Sawgrass: Has it aged well?

[David Stamm]

Let me start by saying that I haven't played Sawgrass, although I've played it's sister course, PGA West.


There are some courses that age like a fine wine. And there are some that age like Yoohoo. And there some that fall some where in between. When I see Sawgrass thoughts of Miami Vice, Flock of Seagulls and Members Only jackets with parachute pants dance through my head. Does the granddaddy of the TPC's look dated to you? When one sees it, does it instantly conjure up in your mind the INXS's  of the '80's? To quote Colt, does it live?

[Bob_Huntley]

David,

The only thought that I have, is that the seventeenth hole is the most ghastly thing ever hoisted upon the golfing world. It is an abomination and should be utterly cryit doon.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

David

I played the course quite often in the 1980's and thought that it had more of the patina of age than other courses of it's age, even then.  While I've only seen it only telly over the past 15-20 years, I think it is ageing as well if not better than any course of it's age.  What other courses built in the early 80's still thrill and inspire?

Bob

I played golf recently with a friend who spent a week at Sawgrass in September.  He is a fine player (ex-Briitsh Boys Champion), and thoroughly enjoyed the course.  One day, when he came to the 17th tee the lightning sirens went off, and his caddie abandoned him, citing work-safety rules.  My friend played it (and the 18th) in weather similar to that experienced by the Bishop in "Caddy Shack" and, fortunately, survived.   Kindly name me another hole (modern or classic) so compelling that it would cause an accomplished and seemingly intelligent golfer to risk his life just for the chance of playing it one more time.....

Yours Faithfully

Rich

[Jason Connor]

I can name plenty of holes I would play in a lightning storm before 17 at Sawgrass.

Mainly because I wouldn't dare be found dead on that hole.

[Rich Goodale]

Bingo, Jason!

[BCrosby]

I am with the estimable Mr. Huntley. The 17th is a clown show. Like all clown shows, it is irresistable, fun for a laugh or two, but ultimately just a gimmick and very bad golf design.

Bob

 

[Jim Nugent]

I agree with Jason and Bob, and point out that #17...

*  Is 100% artificial

*  Has 0 options in how to play it

*  Is so penal, average golfers may not be able to finish it

*  Can put an 8 or 10 on your scorecard, without you hitting a bad shot

*  Could be easily duplicated in almost any course in the country.  All they have to do is build a pond and an island green.

However, it doesn't have any trees. 

[Tim Bert]

This guy thinks it has aged well - at least for the tour pros.

http://www.sportsline.com/golf/story/10815586

[BCrosby]

*  Is so penal, average golfers may not be able to finish it

 

Jim - I had the misfortune of playing in a bankers' outing where that in fact happend to two players in my group. They both ran out of balls because, even with their last ball, there was no a safe way to play the hole.

It occurred to me later that they might have putted down the cart path. But you had better know someone pretty well to make that sort of suggestion.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

Surely bankers would understand the concept of putting their last ball in their pocket and marking "no return" on the card?  I think they refer to it as "repossession".......

Rich

[Jeff_Brauer]

Those are pretty glowing reports from the Tour Pros who once thrashed the course. If I recall, most of the greens were recontoured at least once, and some several times, to be more receptive.

If its hard for bombers to win, then maybe it ain;t a bad design at all!  A variety of winners seems to incidcate a balanced and varied design, to my view.

I think the difficulty of the tee shots is always the angled fw.  Apparently, the fw bunkers pinch down a lot at the full driving distance, at least according to that article.

BTW, I think we can give it a little pass on being hard on amateurs - most play it once in a lifetime, and not as their daily course AND it was designed specifically for a major tournament.

[Kalen Braley]

Can the "artificial" arguement really be used against 17?  After all the entire course used to be a swamp so pretty much everything you see was built up after dredging.

I understand people have a beef with 17, but the course still is what it is when they first designed it....a tough track to test the best players in the world.  In that sense its pretty much aged as expected.

So to answer the question David, if I put a beer in the fridge and take it out in 20 years from now, I don't expect it to be anything other than a beer!!   

[Doug Braunsdorf]

I'm not sure if this has/hasn't been covered before on here; what exactly is so good about TPC-Sawgrass?  I'm not blasting it, because I haven't played it. 
In aerials and 3-d pictures of it, it just seems so unnatural to me, some of the bunkering so ugly (little pot bunkers), similar holes, that if other modern architects had their names on it, it would get blasted to bits. 

I would especially appreciate hearing from golf course architects on this.  Thanks.

[Paul Saathoff]

I agree with Jason and Bob, and point out that #17...

*  Is 100% artificial

*  Can put an 8 or 10 on your scorecard, without you hitting a bad shot

May I ask what golf course is 100 percent non artificial, 100 percent natural?!  If it's golf course DESIGN we are celebrating on this site, then ultimately aren't we celebrating artificiality?  Can anything DESIGNED truly be "natural."  I've never seen a bunker appear naturally 285 yards from a  surface with a perfect 1 percent slope covered with shocking green grass, especially not in the summer months, or at least I can't recall seeing such a site.  If its artificiality we hate, we should all point our browsers to www.nps.gov, and many of us should quit our dayjobs.  

