Of what relevance...

[Mark_Rowlinson]

... is contemporary professional play to modern design?

[RJ_Daley]

Mark, maybe that depends on which archie and that archie's personal design philosophy we are speaking of.

[JESII]

In practice? Or as an ideal?

[Bill Brightly]

To me, contemporary professional play dictates that if you are an architect building a course today where the owner hopes pros will play, you have to make room for about six to ten (or more) "Tiger tees." And that means that this land can't be used for other parts of the routing. So, by definition, the course will not be as good as it could have been.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Most of us rubbish golfers still hit the ball the same distance from the tee that we did in 1960. We are still the majority of members. Our mid-twenties sons hit it 300+ yards and hit 7-irons 200 yards. The professionals could do that if they wanted - and a lot more - but choose to opt for safety. Why take a driver when a 3-wood will go 320 yards? A par 4 under 500 yards is child's play to them, a par 5 under 600 yards much the same.

More relevant, however,  is the second shot on a par 4. However far back you place the professionals' tee, so that their drive finishes in the same spot as your drive, you are both left with, say, 180 yards to the green. You and I take out our rescue clubs or, in my case, a 5-wood. Tiger takes out a short iron, possibly even a wedge. My shot, if it is any good, trundles along at ground level. Tiger's comes in high and spinning.

What a difference!

Bobby Jones, MacKenzie and others tried to allow for both. How do you do it today?

[JESII]

Mark,

Don't fall for the hype...these guys do not hit wedges from 180...not unless there's a bit of helping breeze at least...


Honestly, there accuracy is more of a problem than their distance when the topic is architectural challenge.   To really challenge them you have to leave very small targets which is certainly not a great answer for the rest of us.

I say let 'em shoot nothing...who gets hurt by that?

[George Pazin]

I say let 'em shoot nothing...who gets hurt by that?

Members' egos, which is unfortunately one of the biggest problems out there.

[John Kavanaugh]

Don't underestimate the fun of hitting long irons and fairway woods into greens.  I think you guys far underestimate the large number of people who hit the ball far enough to comfortably play 7,300 yd courses at sea level.  Like I told someone when it looked like we might be playing in the rain from 7,500 yds.  "As scores approach infinity I get closer to competing."

Any idea when the powers that be in golf decided the game should be easy? I have a strong feeling it can be tied back to when the disco generation had to find work.

[henrye]

Mark, I think you answered your own question.  It's not just the pros that hit the long ball anymore.  As you said, the mid-twenties kid hits the ball 300 yards, so there are lots of players hitting the long ball.

I find that my 18-year old son has about a 4 club advantage on me.

[Rick Shefchik]

Any idea when the powers that be in golf decided the game should be easy? I have a strong feeling it can be tied back to when the disco generation had to find work.

Barney, I've got another question. Any idea when the game of golf became easy? Because I missed that completely.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

It depends on whether the pros are going to be playing the course.

If they aren't going to play an annual tournament there, then they should not be considered too much.  Most of the green chairmen I know have not reduced their handicaps in recent years in spite of all the improvements!

However, there is occasionally a client or a site where the pros are going to congregate and that is the raison d'etre of the course and naturally they should be considered strongly.  And if that's the case, Pete Dye is still the man for the job.  He is the only one who really knows how to challenge them.

[Kyle Henderson]

Mark:



However, there is occasionally a client or a site where the pros are going to congregate and that is the raison d'etre of the course and naturally they should be considered strongly.  And if that's the case, Pete Dye is still the man for the job.  He is the only one who really knows how to challenge them.

Really?!!! No other modern designer is up to this challenge?

I agree that Mr. Dye may be the best at challenging the players' psyche, but you don't believe you (or Rees Jones, Fazio, Nicklaus, Hanse, etc.) could design a course that separates an elite golfer on his game from a journeyman fighting a few minor flaws?

[Rich Goodale]

Kyle

I can't imagine any course that would NOT "separate an elite golfer on his game from a journeyman fighting a few minor flaws?"  Could you kindly provide an example, with some rationale as to why you think it is so?  Thanks.

