What makes a golf course difficult for the tour guys?

[T.J. Sturges]

....because it is obviously not length.  I'd like to hear from you all on what you think needs to be done to make a golf course play more difficult for the tour guys (assuming today's equipment).  

I'd be especially interested to know how the architects on this panel would reply to this question.

TS

[wsmorrison]

Firm and Fast through the green (especially the approaches) along with firm greens.  As much as nature allows in any case.  I'd like to see classic courses set up so that approach shots, even with wedges show no ball marks or light dents on the greens with the balls bounding in the air and sent in directions dictated by slopes or contours.  Positioning in fairways will be key.  Bombed drives that end up in the rough leaving a wedge will be iffy since the approach shot will not spin--the player really has to think about where to land the shot and what will happen.

I'd also like more iffiness in the rough---not so uniform.  I'd also pile all the rakes and burn them.

A controversial method to subordinate distance was suggested by Flynn, though we haven't found out if ever implemented.  Flynn, like others in the 1920s were worried about how the relative distances new technology was impacting on the sport.  His suggestion was to soften the LZ so that balls would not run so very far and leave short irons into greens.  I don't like this idea very much; it was probably just suggested to demonstrate how crazy things were getting.  If there are nicely sloped fairways as well as hard and fast, the golfer will be required to shape shots so as to hold fairways and give themselves a chance to hold the hard greens.

[Tom_Doak]

Slower greens with more slope.  They seem to have difficulty adjusting to the change in speed and slope, and keep leaving uphill putts short ... witness Winged Foot this year, Westchester and Pebble Beach every year.

[Adam Clayman]

Ted,
  Maintenance seems to be a good answer.
On any good medium the complexities of the canvas are great. Preparing that canvas, in a way that optimizes those complexities (similar to Michaud's U.S. Open) is one area to look at, if one's goal is difficulty.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Is it the speed, or in the case of Pebble, just the bumpy surface?

Other than that, I think Pete Dye had the formula - water hazards so they really pay for a bad shot, which no matter how good they are, come eventually.  They'll make birdies, so keeping scores high is making sure they do a few doubles along the way.

[JESII]

Do they actually struggle at Pebble?

[wsmorrison]

"Slower greens with more slope.  They seem to have difficulty adjusting to the change in speed and slope, and keep leaving uphill putts short ... witness Winged Foot this year, Westchester and Pebble Beach every year."

Tom,

If they played greens like those you mentioned regularly, don't you think they'd learn soon enough how to succeed on them?  Its only because it is atypical that they have relative problems on such greens.  Isn't the PGA tour pretty much set up so that things are consistant course to course except for the few exceptions you cite?

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, Why isn't a bad shot penalty enough?

[J_McKenzie]

Isn't Pinehurst #2 the perfect model for the ideal tour set-up?  The players have options, which makes them have to think- this leaves room for doubt, and they have to be conservative with their approach to just about every shot.  Pars and bogies are plentiful, but birdies and others are not. Overall, I think that is the balance everyone is looking for.

Good course management, good ball-striking, and good putting are all needed.

[wsmorrison]

J McKenzie

In my mind, I don't think Pinehurst #2 can be a perfect model as the architectural demand (however it came about) is so repetitive.  I think an ideal set-up for tour players should involve maintenance practices with a variety of architectural shot testing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, Why isn't a bad shot penalty enough?

In the context of a "What is tough for Tour Pros" thread, I presumed the end goal of the question is to find a way to raise scores.  

If they recover 99% of the time (an exageration) for par, then that particular hazard/feature, whatever can't be that tough for them.  At 66% or 50% or 33%, its a bit tougher, isn't it?  And with water, presumably the recovery for par is close to zero, adding bogey or worse to the score.

[Mike_DeVries]

Ted,

I think it is firm and fast conditions throughout the golf course.  This, combined with contour in the ground, makes for shots and variety that force the players to consider a number of possibilities, not just distance.  They will still be able to score and go low, but it would certainly be more exciting and present more variables for them to consider.