I know I'll probably get flamed for that since I'm a "newbie", but I find the term "natural design" to be quite the contradiction and grew an utter dislike for it during college.
 
As far as an 8 or 10 on the card without hitting a bad shot: I guess you've put a lot of well struck pitching wedges in the drink, eh?  It's 132 yards to one of, if not the largest green on the course.  I hit two poorly struck wedges to the back of the green.  I guess I got lucky.        

some of the bunkering so ugly (little pot bunkers)

I take it you're not planning a trip to any links courses anytime soon

[Adam Clayman]

I'll disent and agree with Rihc. The hole is perfectly placed and considering the design intent of a TPC, getting the juices flowing of the top 1% is a great thing. Especially considering It's length.

[tlavin]

This post should be removed, since it doesn't have anything to do with Merion.

[Paul Saathoff]

This post should be removed, since it doesn't have anything to do with Merion.

or Tom Doak

[Steve_ Shaffer]

It is my understand that the original version of TPC Sawgrass looked nothing like it does today. I seem to remember an article SI Golf Plus a few years ago with pictures showing an almost unkempt Pine Valley "look." Today's "look" is almost ANGC like in manicured appearance-with fairways mowed to 3/8". Obviously, the course has morphed into something different than the original concept.


Lest we forget:

"Over 415 acres in the Florida deathlands, Dye's masterpiece defined the term "eating golf": narrow fairways lined with hazards like marshes and "waste bunkers" (long strips of sand that groundskeepers never maintain); dozens of deep "pot bunkers," strategically placed to catch even a slightly misplaced shot; thick rough that features craters and mounds; tall, shot-obstructing palm trees; and rock-hard, lightning-fast greens. When the first Tournament Players Championship was staged at the Stadium Course in 1982, the story was not eventual winner Jerry Pate but the complaints the players had about the course, a track supposedly built in their honor. "It's Star Wars golf, designed by Darth Vader," Ben Crenshaw pronounced. When asked if the TPC suited his playing style, Jack Nicklaus replied, "No, I've never been very good at stopping a 5-iron on the hood of a car." J. C. Snead called the course "90 percent horse manure and 10 percent luck." Over the following year, Dye tweaked the course, making the greens less severe and replacing several bunkers. After the changes, the course was far more "playable," and now the players look forward to taking it on. "Now it's a darn good golf course," Crenshaw said after the improvements."

[Peter Pallotta]

David -

a related question (and one that goes beyond Sawgrass and becomes more a comparative one):

How well COULD'VE Sawgrass aged?

What I mean is, since as with all golf courses Sawgrass' actual physical changes are controlled by human hands, Sawgrass could've been changed in any number of ways (and did, quite early on, and Steve notes above). 

Is there something in the architcture itself that has limited or enhanced or made mute any potential or further changes, for better or worse?

On the other end of the spectrum you have something like Sand Hills. Our changing perceptions/changing tastes about golf course architecture aside, does a course like Sand Hills have a greater POTENTIAL for change than a Sawgrass?

If so, is that a good thing -- i.e. does it reflect positively on the quality of the architecture?

Peter

[BCrosby]

Steve -

You are correct. I don't know much about the changes, but some were cleaning up the raw look. There were also some structural changes. I would love to hear from people who have a handle on the design evolution.

As for the 17th, I think it is important to distinguish things we all like to watch on TV - things like car wrecks, plane crashes, pies in the face and the humiliation of famous people,

...from things like good golf architecture.

Both sorts of things are irresistable, but for very different reasons.

Bob

[henrye]

David,

The only thought that I have, is that the seventeenth hole is the most ghastly thing ever hoisted upon the golfing world. It is an abomination and should be utterly cryit doon.

Bob

I think it's architectually brilliant and was unique when created!  I think there's room for different styles in golf architecture, much like there should be in landscape and building architecture.  We may all have our preferances in styles, but IMHO to dismiss architectural diversity is being too limited.  Besides, the hole is great fun.

[BVince]

I have never played the course but I like it quite a bit.  It is challenging for the tour professionals and it is fun to watch them manuever around, over, or through the obstacles to overcome the challenge.

17 is great fun to watch.  Is it natural?  NO, and it was not intended to be natural.
Is it too demanding?  Maybe for someone who has no chance of hitting a lofted shot.

I like the fact that there is variety in golf course design.  It is the spice of life.  There is no such thing as an all "natural" golf course, if so would the designer be mother nature?

I prefer courses that best utilize the land to create a challenging, fun, and beautiful golf course.  In this case, the land was not suitable for a course and it is quite remarkable of how well it turned out.  It was designed as a championship golf course and in my opinion the result is fitting.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Here is an interview with Pete Dye about TPC Sawgrass

http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/news;_ylt=AnUIFbS2WVZ23hw.pCxvyTYogsUF?slug=ys-se10questions050608&prov=yhoo&type=lgns&expire

[Jeff_Brauer]

The waste bunkers were removed simply because things grew too well in Florida. They couldn't keep them up, with weed invasion, etc.  Keep the waste bunkers in the desert.

I wonder if the advent of bunker liner would ever make them rethnink that?

[tlavin]

It's a terrific professional tour golf course and it's a very enjoyable resort course, provided one plays the appropriate tees for one's skill level.  In my book, that's a pretty darned good golf course.