Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & setup?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The problem with the written word is that it conveys no body language, no tonal inflexion, or facial expression, so I took the personal reference to me as it was printed.

I don't think a competition, the winner or the scores tell you ANYTHING about the architecture of a given golf course.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

When you read my written word and any references to you, no matter what the hell I might say, think only of the most positive body language, the most positive tonal inflection and the most positive facial expression imaginable from me towards you!

In your previous post I referred to, I wasn't so concerned about what you felt about a winner or leaderboard refecting on a course or its architecture, I was concerned about what you appeared to feel I felt about it. It looked to me like you thought I felt about it practically the exact opposite of what I do feel. I realize we're both getting older and our minds and eyes and memories might be going but for your info on that thread my name is TEPaul not Jeff Lewis!

Now, would you please get back to that club pro thread and answer me with a True of False about the Hartman and Parvenik statement. No more bogus numbers, math and statistical analogies with no know reference to your statement and point--just a true or false will do--thank you.

You can even email me privately that you admit you're  entirely wrong (and more so as time and majors go by) so the Golfclubatlas contributors won't see your admission but if you do admit you're wrong I make absolutely no gaurantees that I won't copy and paste it at some point in the future!

[Paul Richards]

I am of the school which believes that "great courses produce great champions."

So I get disappointed when a Paul Lawrie wins at a superb course like Carnoustie.

If a Justin Leonard or a Tiger Woods (previous Major winners) wins at Hazeltine, it helps the course's reputation.

If Beem goes on to win more tournaments, and especially majors, it will be a positive for Hazeltine.  As it stands today,
Beem is not a "great" champion - despite winning in a great fashion.

[CHrisB]

It surprises me that Tom Doak would fall on the side of thinking that lesser-name winners indicates a weakness of the course, at least for the Olympic Club: "From my standpoint, even Plympic's record as host to major championships is indicative of its weaknesses. Disagree? Okay, you take Fleck, Casper, and Scott Simpson; I'll take Hogan, Palmer, and Tom Watson." (p.64)

The question for those on that side of the debate is: if it is true that weak courses produce weak champions, how does it happen?  The only explanation I've seen offered up until now is that when luck plays too big a part (Carnoustie '99) anyone can win, but even there I'd contend Carnoustie is a very strong course but with a poor set-up in 1999.  So how do weak courses produce weak champions?

For me, the single biggest factor in the success of the every-day touring pro at the PGA is that more pros believe they can win the PGA than any other major.  This probably has something to do with the setup (low-, high-, long-, and short-ball hitters all seem to have a chance; so-so putters can get hot or make up for it tee-to-green where at the Masters and US Open they can't; etc.) and something to do with the fact that the PGA is the least prestigious major (who among us dreamed of winning the PGA and not the Masters, British or US Opens?). So while the pressure is still high, no life dreams are hanging in the balance, and more guys think they have the game to contend than at the other three.  

Plus, what special shots do you have to practice for the PGA? Tour guys prepare for weeks leading up to the Masters, hitting specific shots and trajectories and preparing for unreal greens; they do the same for the US Open and even put new clubs in the bag (all the 7-woods this year); and they practice lowering the ball flight, hitting run-ups, etc., for the British Open. At the PGA, it seems like you can play your normal game and have a chance.

Maybe you could argue that a weak course set-up produces a weak winner, but not a weak course itself.

[Bruceski]

It seems ridiculous to analyze leaderboards comprised of the top 98 players in the world. We ask what it means for the course if a relative unknown wins the damn thing. But we don't ask what it means if Mickelson is floating hopelessly near the bottom. Or, why is Els not challenging?

Why? Because the difference in skill between Beem and Mickelson (similar players, in my opinion) is negligible. Hell, Craig Perks -- a REAL unknown who hasn't done diddly since -- won the Players' Championship. Why, because he's frickken good at golf, and could smoke Tiger or Phil in a friendly round on any given day. How could we ever extend an analysis of a group of players with a very narrow standard deviation of talent to the quality of a golf course?

[Robert_Walker]

Bruce,
You hit the nail on the head. By the way, Craig Perks did contend at the British Open.

[Matt_Ward]

The only comment I can offer is this:

How many other players could handle the #1 player in the world making four birdies to close in such a rush at the finish?

I have not seen it -- not from Phil the Flop, David "I'm in denial about my game" Duval, Davis "I'm such an under-achiever" Love III, and all the rest.

Hazeltine proved itself quite nicely -- the venue was an equal opportunity course for players who could PLAY!

Rich Beem doesn't have to prove squat for the rest of his career -- the moment will always show him rising to meet the battle head-on instead of folding like a cheap envelope as so many other players have when faced with Tiger.

Kudos to Beem and Hazeltine. One last item for all those Rees Jones bashers -- mark it down -- the 16th is one of the finest mid-length par-4's in all of golf. No doubt whatsoever in my mind!

