[Abe Summers]

I have never been a fan of numerous water hazards - I thought the PGA Championship this year had it just right, with one serious hazard that made a big impact at the end.  On other features: Length from the tips, fine.  Bunkers are fine.  A little bit of long grass that puts a premium on good tee shots is always fun - pros hit the ball too far so forced carries are seldom meaningful for them.  I'll be honest that I always enjoy watching the pros play to large greens at some of the British Open courses and then face extremely long putts and the real danger of the three putt.  Of course, when the major is not being held the members can have more GIRs.

I enjoy seeing the players who play very well shoot in the 60s.  Players who have a spectacular round and still can't break 70, I always have found that hard to fathom.  So for me, there is a very real limit for how penal you ought to be.

[CHrisB]

The challenge is to create a course that enables the membership to enjoy and afford it on a daily basis, while providing a test for the best golfers in the world.

Patrick,
What (if any) are some of the current major championship courses that you think meet this challenge?

------------------------

Any such course would have to be flexible in its set-up so that it can quickly and easily be returned to a playable form for the members after the championship ends. So high rough would be fine (although I prefer a more randomized approach to the rough where a missed tee shot could result in a decent lie or it could result in a terrible lie--seems like Oakland Hills was like that, at least on the 72nd hole) as long as the fairway corridors were wide enough to handle member play and the rough would simply have to be cut down after the championship.

I'm also a big fan of deep bunkers, especially around the greens, as long as there is an avenue for members to get around them, and to get out of them (in whatever direction).

But I think the key lies in the design of the greens. If each green has pin positions that can challenge the best in the world (because of contours, slope, or proximity to hazards combined with increased championship speeds) but also places that are more benign and accessible by everyone, then after the championship you can put some of the pins in the more accessible places until the green speeds slow to "member speed" and then mix in the really difficult pins. I look at The Old Course at St. Andrews and Pinehurst as good examples.

BTW like Adam, I'm also for uneven fairway lies (whether big slopes like at Augusta National or smaller rolls found on so many links courses), and if members get frustrated by that...well, then they need to be told to take up tennis if they want a flat surface.

[RJ_Daley]

It would be a course with wide FWs in the member LZs and narrowing with native grasses from 240-300, with a variety of random contouring throughout that would have a high frequency of rolling hillocks between 10-30ft ele.s; and true rolling - undulating greens with many shoulders leading to hollows for chipping or putting onto the greens. It would have par 3s of about 130-175-210-240 with the largest greens the oposite of conventional wisdom, with one of the largest -disticntly 3 tier green and severe slopes to each section or tier on the short hole, and moderate to small greens on the longer holes, with more rounded shoulders and hollows in the surrounds on those.   It would have about two blind shots, one into an LZ on a par 4, and one to a lay-up area to a par 5 area, where the lay-up could only be overshot to a partially visable drivable green by very heroic shot coming from a perfectly placed tee shot to set that up.  It would have a couple of skyline greens, one on the mid length par 3 and one on long par 4.  It would have a driveable par 4 near the end of the 18 hole loop probably around 15th or 16th, would have a monster par 5 on front side that would be a 3 shotter for all but the very longest,  and would have par of 71 - 73 depending.  The longest par 4s could be made into par 5s for members and would finish with one of those on 18.  Obviously, it would have champion tees to accomplish all this at about 74-7600 yards, and member tees that would be on freeform teeing grounds like Bally or Chambers that would range from 6400-6800.

But, the completely "out-of-the-box" concept would be ..................













.....portable bunkers and hazards to be randomly or purposely placed according to the level of tournament field skill!!!!

I'll get back to y'all when I figure out the technology and contruction techniques to achieve that! 

[Richard Choi]

If you took ANGC, removed all the new trees (I don't mind the "second cut" as much since they are not really long) and I think you have a pretty ideal major championship venue.

[Jeff Fortson]

Great exercise Pat!

I think a major should have variety, and lots of it.  Why test few skills when a true test would incorporate all kinds of shots and strategic thinking. 

Holes would vary in length.  This means short par 3's mid length par 3's and long par 3's.  This would apply to par 4's and 5's as well.  I would have a few narrow holes but most would have width to offer players options on attack angles.  Obviously, certain sides of fairways would work for different hole locations. 

I think bunkers should be the major hazard used in most risk-reward scenarios.  They should be penal in the sense that only a truly skilled shot could be played with great success.  Water hazards would be more of the creek type and less of the lake type.  I think meandering creeks and the like are more useful and strategic as large hazards leave little chance to be had. 

I think greens should be slightly smaller than average with significant, yet not severe slope to them (unless a sever slope made a green two separate greens in essence).  They would be bunkered with fairly high lips and would not be sought after for respite from the rough.  Green complexes would have more shaved areas around the green and less high rough against the fringe.  I think the green complexes are the most important aspect of design in major competition setups.   #10 at Riviera comes to mind, especially for a short par-4.  I posted a thread on #10 at Riviera in '04 that I can't find on here that shows an ideal hole for competition in my mind.  It might be my favorite hole in the world.

In summary, the more options, the better, IMO.  Fast, firm conditions that suit the site are great for making width work. 