Rich

PS-JES II is right.  "Who cares the pros shoot nothing?!" should be the mantra of every Green Chairman/Convenor.

rfg

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mark

I think we are discussing one of the fundamental problems with our modern game, which is to always consider the Professional Game. I keep coming back to who actually pays the final bills and keeps these course going.

As with the Pro’s and the new kids coming through hitting a long drive, well surely that’s down to the Architect to persuade the golfer not to go to that or this part of the course either by installing bunkers or other forms of natural or man built hazards.

Am I alone here or do modern architects have a responsibility to test and confront the golfer. Our modern courses perhaps need to confuse, trap or
aggressively challenge those who seem to just rely on the long drive. If there is no where for the ball to go except into a hazard - also that these are designed to allow rear exit only, then the golfer must calculate his shot more carefully.  I believe as most here well know that the modern golfer is more interested in distance knowledge that perhaps planning their route to the hole – a few serious obstacles in the right place from the start will add spice to their game and bring more enjoyment to the spectators.

I have seen many Greens surrounded with WW1 Trench Bunkers some halfway deep but most shallow. A shallow bunker is in my opinion a total waste, and results in just a minor glitch and not a real penalty for missing my approach shot , so why not consider challenging the long hitters with a similar set up but much deeper forcing a rear exit shot. There are other ways to deter the golfer from going to certain parts of a course, particularly if he is in a competition. There is always the easy way out of redesigning the golf ball to limit distance travel.

The problem is in real terms not down to the Designer but the Client and his brief. But let’s face it, it’s all about money and high profile, so hosting some Pro games never hurts – well except for the majority who play the course on a day to day basis – these guys that ultimately pay for everything in the end but seem seldom to be considered.

But then that’s modern Golf which is slowly killing the game and in the generations to come this approach may well turn some future golfers into Daleks (a blob thing that sits inside a high tech cart trying to control the world) as seen on the BBC TV program ‘Dr Who’   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Count me in as one who thinks the pro game is over considered in modern design, when in fact, they will never show up.

Of course, many good ams have similar shots to the pros, its just that they pull them off maybe 50% of the time vs. 75%.  By that count, I don't know that we need to make hazard as severe as Melvyn proposes - if players are out there for fun, isn't a moderate hazard that allows recovery more fun in a match than one that allows none?

No one has mentioned length yet, but here goes. If Torrey Pines plays at 7600 yards for what is supposed to be the hardest tournament in America, then I don't see much reason to build the average course more than 7300 or so from the tips.  Who isn't challenged enough by a course playing 97% of the length of the US Open course length?  Why do we need 7600 or even 8000?

For many courses, you could argue to eliminate that back tee (at the very most, it should be only 15 x 15 since its just a rumor to the vast majority of golfers) since a 6850 yard course is plenty for all but 3% of America's golfers.  The costs of 500 yards of extra length to challenge a few young guys is a lot, and should be minimized.

[John Kavanaugh]

ff,

I'm with you on the 7,300 yd course but I get the impression that this board wants 6800 yd max.  When did architects quit considering the best players in the game for their designs because I'm not buying into this idea that Tiger hits it any further then a top club player than Nicklaus did in his day.

Melvyn,

I am sure, after playing a couple of Foulis designs, your family and their minions designed for the best players of the day.  Why change now if the money and land are available?

Do any of you guys who played in the late 70's believe you could hit your driver as far or as well as Nicklaus could hit a long iron?

[Jeff_Brauer]

JK,

I'm not sure gca's have ever given up on designing for the best players.  Maybe the problem is that we focus too much on the best players, none of whom would show up at the Tiddly Links Country Club.

Statistically, only 3% of golfers like to play at distances over 6800 yards or so.  Given that we need to add 500 yards for that small amount of golfers, its not out of the question (to me) that a muni, course used mostly by seniors or women, or even a good club just forego the back tees and tell those players to go to some other course.  Ditto on tournament courses.  Let the TPC network be our new tournament venues and leave all the costs associated with that to those few courses.

