[Scott Warren]

Just say it falls to you to decide the location for a major and the infrastructure is not an issue. Where would you choose?

The one caveat being that the course you select cannot have hosted a US/Euro/Asian/Aussie PGA Tour event or a major before.

Part of me thinks I would love to see the best playing over Windsor Golf Club just outside Sydney where I learned the game and played until I was 17, only because I know every blade of grass on the course and would love seeing how they attacked certain holes and played certain shots. But I doubt the punters or powers-that-be would like -40 winning!

Of the very good courses I have played, I'd probably choose St Enodoc. I think holes like 1, 3, 4, 6, 10 and 14 could be a lot of fun for both the pros and spectators.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

Forgetting the practicalities, it must be PRESTWICK 

Why, because it is deserving.

Melvyn

[Niall C]

I would guess Scott that quite a lot of us would plump for our home course because we know it so well and would want to see what the pro's would do for it. Personally I would love to see the Open at Silloth but its not going to happen. Not that I think the golf course wouldn't be up to it, but all the other factors like infrastructure etc.

Could Prestwick give them a worthwhile test ?

Niall

[Phil_the_Author]

Two courses come immediately to mind...

San Francisco Golf Club and Fenway... SFGC may be Tilly's finest work while Fenway may have his most diabolical set of greens. There ios even a drivable par-4 on Fenway with the world's most impressive backstop built into the green! 

[John_Conley]

What's the name of that course Justin Timberlake bought?  It used to be called Big Creek.

[Brent Hutto]

I'd let Geoff Ogilvie pick it.

[Anthony Gray]

  Royal Dornach would be nice to see. The Honors also. Pine Valley?

  Anthony

[Matthew Rose]

I always wanted to see one at Pine Valley, even though it appears to be a logistical impossibility.

Sand Hills might have the same problem.

[Stan Dodd]

I dont' know about Royal Dornach but Royal Dornoch is the most challenging and deserving course I know of.

[Anthony Gray]

I dont' know about Royal Dornach but Royal Dornoch is the most challenging and deserving course I know of.

  Stan,

  Agreed, they both would be good choices.

  Anthony

[Tom_Doak]

Prestwick would be a great choice, even though it's not the same course they played in 1860.  Some players would drive it OVER the Cardinal today ... maybe that would shock the R & A into agreeing that something has to be done about equipment.

And of course I'd love to see them try one of my courses.

Honestly, it doesn't matter which one.  I think the whole idea of "worthy venues" for major championships is tremendously overrated.  As Pete Dye always said, those fellows would play in a parking lot for enough money; and it would be just as interesting to watch them try to demolish a normal course as it would to see them play wire-guided by Rees Jones.  Ballyneal would be fun, because you could mix and match the tees until they didn't know what to do.

[JMEvensky]

What's the name of that course Justin Timberlake bought?  It used to be called Big Creek.

Mirimichi

[Bill Brightly]

# 1 Pine Valley
#2 Fishers Island

[Kalen Braley]

Rock Creek Cattle Club,

Despite having lack of "infrastucture" there is plenty of space for people to pitch tents and/or bring motorhomes/trailers. 

[JMEvensky]

Assuming that infrastructure is no issue,any big city muni/public course.I'd like to see the golf course set up and maintained exactly as it is for normal play.I can't imagine a better way for people to see just how good these guys really are.Few will get to play Oakmont,WFW,etc. set up for tournaments.Everybody can "relate" to public courses.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Prestwick would be a great choice, even though it's not the same course they played in 1860.  Some players would drive it OVER the Cardinal today ... maybe that would shock the R & A into agreeing that something has to be done about equipment.

And of course I'd love to see them try one of my courses.

Honestly, it doesn't matter which one.  I think the whole idea of "worthy venues" for major championships is tremendously overrated.  As Pete Dye always said, those fellows would play in a parking lot for enough money; and it would be just as interesting to watch them try to demolish a normal course as it would to see them play wire-guided by Rees Jones.  Ballyneal would be fun, because you could mix and match the tees until they didn't know what to do.

I don't know about driving it over the cardinal  but they would certainly eat Prestwick for length with two 'fives' to get up at and 16 and 18. Our pro knocked it on 14, the first is probably on, maybe 4 they'd get close. Prestwick would be my choice too, they played this exact course up until the 1925 Open, the old 12 holer must have gone mid 1870s and there was the par 3 11th added sometime after the first war, but the course today has been used as a major. To bring Prestwick up to date.. scrap 14/15 add two new long holes beyond 10 running up towards Troon and make 18 a long three. They'd only just break 60 then.

[George Pazin]

To bring Prestwick up to date.. scrap 14/15 add two new long holes beyond 10 running up towards Troon and make 18 a long three. They'd only just break 60 then.

This is precisely why they shouldn't hold a major there.

[Melvyn Morrow]

No real, change to the course, please.   I totally agree with Tom that the equipment must change. Perhaps is they used the Haskell ball we might see an interesting compromise.

Anyway, why let the Professionals ruin a good course, when it the equipment has been allowed to surpass the land. Simple basic common sense is what is required but alas, the R&A are just totally from another world (wish they would bugger off and live there too).