Jeff F.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The challenge is to create a course that enables the membership to enjoy and afford it on a daily basis, while providing a test for the best golfers in the world.

Pat,
How do the existing clubs that have satisfied members, and that presently hold professional tournaments, do it?  

[Guy Nicholson]

It wouldn't matter how it was designed. The people who set it up would turn it into a 7,300-yard par 70 with narrow fairways, punitive rough and extremely fast greens.

[Phil Benedict]

Championship course 7200 yards par 70.  Next set of tees 6700 yards and third set 6200 yards.  Driving holes 25-50 yards longer from the championship tees than next set.

I would wide favor wide fairways with gathering, penal bunkers in the 290-320 range, to force the pro player to choose between playing short of the bunkers or challenging them off the tee.  This should be a choice the good amateur has to make as well from the 6700 yard tees but hopefully less in play for the players who tee off from the 6200 yard tees.  Not sure how to keep them out of play (or less in play) for weaker players.

I like the Pinehurst #2 type greens, ie effective target areas which are much smaller than the green surfaces themselves.  This would challenge the player who is trying to hit the green in regulation from a distance but wouldn't be overly penal for the weak players who rarely approach the green in regulation.

Have no idea whether this would work but it's better than dense rough all over the place and trees.

[Mike Hendren]

Was it the 16th at Oakland Hills that had the two center-line fairway bunkers on a dogleg left.  I thought it was highly effective, particularly with a little breeze - forcing either a lay-back at 250 or a 280 yard carry where the ball must be turned.  The result is a three club difference on the approach.  Doesn't impact the club player much but forces a decision on the touring professional. 

Another hole that is applicable is the par four at Pensacola CC (Bill?) early in the round where a trench-like bunker sits at the foot of a steep embankment, resulting in a big forced carry to have a look at the green and a simple pitch which requires a precise approach.  Laying up is easy for the club member, but one can't see the top of the flag from the fairway. 

Generally, I believe you must bend the holes around and through well-placed bunkers with fairway cut feeding directly into them.  The bunkers can be relatively small and or narrow but with abrupt faces, flat-bottomed. 

Front to rear down-sloping greens should be occasionally employed, perhaps even shallow high tiers on the front and/or small stepdown tiers in the rear backed by deep bunkers.  While not a big fan of Lederach, I thought KBM provided for some fantastic pin placements with small pinnable pimples .  The traditional double-plateau works in that same vein.

Site selection will be critical with plenty of opportunity for wind. 

I don't believe distance is the answer - not with Sergio reaching a 530 yards five par with driver/9-iron.  I also don't care for cultivated deep rough.  Perhaps patches of hay at 280 to 320 15-20 yards off the fairway would work - stuff like that photographed at Prairie Dunes provided it's indigenous. 

Just a few random thoughts.

Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

Geez, not one mention of the corporate tent areas!  What are you guys thinking?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I've done this exercise on paper a few times, although every time I get a piece of real ground it comes out different.

So far everyone has assumed that you need to "defend par", which I would not do. 

I'd probably have six par-5 holes so that there were 4-5 times when the players were asked to hit long second shots into greens -- you just can't do this with a long par-4 anymore, and if they are par fives, the members will think of them all as three-shot holes.

I would have a couple of short par-4's where aggressive play would really get you in trouble.

I'd have a couple of long par-3's and a couple of shorter ones.

I would have a couple of par-4's where a long hitter could take his chances with a severely contoured landing area, as Adam described above, or lay up to where the members play and hit a 150-yard approach.  I actually suggested that to a group at the PGA Tour ... the looks of concern on their faces were priceless.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I was actually asked this once and I responded that in any sport, say football, a running team that gets in the playoffs needs to try to win by running, rather than change its personality because of the special occaision.

Frankly, if I was selected to design a tournament venue, my first thought would be to "dance with who brung ya" and basically do the things that I usually do well in the past, applied to the site, rather than try some whole new style or idea. 

Isn't a good golf course a good golf course?  Is something radically different really necessary?  It doesn't seem to be in courses that already hold tournaments.  Any changes to my basic design philosophy would probably be incremental - maybe a little more green contouring, a little more hazard, etc.

[George Pazin]

I'd love to see how the pros would do on Oakmont sans rough, so that's what I'd do - replica 101, minus the rough.

Jeff, interesting point on a good golf course being a good golf course. I'd guess almost any course could be made challenging enough simply through maintenance practices. Would it be special, though?

[Garland Bayley]

It would be at least 8500 yards and WIDE. No rough, but very rumpled fairways. There would be a creek or two running through to help make risk-reward situations and add danger to the corners of doglegs. There would be few fairway bunkers. The primary use of fairway bunkers would be to guard the corners of doglegs, and the occaisional centerline bunker pinching the side of the fairway giving the most advantageous approach. Green side bunkers would typically be a single bunker guarding the most direct path to the green on doglegs. Otherwise greens would be surrounded by dips and bumps in short grass, some of which would be the direction the water drains that could carry a missed approach quite far from the green.

Of course if the rules orgs decide to get off there butts and fix the ball problem, then it would be shorter and proportionally narrower.

