   You lead by example and that is the example they set for golf architecture.  

I am playing Merion tomorrow in the wind and cold.  I want to remember the old girl before the USGA facelifts start to unfold  

[JESII]

Pete,

Interesting about Torrey...sounds like the state is gouging the locals...as far as the course setup these days, the folks that play Bethpage seem to want the closest thing they can get to Open conditions all the time...maybe California saw that and tried the same thing and just got it wrong in the market...

[Pete Lavallee]

JES,

Bethpage is a great course because it's built on a great site; even before the renovation you could tell you were challanging nature at its best when you played there.

Torrey never was a good course never mind great. It is a great place, and that counts for something in the overall equation. But it is the poster child for everything that's wrong with the current state of golf, which the USGA is directly responsible for:

Needlessly long, just to test the pros once a year (7500 yards).

Flattish greens which where built soley to accomdate the occasional stimp reading of 12 or greater (trust me, we never get an 8!).

Dire punishment for missing left, right or long on every green complex (every green but one is open in front to accomadate the run on shot).

20 yard wide fairways, which are maintained that way throughout the year.

Although the PGA Tour shoulders some of the blame,  it's easy to point the finger towards the real culprit.

By the way, it's the City of San Diego that's gouging the visitors and county resident who used to get a price break. It's treated as a resort course to add ca$h to the City's general Rec. Fund. If all profits went back into the golf complex it would be a wonderful and reasonably priced place to play.

[Jerry Kluger]

I don't think that there's any amount of money that could influence a decision of Bill Gates - period.

Let's take a club like Congressional which has something like 1500 members and has an intiation fee of $100,000 - that is a fee and not equity. So they need another million and so they let 10 members in - who cares? Let's say instead that they want to spend $4 million on the course or the clubhouse or whatever - spread over 1500 well-healed members it ain't a big deal. The thing gets passed because the movers and shakers say they want it passed and the membership goes along.  

I don't think that any of these great old courses are wanting for members and they have enough history to guarantee that they will flourish for the forseeable future.

[JESII]

Pete,

You paint a not so rosy picture of Torrey Pines from the beginning...was the golf course ever any good?

[Pete Lavallee]

JES,

The original Torey Pines South would never been picked to host a US Open. The site is void of unique topigraphical features which most great golf course are comprised of. The cliffs are too steep and roll over, rather than having an abrupt drop off ala Pebble Beach. The internal canyons did offer some options for thrilling shots which where not utilized by Billy Bell Jr; possibly for safety reasons.

Doak gave the original South course a 3 and the North a 4. So basically the South was just an average course in an extremely pleasant setting. It was a good PGA Tournament venue because it had length; it was around 7000 yards before the redesign.

[JESII]

Pete,

Then how was it "wrecked"?

[Mark_Fine]

JES,
Sorry to jump in but "wrecked" might not be the right choice of words.  But the re-design clearly states what the USGA thinks about golf architecture.  If anyone doesn't think the USGA had a hand in what was designed, etc. they are sadly mistaken.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()