The distance gap is just making it too hard to design one course for all levels of player.  So, why not leave out the last 3%, at least on most courses?  One thing is for sure, 7000 yards doesn't cut it for anyone anymore.  Too long for most, too short for good players.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,

How is today different than 25 years ago from a pure design standpoint?  Isn't it about money and not about the skill difference of the pros to the club player.  I see more bad players hit the ball as far as the pros now than at any point in history.

[John Kavanaugh]

When a guy with no more game than Shivas can drive three par 4's in a row at the best modern course in our land we have a problem beyond the level of pro talent.  Should the game of an aging 40 something corporate lawyer be relevant?  I would hope at least.

[Jeff_Brauer]

JK,

The game of a 40 year old male player with some skill should be relevant, at most courses. I think the difffence from 25 years ago is that the typical female drive was 130 and male 250. Now its 130 and 320 (for the top 1%)

With the gap widening, does it make as much sense to design every course for every player with more tees, or does it make sense to eliminate the top and/or bottom 3% for some courses?

As to designing features, I figure that each foursome will have 3 good club players, with one each relying mostly on distance, accuracy and finesse.  My fourth is a player of little skill. I try to give each of them a little something tailored to their games.

[John Kavanaugh]

Jeff,

I think players like me and you should be able to go back to the tips of any course and not have to worry about reaching the fairway bunkers.  It is one of the benefits of diminished skills.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

I am advocating actual ways to improve golf and in particular the skill to control and hopefully enjoy the game to its maximum. The severe hazards are fine, they make the golfer think, to pull his shot to overcome the obstacle, I get nor see any pleasure or for that matter see any great skill in hitting a long ball. I am reminded of Tiger at the 1st at Carnoustie in last years Open, he hit his ball into the water to the left of the fairway, proving that even the best do not possess the skill 100% of the time. Was it pressure or just too much power, whatever it affected his game.

To me a hazard is there to dissuade the golfer from taking that line of play and therefore be responsible for his shot. I see no problem in evacuating oneself from a bunker or other hazard by retreating backwards prior to commencing the struggle with the architect. That’s the penalty for not considering your route or game with due care and attention and the Architect is One Up by forcing you to make an error.

It’s a game Jeff and should not be made easier, golf has never been a walk in a park but is quickly becoming one or should I say a ride in the park. 

I did not mention length because I believe central hazards will control distance by limiting initial drives from the Tee making 6,500-6,800yard course really playable and enjoyable by ALL. If golf was just about getting a ball down a hole in the least amount of strokes then I agree but that is and never has been what golf is all about, problem is that so many seem to have forgotten why they started playing the game in the first place, but then that’s my opinion.

John

Old Tom was a man of the people, he designed course for the average man with the holes becoming more testing as you played through. This is reflected in his design fee of £1per day which remained constant for 40 odd years, whilst others charged three to four times that amount including James Braid. Championship Courses in the 19th Century were the day to day course everyone could play, something we need to re-introduce today. The best players in those days played all the popular courses open to the average golfer, it’s slightly different today – pity.



So Yes, if the Architect is given the Green, light he can and should make a major difference and perhaps we should stop thinking that long distance means skill. Skill comes in after you make a poor shot to be able to get back into your game, that is golf and the golf I want to see.

Severe traps, no I don’t think so, but certainly another real test of the golfer resilience and ability to think golf as well as play. The name of the game is Mr Average not the Highest or Lowers Common Dominator – we should never forget that but it would seem that we have.

[Kyle Henderson]

Kyle

I can't imagine any course that would NOT "separate an elite golfer on his game from a journeyman fighting a few minor flaws?" 

Rich

Neither can I. That's exactly the point I was trying to make.

[Rich Goodale]

So you agree, Kyle, that how professional golfers might play any course is essentially irrelevant, design wise?

[Jason Topp]

I do not buy the position that technology only impacts 1/2 of a percent of the playing population.

Nine of fourteen courses in my interclub league have been lengthened in the last five years.  One of the others is a new club that already can be stretched to 7500 yards.

One of those courses will ever host a mens professional event.  As far as I know, none of the others even have a desire to do so.  Most of the rest host state level championships. 

That is a lot of money.  Whether the decisions by the clubs are reasonable or not, the distance gains from around the year 2000 have resulted in significant alterations to courses that were already terrific.