The Architects dilema

[Patrick_Mucci]

If you were retained by a group that wanted to build a golf course that would serve its membership, that would also be the venue for a PGA tour stop, or Major Championship,
in light of today's distances, and tomorrows distances, achieved by pro and amateur alike, what length golf course do you build ?

Can you build a golf course that will allow its architectual principals to serve these two unrelated parties, Touring pros and an average membership ?

[Peter Galea]

6900 yards. I like the idea I proposed months ago about placing moguls in the 280-330 range, with plenty of width. This way it would not take the driver out of the long hitter's hands but give them somthing other than a flat lie for the 2nd. At this distance off the tee it would be a members foozle that finds the bumps. Perhaps they could be sited to kick the ball away from the lind of charm. Secondly I would like to see more defensive greens. The photo from Sitwell Park is interesting. The pros are great putters. Like Lee Janzen said at the Crosby er...AT&T, "hardest golf course in the world from 3 feet in!" Put some interest and skill back into the putting surfaces, forget the "lettered bentgrasses" with 2% slope, rolling at 12. One half the game is played on the putting green, shouldn't chipping and putting be worth more than 14-300 yard blasts?  More roller coasters.
Just my opinion.

[Paul Richards]

Patrick:

I'd build the first 10,000 yard golf course.  

That way, the pros wouldn't make it obsolete before 2020!

[Richard_Goodale]

Pete

Are you the President of the Poa Annua Admiration Society now?  Sure, if you make greens that are so bumpy you don't have a clue what's going to happen within a 3-foot range you can humiliate even the best of putters--even those using the CLAW!

Actually, your thesis is sound.  IT'S THE GREENSITE, "DUMMIES"!  Of course, a few "short grass" hazards on the fairway wouldn't hurt either.

I predict that 10-20 years from now those 7600 yeards tees at Torrey Pines will have as much interest to this DG and to the world of golf as does the 8000+ International GC which was built in Mass. 40+ years ago.

Rich

PS--good luck on the op  I can see you back pitchforking your bunkers in no time at all.......

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I was hired to try a similar task, a competitive collegiate course for Kansas State U.  If you go on GolfDigest.com, and read Whitten's review, you'll get a sense that it doesn't fully work.  He doesn't think a course can be all things to all people, and it is very difficult.  As Tim Jackson said, Multiple tees just don't cut it.  Plus, there is not much you can do to "protect par" for pros without knocking the snot out of aunt sally when she goes to play.  Tougher green contours, forced carries, narrow fairways, deeper bunkers - what doesn't multiply the problems for the average player ten fold from the good collegian or pro?

Basically, you design to the intended audience.  there are things you can do to make it interesting for other audiences - some with design, and some with "once a year maintenance" in the case of tournaments - but you better know your audience pretty well.

[RJ_Daley]

Just to go along with Pat's exercise for the sake of brainstorming it, I would build a course that plays about 7600-7700 for members, but it would be par 74.  But for tournaments, it would be 70-72par.  I would put in two par 5s in the 600yrd range with up tees at 550ish for members or if played back, par 6s, or a couple of 500-520 yarders that play par 5 for members but 4s for the competitive players.

Remember, I'm just brainstorming or brainfarting out loud here, not proposing it :-/

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I think the disparity between the touring pros game and the amateur game has grown so wide that one course cannot accomodate both games.

I like the idea of contoured or severly contoured greens that aren't at the current high end stimps as a reasonable line of defense, and I look to the 1st, 3rd and 6th greens at NGLA as perfect examples.

[Dunlop_White]

If I represented that the perfect length should be 7200 yards, then it would certainly not be playable for the amateurs and/or membership. How often do you hear "The course is too "long" for me!" On the other hand, if I claimed that the perfect length should be 6700 yards, most people would think that it would not suit a professional event. Not me! There's another method, besides length, to defend par that, more importantly, requires a greater amount of skill to negotiate. That is FIRM conditions! How often do you hear anyone, amateur or professional, complain that the ground was too hard for them? I would love to hear it!
At 6700 yards with FIRM conditions, the disparity (between the amateurs and/or membership and the professionals)will at least be determined by skill and shot-making ability instead of the purely physical attributes required to negotiate the 7200 yard soft course.
In fact, I contend that a 6700 yard, firm course could play as hard as a 7200 yard, lush-plush course for the professional.

The disparity may, in fact, be too wide to accomodate both the amateurs and the pros on a single course, but lets attempt to make such a disparity be the product of skill level. The amateurs certainly wouldn't mind this!

Length - little skill to negotiate
High Rough - little skill at recovery!
Firm Conditions - high skill to negotiate
Fast Stimps -(sorry Pat!) high skill to negotiate

Thus, let's do away with long, soft courses with high rough and defend par with firmer faster conditions thru the green on a 6700 yard course.



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dunlop,

One of the early lessons I learned was that if I wanted to compete at a higher level I had to hit the ball longer while keeping it straight.  

Hitting it long and straight requires GREAT skill, and like SPEED in other sports, its hard to acquire if genetics and natural athletcism didn't give you a great head start.

On the stimp issue I would ask you this question.  
Is is harder or easier to hole a twenty foot putt on a green that stimps at 15 with little or zero contour, or is it harder to hole a twenty footer at 9-10 stimp over a series of contours, ridges, etc., etc. ??  And, what are the consequences when the putt finishes far short or long compared to the green with the ridges, contours.