As to greens, firm conditions that roll true are the best parameter for good golf.  Speed will be dictated by slope, so if there is quite a bit of slope and the greens are firm, a slower speed will determine that position to attack the flagstick location (via approach or putting) is most critical to scoring.  This will also allow for great downhill putts that have a chance to make it, not just trying to stay on the green.  A more steeply pitched green that has a slightly higher height of cut (more leaf blade) will also have better turf quality that is more resilient to stressful conditions (heat, disease, etc.).

Mike

[Bryan Izatt]

As others have said, firm and fast, especially on the greens.

Holes that turn so they have to either lay up or shape their shots.

Elevation changes, especially uphill approach shots that are partially blind.

Undulating fairways that kick the ball in random directions and provide awkward stances.

Wind - locations where wind is usual would make the courses more difficult.  It's often said that the UK courses are defenceless in the absence of wind.

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:

Yes, as you and Bill both said, the Tour sets their green speeds the same from week to week so the more tilted greens (which have to be set up slower to work) give them fits.  If they played on slow tilted greens every week, they'd adjust quickly enough.

So, what would really be difficult for them is differing conditions from week to week.  Soft bunkers on one course, firm the next; fast greens on one, slower the next.  Even firm and fast conditions won't make it too hard for them if they saw a steady diet of it.  But that's not going to happen -- the Tour has several guys on payroll to ensure that conditions are relatively consistent, because that's what the Tour players want!

Unfortunately, the answer to Ted's question is just where the Tour is starting to go -- narrower fairways, more trees, and more water in play.  Watch for it at the TPC next March, and tell me if you think that's good for the game in general.  I'd just as soon see them shoot 30 under as long as there's some differential between a well-played hole and a mistake.

[Jimmy Muratt]

I think there are two main keys to making a golf course difficult for tour pros.  The first is to make more of a penalty for marginal shots.  A "safe" approach 40 feet to the right of the hole should then leave a very demanding two putt or up-and-down.  Because of the green speeds on tour, most of the greens have relatively little contour so lag putts from 40+ feet are usually routine.  Give them a 40 footer on the first green at NGLA and they won't feel quite so comfortable.  

Regarding the Pinehurst example mentioned earlier, what Pinehurst does so well is magnify your misses.  This leads to my second key, which is to make the players "think", this can lead to fear and doubt.  If a good player in standing over their ball 120 yards out knowing they have to hit within a 10 foot radius of the hole, or their ball will catch a ridge and feed 40 feet away or off the green, that is a difficult shot.  
The same 120 yard shot for those guys with no "fear of failure" is routine and they will make birdie a high percentage of the time.

[J_McKenzie]

Wayne,

I don't disagree with your statement, my point is that to challenge the tour guys, you have to make them think about each shot.  The more options they have, the harder it is for them to commit.  Also, making them play conservative and patient golf for four days goes against their very nature.  To me, what Tiger did this year at the Open Championship was quite remarkable .

To the original question in this thread- firm contoured greens; holes that require shaped shots; risk / reward strategies.

 

[Aaron Katz]

Of those courses that consistently host tournaments and don't literally kill the golf course doing so, the ideal test is beginning to sound an awful lot like Augusta National during cooperative weather -- both before and after the design changes.  Most would probably prefer the greenside bunkers there to be more penal (softer sand might in and of itself do the trick).

[wsmorrison]

I agree that turns and more angles in play make for a higher degree of difficulty.  Offset fairways and greens take away the try and blast it down the line of play mentality.  Uneven lies in the fairway--we've got lots of them in the Philadelphia district, also seems to give the players a spot of trouble.

Tom D,

Excellent points.  The fact that we agree with BillV somehow bothers me though    What sort of course would you design if you wanted to nullify Tiger's advantage (not only his length, which a few others share, but also his outsmarting everyone) over the field?

