Liberty National Architecture

[Kenny Baer]

I thought I would paste this in from another thread...

I think Gib pointed out some really good things. I would also add when April rolls around everyone loves to talk about ANGC and its architecture and how it gives us the great finishes.  Based on this past weekend, it certainly seems LN stands up very well under the same circumstances given the epic finish we had/almost had.

Gentlemen,

I must be missing something. Judging by his upbraiding of LN, Shackelford could obviously see something in his Malibu bungalow that I could not seated next to my father in front of a new high-def flat screen.

The putting surfaces - though severe - looked wonderfully interesting. By extension, I thought the mow-outs and chipping areas introduced all sorts of challenging possibilities and cannot grasp why everyone is piling onto something so totally different than the mind-numbing sameness inflicted on the golf television viewing audience.

I'll go one step farther. Looking at the rolls, folds and contours of the greens, I commented that they looked similar to the small but complex putting surfaces at C&C's Chechessee Creek in South Carolina. If those greens had been designed by Mackenzie, everyone would be fawning over the daring collage of seemingly contradictory movements.

But because a bunch of sniveling Tour Prophylactics had a hard time reading them (read: ran into something that interrupts their parade of 3's and 4's), suddenly everybody wants to horsewhip Tom Kite and Bob Cupp. One can only imagine what Tiger and rest of the circus clowns would do if confronted by #1 at NGLA.

The golf course is not perfect, but I thoroughly enjoyed watching the event and feel that anytime a former garbage dump can be turned into something that rivets my attention on television, that is a good thing. Normally, I would rather pound nails into my sack than watch a regular tour event, but look at the star power atop the leader board. Anybody here not interested in seeing a playoff with Tiger, Ernie, Stricker and Paddy?

We were one putt away, which is all you can ask for. If the golf course is so capricious, why did the cream rise to the top? Tour guys generally hate Pete Dye and Mike Stranz courses, yet everyone with taste loves them.

It looks to me like the scorecard and pencil players are offended at the unusual nature of the golf course and would rather snooze through the "Who Gives A Sh*t Open in New Orleans presented by a company named after a city in Switzerland.



              

I think this idea that this course's architecture is more worthy of praise because it almost produced a memorable playoff based solely on the merits of its architecture is asinine. Is Turnberry less of a course architecturally because Cink crashed onto the great list of champions that had risen to the top in previous Opens? Is Olympic not a good design based on its U.S. Open winners? Let's not forget Slocum was a hole-out and a bunker rake save away from being irrelevant in this contest. Architecture is just one factor to the end result.

I have yet to see anyone offer an honest assessment of what Liberty National is - an expensive, very tough pedestrian layout. Just because the course stands out on TV from the Bay Hills of the world does not mean it has some pedigree to its architecture. I give Cupp credit for having the guts to go small and severe with the set of greens, and I think this was the reason it was so hard to score. The multiple breaks fit nicely to a private club where members can have years to study, and this was the highlight of the golf course for me. The par-3 14th was dynamite and any course would like to have it in their rotation. But there is a serious lack of connection to the course, and LN feels placed into the landscape. I detested the chipping areas, which all seemed to either be concave or have some sort of half-pipe element to them. No variety in stance, just up or down. They were essentially bunkers, but exacted an even worse penalty in the sense that most all were lined with drains and played soggy. Honestly, the course is on top of 4' of sand and you can't make it surface drain? The grassing lines lacked any sort of thought to how the curve of the land would make the set-up appear - on the par-5 6th I saw three different heights angled in different directions. From the tee box nothing stood out from the rest of the course in any way as to suggest any architectural challenge (14 excepted). The bunkers styles ranged from pseudo-MacK to 80's Dye to circular disks, and there is so much stuff (water courses, rock walls, stone-lined channels) that it's sensory overload and the architecture has no chance to shine. You would think by chance one of the shapers would make the rolls go in a different direction, but no, they're all twenty yards apart in succession and perpendicular to the hole. There's no rhyme or reason for most of the design decisions, just add in whatever the majority will like and go with it.

I like the idea of turning a blight into something that will impact that local community, but with a blank canvas and essentially a blank slate, it's a missed opportunity. It's already three years old and any tweaks should be in the ground already. Raynor had the same chance this team did and came up with The Lido, Fazio got a similar blank site and gave us Shadow Creek. LN just does not generate any sort of interest for me..

I knew a fellow Dawg would be able to make sense of this. 

[Kalen Braley]

So Adam, Damon, and Kenny,

If I've read your posts correctly then I am assuming the architecture at ANGC has absolutly nothing to do with all the terrific finishes that have happened over the years?

Ditto for places like Pebble, Oakmont, more recenty Torrey Pines, etc, etc.

[Kenny Baer]

Kalen,

I don't think anyone is saying that it has nothing to do with Architecture;  just that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH QUALITY ARCH.  The worst course in the world could have the most exciting finishes won by the very best players time after time.  To say a course is validated because of the way a professional tournament finishes is very tough to follow.

I would like you to argue the point that an exciting finish to a golf tournament is somehow related to the "QUALITY" of the arch.  I agree that the layout of holes (the 2 reachable par 5's at Augusta), the (short 3,4,&5 at LN,) lend itself to an exciting finish BUT the quality of the golf course is by no means validated by who wins the tournament or how exciting the finish is.  Please tell me and everyone else why it does.  