[John_Conley]

Some great points made in the last few points.  Bruce:  Duh!  You make me look so stupid.  You said in one post what I've been trying to say!  SOMEONE has to win, and it shouldn't be a surprise that SOMEONE out of the Top 100 would play great.

Matt:  With how often you are critical of courses I like, I'm surprised you have anything that nice to say about Hazel!!  The negatives are pretty well chronicled - overreliance on doglegs,rather bland site, bunkering even more bland, similar look on a few approaches, etc...  However, one often heard criticism is the the "new" 16th really doesn't fit the character of the rest of the course!

Taking this one a little further... would you - would ANYONE - want to play a course where it DID fit the character??

I think you are right.  Taken by itself it is really a great hole.  Anyone single digit or better has the wherewithall to execute the three shots necessary for birdie, but how often will they?

[Paul Richards]

John;

Regardless is #16 "fits" the rest of the course, it is a great
hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris B,

So you want to take Hogan, Palmer and Watson, AFTER the jury is in.  You want to equate Mr Beem at the begining of his career to these three fellows at the end of theirs, and draw conclusions with respect to Hazeltine based on the above evaluations.

For your information, HOGAN struggled for most of his early years as a pro and was about to give up.  When he wins his first Major, noone knows if he'll ever win another.  
History alone tells the story.  
The same goes for Watson and Palmer when they win their first Major.  Noone knows the paths their careers will take.
Time tells the story for all of us.

Was Tom Kite a great player ?
Is Phil Mickelson a great player ?

Does the fact that a player wins his only Major on a given golf course reflect upon the golf course where the Major is won ?

I think not.

[Matt_Ward]

John C:

Please don't misunderstand me -- I'm not saying Hazeltine is a great course in the same vein as Winged Foot, Oakmont, et al. What I meant to say, if it was not clear, is that Hazeltine was prepared to be a rigorous, but fair challenge for ALL types of players.

The course, at least from what I could see from TV, seemed to be prepared correctly so that only superior play would be rewarded. That to me is a real plus to the PGA and to the course in serving to identify a champion of distinction which Rich Beem proved without question.

I would not place Hazeltine among the top 50 courses in the USA and it's a 50/50 proposition with many here on GCA if it would even get a top 100 positiion. I'd include it in mine, however, more towards the rear than the front of a second fifty listing.

The 16th hole is clearly out of character with the rest of the course. But, given the course is so "bland" as you, and many indicate, what's wrong with having a hole that is clearly different than the mix when it happens to be a step up in overall quality? The 16th is just long enough to keep players from easily clubbing down. There's plenty of options and plenty of danger -- in my mind, that's a forumla for a great hole. There's also the elements to contend with when the wind picks up as it did on Saturday's third round. I've played the hole and know full well that ANY number is possible if you doze for even a second.

Hazeltine served its purpose in separating the contenders from the pretenders -- where was Phil, Duval. Love, et al??? On that score the Championship was a success. I agree with you that Hazeltine isn't exactly a beauty in overall esthetics and the banality of a number of holes is certainly obvious, but at the end of the day the name of the game in high level major championship play is identify the top players. No doubt Hazeltine did that. The issue of overall course greatness is another matter -- a layout may be proficient in one thing, but that doesn't automatically transfer that into the category of overall great courses.

Hope this helps ...

[John_Conley]

Matt:

I think we agree completely about Hazeltine.  My mantra all along has been to say that the course is nowhere near as bad as those who bash it think.  I'm okay with 16, but thought I'd play Devil's Advocate and ask a rhetorical question.

If it is a knock against Hazeltine that its Signature Hole is so out of character with the rest of the course, does that imply that it would work better where on a course where all 18 holes matched its character?

I think you can see my point.  That'd be too penal!

[Matt_Ward]

John C:

I don't know if I would say the hole is penal with a capital "P." Why do I say this? Because at the tee the player makes the decision on what club to hit. Given the hole plays just a tad over 400 yards you can play it from a variety of perspectives.

Now, if the hole was 440+ and you HAD to NAIL A DRIVER into that type of landing area AND major amount of wind was blowing then the argument would be clear -- the hole would be extremely penal because it is only a one-way type of hole.

John, I agree with you -- Hazeltine, or any other course, would not be served by having that type of hole repeated over and over again. But, I do believe that hole works well for what it is. Does it match with the rest of the layout. No, it clearly doesn't, however, nothing is over until you get past it.

I see the 16th as a GREAT hole because as I said initially -- you do have options and any score is clearly in play. I can tell you for sure that Beem breathed a whole lot easier when he saw his tee shot had hit the short grass Sunday. I give him credit big time for the way he stood up when just about any other player would have folded like a cheap suit there with the Tiger on the prowl.

[George Pazin]

Could someone explain to me why 16 is seen as so out of character for the course?