J McKenzie

I agree with you and your Pinehurst answer did answer the original question.  I just don't think it an ideal course, but that's me and it shouldn't refute your response.  

[JWL]

Ted

I think TD has already answered this question similar to the way I would.   That is, that there are two things that create uncertainty to the players, green speed and bunker sand.
The tour works very hard to give the players the same green speed week in and week out.   This allows players to "groove" their putting strokes to a specified speed.   When that changes, you hear the players grumbling.   The most difficult thing you could do in that regard would be to actually change the speeds throughout the course during a round.   Say, 6 at 11, 6 at 10 and 6 at 9, randomly during a round.   This would force the player to be able to read which are which, and would really play with his mind.   I know this is not going to happen, and is most likely totally unrealistic from a maintenance standpoint, but it would raise scores, imo.
Secondly, if the bunkers were not "so" perfect, the players would tend to not play as aggressively.   I have been told by a top 10 ranked tour player, that the players are so good that you have to go pin hunting on most approaches from the fairway over bunkers in order to go low enough to have a chance to win.   They just take their chance that they can get the sand shot up and in, if they don't succeed in their
approach.   They count on being able to spin the ball out of the bunkers.   If the lies are "random" enough that they can't always get a lie to spin the shot, they would be less apt to attack the tight pins.   This would most likely raise winning scores over 4 rounds.  
These guys are so good, that even these ideas might not really affect them much.  
Taking the ball back to the balata ball we played in the mid 80's would do more than anything.

[Lou_Duran]

1) 15+ mph winds with frequent gusts;

2) Tom Doak greens;

3) combination of high rough and very firm greens.

[JMorgan]

....because it is obviously not length.  I'd like to hear from you all on what you think needs to be done to make a golf course play more difficult for the tour guys (assuming today's equipment).  

I'd be especially interested to know how the architects on this panel would reply to this question.

TS

Create angles to the green that take distance out of the equation so the approach shot becomes more difficult for the longer hitters.

[Lou_Duran]

Are angles of approach that important to guys who hit the ball very straight and control the distance and spin of the ball so ridiculously well?  Also, consider that long hitters are typically long through the bag.  Whereas I might be hitting a 5 iron to a tucked pin position (from a bad angle), a guy like Tiger or Mickelson is using a 9, making the angle of approach rather moot.  By the way, width plays right into the hands of the long knocking tour player.

Other complicating factors for the tour guys are water and heavy vegetation close to the playing areas, particularly on windy, firm sites.

[Steve Burrows]

I think one of the general things that people here are actually suggesting is to take the tournaments to different golf courses.  Apart from the fact that the PGA Tour insists that conditioning (green speed, bunkers, etc) are the same from week to week, these guys play the same places year after year and, if you notice, the same guys play with relative success at the same venues each year.  If you really want to confuse them in an effort to defend par (which still may not work since they are so incredibly gifted), maybe take the tournaments to courses where their caddies don't have 15-20 years of information documented in a little book.

[tlavin]

1.  Greens with slope.  (Super fast and relatively flat greens are red meat for this crowd.)

2.  Long par 4's with doglegs and/or hazards that are "in play" for their length.  (Taking the driver out of a tour player's hand is key with a par 4, but you also need hazards that are in play.)  Bottom line here: you need at least five holes where a good pro will stand on the tee and say, "I could make double here."  Straightaway holes, no matter the length, won't do the trick.

3.  Greens that sit at difficult angles to the typical line of play.  If a touring pro has a straight approach to a green, without any angles that supply shallow landing areas, they will eat the course alive.

4.  Only two par 5 holes.  Augusta is a notable exception here, but the pros just destroy par 5 holes and you can't give them four birdie holes from jump street.

5.  Wind.  Wind.  Wind.  I know that an architect can't supply the wind, but if the site is in a windy area, it is a huge plus for difficulty.

[JESII]

Whatever it is, just keep in mind, it is then unplayable for the rest of us.