[John Moore II]

Patrick:

I've done this exercise on paper a few times, although every time I get a piece of real ground it comes out different.

So far everyone has assumed that you need to "defend par", which I would not do. 

I'd probably have six par-5 holes so that there were 4-5 times when the players were asked to hit long second shots into greens -- you just can't do this with a long par-4 anymore, and if they are par fives, the members will think of them all as three-shot holes.

I would have a couple of short par-4's where aggressive play would really get you in trouble.

I'd have a couple of long par-3's and a couple of shorter ones.

I would have a couple of par-4's where a long hitter could take his chances with a severely contoured landing area, as Adam described above, or lay up to where the members play and hit a 150-yard approach.  I actually suggested that to a group at the PGA Tour ... the looks of concern on their faces were priceless.

Tom--why do you say its not possible to have players hit long shots into the par 4's? Could a par 4 not be designed to be in the 520 yard range? I didn't so much plan to 'defend par' just cause the individual player to have to hit high quality shots in order to be able to score. And what would be there on your 6 par 5's to prevent the players from turning those holes into long par 4's?

[Tom_Doak]

Kenneth:  Those holes would effectively be par-4's for the pros, but they would be designed as par-5's for member play, and if they are called par-5's I will be able to make the areas around the green more severe without the hole being called "unfair".  But I don't intend to make the players lay up ... I WANT them to go for the greens with hybrids and 3-irons, because they aren't as good with those clubs as most people think.

[John Moore II]

Tom--So the par 5's on this hypothetical course would be in the 520 range with small severe greens designed for wedge approach shots? I like that idea. What would you do with the greens in general?

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - good topic and good posts.  How about this, just to offer a different perspective:

I wouldn't spend any time designing a new course - I'd spend all my time getting a wonderful superintendant (say like the fellow at Huntington Valley) to spend all HIS time working his magic to bring a good modern course (take your pick) by a good living designer (take your pick) in line with its ideal maintenance meld...and then I'd let the pros go at it.

Peter

[Mike Hendren]

It would be at least 8500 yards and WIDE.

Garland, that might be a recipe for 20 under winning the championship.

[Garland Bayley]

It would be at least 8500 yards and WIDE.

Garland, that might be a recipe for 20 under winning the championship.

Without writing a huge essay, I tried to indicate that missing the green on the many 520 (JKM's number) yard par 4s could lead to bogey. Clearly there would be significant defense at the green.

I didn't mention members tees. They would play at 6500, and be right off the previous green and the pros would have to walk back over 100 yards on each hole to reach their tees.

EDIT: Bogey, are you saying that TOC should no longer be used for The Open?

[John Moore II]

I think angles of play are the most key item for designing a course to challenge great players. And with width in the fairways, you make it easier for the bogey golfer to get around. While I am sometimes for tight fairways that force a good player to hit a perfect shot to have the perfect approach shot, overall, I think that a good bit of width of far better.

[Jeff_Brauer]

JKM,

Can you really back that up?  That angles are the key?

TPC Sawgrass has angles galore, but not wide fw.  Hitting those fw requires a combo of distance and direction, so they are great, but if they are wide enough, the angle becomes less important.

As to hitting greens, in my continuing informal research of good to great players, very few really obsess over the frontal opening, or even the correct angle to approach green contours, although thats a little more important.

Think of Sergio and Padraig hitting to the pin on 17 - they know the carry they need, unless its really tightly guarded and swirling winds.  They hit pretty straight shots, but maybe could have cut them in there.

I believe - although I couldn't back this up either - that ball striking is so pure among those who are going to contend (all the usuals, plus the mid range players who have their game in top shape) that focusing on something to separate good ball striking from average ball striking would be the key, if any, to designing a championship course.

And that leads me to the conclusion that fw contours to vary the lie and green contours that really differentiate how close you are to the pin would be the way to go.  I think adding in the "temptation" factor to entice them to try stuff they shouldn't, i.e. the driveable and reachable holes might add spice and differentiate, but only if properly done.  (and I would have to think about what that term meant, as well!)

I also think a variety of green sizes, fw widths, and green surrounds would tend to bring more players into the mix - as each favors accuracy and finesse a little differently and might play to different game strengths to offset pure distance and putting.

[John Moore II]

Jeff--I think to go along with fairway angles, there must be exceptional green contours. A frontal opening is not so much what I am thinking about. But a green that has contours that run sharply away from the player when hit from a certain side of the fairway, but different contours on the same green that help the player when seen from the other side. The greens at Tobacco Road are kind of like what I have in mind, near impossible to hold from the wrong angle, but simple when hit from the correct angle.
--With flat greens, no amount of length or anything else will stop great players from scoring. The greens need to be roller coaster like, rock hard (or able to be made rock hard somewhat easily) and very, very fast (or, again, able to be made very fast easily).

[Jeff_Brauer]

JKM,

Yeah, that makes more sense!

[John Moore II]

JKM,

Yeah, that makes more sense!

Are you being serious or sarcastic? I'm certainly not explaining myself clearly, or so it seems to me. I have a concept in my head that I can't find the words to describe.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()