[CHrisB]

Chris B,

So you want to take Hogan, Palmer and Watson, AFTER the jury is in.  You want to equate Mr Beem at the begining of his career to these three fellows at the end of theirs, and draw conclusions with respect to Hazeltine based on the above evaluations.

Patrick,

You've got to read the posts more carefully than that--I'm quoting what Doak said in his book, and saying I'm surprised by it!  Then I'm challenging those who say that weak courses produce weak winners to tell me how it happens, and not just say it happens.  Then I offer an alternative explanation for why more every-day pros seem to have success at the PGA than at the other majors.

You and I are on the same side of this issue, but you're arguing with me anyway!  C'mon, I know you're smarter than that!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris,

I did misread the post as I hurried through a bunch of them last night, sorry about that, I've contracted a case of the TEPaul syndrome  

[John_Conley]

Could someone explain to me why 16 is seen as so out of character for the course?

George:

That's an easy one.  Only forced carry of all the teeshots, only approach without a bailout zone on either side (as I mentioned previously, local pro Joe Sodd - who just had a high finish the year before in the U.S. Senior Open - advocated LAYING UP short of the green under some conditions!), stream alongside the fairway.  No other holes on the course seem to have the same feel.

You can usually play away from trouble and accept the consequences.  One example was Tiger's 8th on Sunday.  The hole brought down Robert Allenby before him and Justin Leonard after, both of whom are probably kicking themselves for not bailing out.

If you make a mess of 16 it is because you didn't execute shots.  Nobody can say, "I should have been trying to miss over there."

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I share you appreciate for Rich Beem's performance at Hazeltine. It may have been the best final round effort I've seen since Greg Norman's win at Royal St. Georges.

Regarding, #16, I'm with you as well.  Leaving tournament golf aside, I'll bet members get a great kick out of making par on that hole.....and a birdie probably means a big bar bill!

[Justin_Zook]

They can.  In this case at the PGA, I don't think who won matters though.  I didn't like the course or the set-up.  The course lacked that major feel you get when the other Majors are on.  It felt more like a big tour event.  I'm probably in the minority, but thats how I felt.  Anyway, back to the question.  Unknown winners can indicate poor courses, but this is not absolute.  If a no-name was to win at Augusta next spring, it certainly wouldn't indicate that Augusta National is a poor course.  If a course has a history of bringing unknowns to the top, then I think that it would indicate that the course is poor.  In any case, the statement does have a degree of truth in it.

[George Pazin]

Is it really out of place if it fits the land? Isn't #7 the only dropshot par 3 at Pebble? #17 the only hole you drive over a hotel at TOC? I could go on, but I think you get my point.

[Ed_Baker]

Justin,

The Masters is an invitational and the only "no-names" in the field might be the amatuers that are invited, every pro is "credentialed" to the degree that they are known to serious golf fans by recent  deed or longevity.

Craig Stadler and Fuzzy Zoeller were rookie Masters winners and may have been no-names when they won, but they had already won on tour to be invited.

ANGC's recent abandonment of not inviting every PGA TOUR winner in the past calendar year if not otherwise exempt,coupled with their desire to exclude elderly past champions from competition will make the field that more elite and competitive in the future.

[A_Clay_Man]

George- I'm with you on this one. How else can a course offer variety without something unique. Did you see the areial of that green? Right out in the middle of the lake.Beautious!

Don't you think the PGA should be the toughest of all set-ups? The opens are that, open to all. But these guys are the PRO's.

Making bank do'in da links  

[Rick Shefchik]

I think the PGA should be played on a hard course but set up so the pros can make birdies. Yes, they're pros, and pros make lots of birdies on courses the rest of us try to par.

I can't describe the electric feeling on the back nine at Hazeltine Sunday when Beem made his eagle, then Tiger began his bridie string, and Beem dropped a birdie right on top of him at 16. I personally prefer the U.S. Open, but we don't need two of them. Let the pros score at the PGA.

[d.a.faz]

unfortunately, one cannot simplify great course/unknown golfer. all of this relates to frame of reference and complexity theory and so forth and so on. you know, what day, year, players sign, color of the mood ring each day, the number on the golf ball, etc. add the factors, divide by the last four digits of the player's social security number and then multiply by the year the course was opened for play (you begin to understand how complex this really is).
mr. wigler should know since professor holland in ann arbor is one of the leading experts in complexity theory (dave, are you there?).

[angie]

well, before i log off, i just have to jump in here with MHO: it's not who's at the top of the leaderboard that indicates diddly squat about GCA or set-up, but IF you had a leaderboard where everyone who made the cut was tied for first at the conclusion of the 72nd hole, then obviously ... !
one player isn't the field, isn't the leaderboard.  WHO wins indicates nothing, whereas the overall dispersion of the field might, indeed, point out poor set up or simpy architecture.