Melvyn

[Adrian_Stiff]

Its getting a bit off topic, but I think 14 is a fairly average hole and 15 is a weakness in Prestwick, which overall I think is fantastic. There is no reason why great courses cant change, the great majority have and there is nothing really unholy in making changes. Prestwick today isnt the one that young Tom won on, holes were changed in the 20's, the course Harry Vardon won on in 1914 had an extra hole after the current 6th and some other holes were altered, so prestwick looked forward then, why not now (there may be good reasons ofcourse). Removing 14 & 15 would relieve tremendous pressure off the tightness.

[George Pazin]

Adrian, I can't argue Prestwick with you, but I suppose I just have a reflexive fear of anyone who wishes to make changes to old classic courses. It would be interesting if someone could compile a list of positive changes vs. negative changes on great courses. It seems like there are few more negatives than positives, but perhaps I'd be pleasantly surprised.

[Tom_Doak]

Adrian:

My whole point was that I would like to see them play over the Prestwick course as it is today, with today's equipment.

No offense, but I don't really want to see what you, or Rees Jones or Peter Dawson would do to update Prestwick.  I would much prefer to see you design a new and better course if you can, and then host the Open there.  And I have no desire to touch Prestwick myself.

[Sean Eidson]

Assuming that infrastructure is no issue,any big city muni/public course.I'd like to see the golf course set up and maintained exactly as it is for normal play.I can't imagine a better way for people to see just how good these guys really are.Few will get to play Oakmont,WFW,etc. set up for tournaments.Everybody can "relate" to public courses.

I'm in this camp.  The more open a course is, the more engaging it is to me as a major venue.  And I'd put my big city muni, Tenison Park in Dallas, up against many others as a potential major course.  It would actually get positive points for infrastructure and logistics.  There's another course on the site for tents, etc.  It has great aiport and interstate highway access.

What I enjoy most about it, though is the balance and challenge of the routing.  It’s on a big, bold piece of property that plays up and down a ridge and through a valley with a creek.   Each 9 has a good short par 4, a reachable 5, and an unreachable 5, a long 3 and a short 3.  The brutally long 4's have big greens that accept runup shots and the short 3's are tricky, with challenging greens that require you to hit a precise spot.   The layout lends itself to a par-70 for the pros, and I see room for tee boxes that would stretch the layout to 7400+ yards.  Even if some goofy-long tee boxes were to be added, it’s a wonderful walk, with no journeys from green to tee that feel unnatural.

With less than the ~$3 million that was spent at Torrey and Bethpage, the requisite length could be added, along with a few bunkers.  And, the greens could be converted to bent grass or whatever the Crenshaw blend is that they used at Lakewood CC to make those greens so pure.

Unfortunately, I think these musings are all academic because the weather here in June or August could make Southern Hills 2008 look chilly.  Add to it that the course doesn’t have the design pedigree or history of dozens of other courses and I think it’s virtually impossible that Tenison would make a short list.

But it’s fun for me to muse about and I’d enjoy playing the upgraded course.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I too would like to see how the best would deal with the Prestwick  of today and I am sure plently of top players do play it when the Open is in Scotland, more especially many must have played this year Someone did a 62 but I cant remember who.

Tom, remember Prestwick has already changed a couple of times, Troon has changed, Turnberry (although not really since the first Open there), St Georges was quite different for the 1949 Open, Muirfield hasnt changed since the very early Opens there when they started with a par 3 hole, Carnoustie was changed in 1929 so it could hold an Open and was 'like Prestwick today 'considred too short to stage the big one. Birkdale made a significant change for the 65 Open. So making changes to great golf courses is quite common what is often forgotten is in time the changes just mould into the past.

Prestwick is unextendable in its prsent routing by merely banging 10 of the tees back by 50 yards of course but why no change if long termits not for the better. Tom do you think that 14 and 15 are good holes? Do you think there are not better holes that could be found on the land north of 10?

Things have to move on and whilst there may be no desire to remove these holes on a historical basis, these holes are quite dangerous, who knows what heath and safety situation might arise over the next years and a forced change and further consider what could happen at the TOC and maybe the 1st and 18th might have to go!

[Tom_Doak]

Adrian:

I think the 15th at Prestwick is a fascinating hole.  I have no idea what's the best way to play it, and I don't know that anyone else does, either; that's why it would be great fun to see.

Sure, any modern designer could build a hole that's "better" by modern standards than 14 or 15, but I don't know if you or I could design a hole that was as confounding as that one.

I understand all of these courses have changed, but I do not think of it as progress; I see it as forced upon us by the equipment companies.  And I'm sick of it.  I think every designer should go out and make his own legacy, and be judged by the standards of great courses before in their original form.

Just hypothetically ... what if Prestwick had taken that tack and never changed since 1860?  Wouldn't you be even more interested to play THAT course than to see what it could be if I lengthened it?

[Joel_Stewart]

Forgetting the practicalities, it must be PRESTWICK 

Didn't they play the British Amateur there a few years ago?  What was the result and players reactions?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()