By the way I thought LN played well on TV and had some interesting features; I for one do not understand anybody who called it "boring"; but as I stated in a different thread my problem with LN is that it could have been whatever it wanted to be; money was no object, it could have been Shadow Creek, Bayonne, .... fill in the blank with the numerous superior courses that were built on flat   land.  IMO it looked like it had some terrific holes but that it was built for the sole purpose of challenging PGA tour players.  The options were only limited to one's imagination.  Why they didn't build the entire course in the same mold as they built the short par 3 and drivable par 4 is beyond me.

[Garland Bayley]

The quality of the architecture of a golf course has a role in attracting major championships. Major championships get more attention. When there is an exiting finish between top players at a major championship it is remembered more. However, an exciting finish can happen anywhere. When it is at a minor tournament between minor players, no one remembers.

Perhaps the most exciting finish and playoff occurred between Tiger and Furyk at Firestone with a six hole playoff where spectacular saves to halve holes were the order of the day. However, Firestone is not great architecture, and the finish and playoff doesn't get mentioned much even though it was a pretty significant event (WGC).

[Adam Russell]

Kalen:

Your post implies that the finish of a tournament relates to the quality of the architecture. I think the architecture is only one of many contributing factors to who rises to the top. LN is not better than we're making it out to be simply because the architecture elevated the best guys in the field NEAR the top of the scoreboard at the end of the day. My big thing is that no one yet has given their impression of this course, just a defense to what the majority thinks are flaws. Do you like it, and why?

Kenny:
Well someone had to do it, right? 

[John Kirk]

Excellent thread, despite my attempts to sidetrack the discussion.

I didn't watch very carefully last weekend, and do not wish to offer an opinion.  The recent exchanges have been excellent.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Despite viewing ANGC on TV for the last umpteen years, one is often surprised when viewing/playing the golf course in person.

I would suspect that the same general principle applies to LN.

[Adam Russell]

Patrick -

One can clearly see ANGC's quality through the TV - the MacK bunker, the imposing nature of the 12th, the inherent strategy of the 13th. They excite. LN lacks the unique features or the compelling holes that make the great courses great and draw people in to examine the course. ANGC surprises for the better in person, but the architecture comes across easily no matter what the media. LN does not elicit that initial interest effect for me.

[Dan Herrmann]

For what it's worth, The Golf Channel has reported that Liberty is out.  They also reported there would be a three-course rota for the Barclays - Ridgewood, Plainfield, and Westchester.

Question - how much Kite is at Liberty?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick -

One can clearly see ANGC's quality through the TV

 - the MacK bunker,


What/which MacK bunker ?

the imposing nature of the 12th,

What's imposing about a 145 to 155 yard par 3 ?
You certainly can't see the wind on TV.

the inherent strategy of the 13th.

I'm not so sure viewers can see the strategy on the 13th.
What is the inherent strategy of the hole ?[/size]

They excite.

Do "THEY" excite, or is it the drama of the tournament that excites ?

LN lacks the unique features or the compelling holes that make the great courses great and draw people in to examine the course.


# 16 isn't unique nor compelling ?
# 18 ?
# 2 ?

ANGC surprises for the better in person, but the architecture comes across easily no matter what the media.

If the architecture comes across so easily, as you indicate, you wouldn't be surprised when you saw it in person, would you ?

LN does not elicit that initial interest effect for me.

How many telecasts of the Masters, including reruns and highlights have you seen ?

How many telecasts of LN, including reruns and highlights have you seen ?

Do you think more viewings might elicit more interest ?

[Adam Russell]

Patrick -

One can clearly see ANGC's quality through the TV

 - the MacK bunker,

What/which MacK bunker ?
The one on the 10th hole

the imposing nature of the 12th,

What's imposing about a 145 to 155 yard par 3 ?
You certainly can't see the wind on TV.
Left or right. Clear choices and clear consequences. There is an uneasiness there...

the inherent strategy of the 13th.

I'm not so sure viewers can see the strategy on the 13th.
What is the inherent strategy of the hole ?
Attack the creek, get the advantage to score. Plot right and face two different choices that lead to further choices and about ten different results. Every spot has a question and offers multiple options. An elaborate and systematic plan of action, or strategy if you will.

They excite.


Do "THEY" excite, or is it the drama of the tournament that excites ?
BOTH

LN lacks the unique features or the compelling holes that make the great courses great and draw people in to examine the course.


# 16 isn't unique nor compelling ?
# 18 ?
# 2 ?

NO, all are re-tread. #16 is the classic no-risk short par-4 for those laying up, RTJ designed countless iterations of #18 (without the raised wall meets bunker dilemma), and #2 is simply okay, surrounded sand when having some sort of recovery area would improve the hole playability and rhythm. The three are certainly not unique, and don't have any kind of features or overall design that would lend to being compelling.

ANGC surprises for the better in person, but the architecture comes across easily no matter what the media.

If the architecture comes across so easily, as you indicate, you wouldn't be surprised when you saw it in person, would you ?
Semantics. The features are interesting and pull the viewer in, and the scale is surprising in person. You can be surprised twice with things upon further study.

LN does not elicit that initial interest effect for me.

How many telecasts of the Masters, including reruns and highlights have you seen ?

How many telecasts of LN, including reruns and highlights have you seen ?

Do you think more viewings might elicit more interest ?
I'm not sure where you're going with this, so I'll just say...perhaps 

Patrick, I'm still interested to hear what you think overall about the course. Do you like it, and why? I've put my opinion out there to generate discussion - I think it's a missed opportunity, an average layout...