Increased stimps require flattened greens which leads to boredom and more importantly, less emphasis on the incoming shot.  Try hitting an 80 yard wedge to the wrong location on the 1st green at NGLA, or the 3rd or 6th for that matter.
But, if greens are at 15 they must be flat, the putt straight, and then only one factor matters, distance control, whereas at greens like #'s 1,3, and 6, distance and direction are a vital combination, and require more skill.

But, that's just my opinion.

[frank_D]

no you cannot

the disparities in each groups proficiency at playing - as well as the economics of it - disallow it

its like amateurs playing slow pitch softball on the dimensions of a major league stadium ! or vice-versa !

its why any money spent in this regard is wasted

[Steve Lang]

Pat,

My answers are  

7357 yds

No.

=============================================
IMHO.. I believe the pursuit of your two questions could lead to a premise that these issues have actually caused or contributed to a decline in modern CGA results versus the products of the old "masters" of the trade, who focused on their courses and their play, versus what tourneys would be played there or how they'd compete for the market $ share and what the signature hype hole would be.
=============================================

[Match Play]

So if the pros games and the amatuer's games cannot be accommodated by one course, why are they going to try to mess with NGLA for the Walker Cup? If it works now for the, shall I say "average" amatuer, why not leave it alone?

[Tony Ristola]

I don't see why this cannot be accomplished, but the architect can't just mail in the plans and walk away from the project.

[TEPaul]

If you're looking to build a course that could accomodate all levels just look to the courses as models that have for many many years now. Courses like Shinnecock, Oakmont, Aronimink, Pinehurst #2 and a number of others. They were designed as championship venues and they have endured in that context for years and they've also had extremely content memberships in play from the beginning (Pinehurst #2 is public but popular with other levels).

[Michael Dugger]

If the goal was to one day host a professional tournament, I would to say that squeezing the fairways is one way to combat the modern day ball.  But of course we all hate the USGA set up, right?  

I would allow for the flexibility to widen these fairways for the members.  

I believe that the only challenge to tour players today is in the greens complexes.  I would emulate Pinehurst #2 with the subtle folds and dips-Peaks and hollows-etc.

  

[ian]

Build it for the pros. Build it long, make the fairways tight and the bunkers deep. There is enough players who enjoy getting there brains bashed in regularly to call that club their home. Then when they bring guests out, they can watch them shoot high scores with pride.

There are lots of these layouts, and they seem to fill up way too easily. Its not my choice in a private club, but it is many other peoples.

If your goal is the pros, than build it to take them on. I don't see the line up shortening for Bethpage Black.

To answer you Pat, to me there is no dilema, since your stated objective is to host the pros.

Funny enough, that said, I'd have little interest in playing the course more than once a year (if that). You may not like the answer, but it is truthful.

[buckeye_bob]

Ian, Your assessment is definitively concise  ; however, there is something thrilling playing the Ocean Course (x1++).Pete may have the answer,providing xtra room(50/75)yds behind each tee?

[Mark_Fine]

Nicklaus essentially attempted to do this at The Renegade Course at Desert Mountain in Phoenix.  If you've played that course, you will see it is possible to pull this idea off.  

The concept is basically different sets of tees AND different colored flags (pin positions) on the greens.  The course you play is a function of which set of tees you pick and what color flag you hit to.  This determines the difficultly of the golf course.  It actually works, at the very least from a difficulty standpoint.  However, the bottomline is that you need a lot of land and some very large greens to pull this off.  

The idea in general actually has some merit but is extremely difficult to pull off without getting over the top.  Personally, I was not enamored with The Renegade Course and thought many of the holes were just plain goofy and/or too one dimensional (typical Nicklaus at that point in his design career).  At the same time, the course might have been ahead of its time in design philosophy.  
Mark

[ian]

The last course we built has many tees behind the existing tees. They are currently seeded to fescue; but are on grade ready to go, have the tee mix in place and the irrigation is live too them. They will simply add them when they need to.

Credit goes to the superintendent, who is also the construction forman for the project. One very smart man.

[Forrest Richardson]

Patrick -- If a course is fun to play, enjoyable and interesting, does it really matter who is playing, their relation to "par" or how one "class" of golfers attacks the course versus another?

[ian]

Forrest, Yes it does.

My personal dilema comes with my love for mid length layouts that are more enjoyable than a test; but after watching these guys hit mainly 3 woods and 2 irons all day around the longest course we ever built I realized that to test them you have to build something I have no interest in playing.

I'm with you, I do believe you should build for the 99.9% and ignore the pro game because it is really tough to design (impossible probably) a course that tests their game while offering a fair and interesting test to the mid handicap. Multiple tees don't do it, because more often than not the bunkering and angles are lost to a player playing up from the back tees.

But if you got those guys coming through your new course, and you know it in the design phase, you've got to build with them in mind.

A agre with your philosophy, but I do think you have to put it aside when the pros are going to play atournyment there; and particularly if its going to be a national event.

[Forrest Richardson]

I guess I would say that it doesn't matter if pros playing a tournament shoot 28 under par. Who cares? It still is excellent golf...and the par can easily be changed to lessen the under amount.

Golf is a game of flexibility. The par-65 tournament course is not out of the question.

Do I want the equipment advances to stop? Yes, I'd like to see more emphasis on accuracy. "Accuracy, carry and [then] length" -- William Flynn.