Resistance to PGA Tour Scoring - The Hamilton Experience

[Bryan Izatt]

The Canadian Open was held at the Hamilton Golf and Country Club  in 2003 and then again last week, in 2006.  HGCC was designed by Harry Colt and remains largely his design.  Over the years it has been lengthened by 500 yards to just over 6900 yards at par 70 - short by modern tournament standards.

In 2003 the winning score was -8.  I think this was the highest winning score outside of the majors.

What defences to resist Tour scoring did the course design have?  There is signifcant elevation changes on the course with many shots providing uneven lies.  The course is tree-lined, but not overly tight.  Many of the greens have significant slope and tiering.  Many of the holes require uphill shots.  Some holes have forced layups.  Others are doglegs requiring shaped shots or layups.  In 2003 the course was firm and fast.

All of these factors contributed to the relatively high scoring.

This year, 2006, the course was essentially the same.  However due to rain before and during the event, the greens played soft.  The winning score was -14.  The Tour players are really good at throwing darts to soft greens.

The lessons from this are that a course can resist scoring if it has some or all of the design features above and can be maintained firm.  Length per se is not really a requirement.  The Tour guys can throw darts at soft greens whether it's 6900 yards or 7,400 yards like Medinah.

Perhaps this is a message that needs to be taken back to those classic courses that entertain lengthening themselves to resist Tour scoring (or to be like Tour tournament courses).  

[Jason Topp]

Bryan:

While it seemed to me that Hamilton was a wonderful venue, I think your analysis needs to take into account that the course is a par 70 with only 2 par fives.  

If the course were par 72 without making any changes, the winning scores would have been -16 and -22, more in the typical range for a PGA Tour tournament.

A second way to think about the length of the course is to add about 300 yards to make the length of a par 70 equivilant to a par 72, making Hamilton more equivilant to about a 7200 yard course, relatively typical for a tour course.

To me the test should not be "resistance to scoring" but whether the course provides an interesting challenge.  No doubt, Hamilton provides such a challenge.

If you are going to focus on resistance to scoring, I would compare Hamilton to other par 70 courses with 2 par fives, such a Colonial (268 winning score this year) and Milwaukee (260 winning score this year).  Hamilton still fares well in those comparisons but not to the extent suggested by your post.

[T_MacWood]

Well said Jason.

IMO having to constantly measure up these old courses to today's professional golfer has not been good for golf architecture.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jason,

Indeed, a par 70 course helps keep the scores up relative to par and the length is not as short as it appears because of the par.  But some other par 70 courses used in championships are well over 7,000 yards.  WFW comes to mind.  In terms of resistance, I was focussing on the -8 from 2003 and that it occured primarily due to firmness of greens, not length.

And, yes Hamilton appears to have presented an interesting challenge to the Tour players.  It was well received by the players by all accounts.  Here's a quote from Charles Warren on Robert Thompson's blog:

"I just asked Steve [Stricker] about [Hamilton] and how it compares to Riviera and Westchester," Warren says, referencing two of the most heralded courses on the PGA Tour. "He told me there's no comparison between [this course] and those. This is a lot better. I think he's right."

Tom,

The constant measuring up, whether it's a new course or an old classic, is what all golfers do when they play the game or watch the pros play the game, isn't it?  Could you elaborate on why this isn't good for golf architecture.

[Aaron Katz]

Having stepped on the 10th green at the Deutsche Bank championship after play completed on Monday, I was surprised just how firm it was, despite constant drizzle for the two prior days.  I think the Tour does a pretty good job of getting the greens "firm" by normal standards; the pros strike it so solid that you have to get the greens "ultra-firm" for it to make a huge difference.  I doubt that the greens at Medinah were truly spongy, for instance.  I think that getting bent grass greens U.S. Open-type firm on a regular basis is both impractical and silly considering the green speeds today.  If the committee wants to tuck pins like at the British, that's fine by me.  But don't put a pin on the center of a green -- whether it's on the edge of a plateau or not -- and be surprised when guys fire right at it.

The point about uneven lies is a good one, I think.  When you combine a green with thoughtful contours and at least a hint of firmness, extremely uneven lies become very challenging indeed, even with a short iron.  I could be wrong, but I think that uneven lies started becoming more rare at Augusta when they constantly regraded the fairways, and that made the long ball an even more potent weapon.  I had read once that Augusta's fairways became more and more uneven the closer on got to the hole (a good design feature, I think).

[Doug Siebert]

Aaron, I think it was pretty clear how soft the greens at Medinah were, given the pitchmarks their approaches were raising up.  If their shots are making holes half a ball diameter deep and sending a little divot of turf forward, I think we can well relate those to our own game where similar conditions cause our own shots to obtain similar results.  Its purely a function of how soft the green is and how high and at what angle a ball lands that causes that, hitting the ball more or less solidly won't materially affect the result under such conditions.

I have found that sometimes playing greens after a heavy rain that feel very solid and firm to walk on can still raise up some impressively deep ball marks for balls that hit them.  Typically I see this on newer courses, maybe it is some artifact of the way some greens are constructed that may cause this.  Kingsbarns was a great example of this when I played there in 2001.

[TEPaul]

"The lessons from this are that a course can resist scoring if it has some or all of the design features above and can be maintained firm.  Length per se is not really a requirement.  The Tour guys can throw darts at soft greens whether it's 6900 yards or 7,400 yards like Medinah.

Perhaps this is a message that needs to be taken back to those classic courses that entertain lengthening themselves to resist Tour scoring (or to be like Tour tournament courses)."

Bryan:

It is a message being sent. Are you familiar with the details of the "Ideal Maintenance Meld"? If not, there is little question it is the single most effective deterrent to lower scoring even at that pro level and particularly on most classic style courses. There're a few components to it but in my opinion the essential component is green surface firmness and what is ideal in that area is remarkably identifiable.

[T_MacWood]

Tom,

The constant measuring up, whether it's a new course or an old classic, is what all golfers do when they play the game or watch the pros play the game, isn't it?  Could you elaborate on why this isn't good for golf architecture.

Bryan
The reason it isn't good for golf architecture is because some of our greatest old designs do not measure up to the modern professional game especially if your measurement is the ability to protect par....St.Andrews, Royal Melbourne and Merion as examples.

Often the consequence is either those courses are set up in even more penal manner which limits the intended architectural options (usually in the form of rough) or worse the old classic is redesigned.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom P,

Yes, I remember your ideal maintenance meld threads.  And, yes, that's what I'm thinking.

Tom McW,

OK, just checking to see if that's what you meant.  

I wonder though if "measuring up" doesn't also serve a useful purpose vis-a-vis modern courses.  If the courses don't exhibit strategic elements, architectural features akin to classic courses and designers, elements of fun, and even resistance to scoring, are they not "rated" down, and fall off the radar.  Conversely don't ones that "measure up" rate highly, attract attention, and encourage the further development of courses with these desireable features?  As long as the measuring up is not just about protecting par against the PGA Tour.