If hosting a major does not require a great GCA, then what does?

[Bill Shamleffer]

The implication of this topic seems to be that if a course is not considered to be a top 20 or 25 course (maybe top 50), then that course is not worthy to host a major.  There are currently over 15,000 courses in the US.  If a course were to be considered in the top 300 of all courses (per its architecture quality), that course would be in the top 2% of US courses.  I do believe that all courses that have held the US Open or PGA Championship over the past 30 years would be judged by most knowledgeable observers to be in the top 2% of courses in the US at the time of that major.

Obviously a great course may be deemed to be inadequate to host a major due to other reasons (e.g. logistics, regional weather during that time of year, club policies, etc.).  Also, I imagine courses have been selected to host a majors, over architecturally better courses due to other considerations outside of the quality of architecture or the quality of the championship test offered by that other course (e.g. visiting a different geographic region, visiting a non-private club, potential higher revenues, etc.).

So while architecture quality may not be the TRUMP card in choosing host courses for majors, and although some courses that have hosted majors may have some strong deficiencies in their architecture that bother some on this site, the record very strongly endorses my theory that the courses that host majors are almost always in the top 1% to 2% of architecture quality among all US courses.  Too often a course gets downgraded for not measuring up with the top 20 to 50 of all US courses, causing some very good courses to be deemed as being average just because they are not GREAT.

[I accept that ranking a course to be a top 20 or top 300 is very arbitrary.  However, since this topic is about if certain courses qualify as great architecture, then the whole topic is dealing with a certain amount of arbitrariness.  To avoid the arbitrariness of the “quality” of a course’s architecture, would result in this whole topic being completely irrelevant.  And this topic may be irrelevant because of that arbitrariness.]

[Jud_T]

I think the point is not that all these courses aren't significantly better than your average town muni, but rather that GCA is well down the list of importance in choosing an open venue....

[Kalen Braley]

I think the point is not that all these courses aren't significantly better than your average town muni, but rather that GCA is well down the list of importance in choosing an open venue....

I agree Jed,

And to take it one step further...I'd bet dollars to donuts a home town muni, (that had long tees) could easily be converted to a "US Open" type track and would provide just as much a compelling tournament as any of the other tracks that are setup with a typical Open maintainence meld.  However its unlikely we will ever see this due to majors typically being played at well known tracks.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I think the point is not that all these courses aren't significantly better than your average town muni, but rather that GCA is well down the list of importance in choosing an open venue....

...I'd bet dollars to donuts a home town muni, (that had long tees) could easily be converted to a "US Open" type track and would provide just as much a compelling tournament as any of the other tracks that are setup with a typical Open maintainence meld.  However its unlikely we will ever see this due to majors typically being played at well known tracks.

I think you should read what you write before you post it. 

[John Moore II]

I think the point is not that all these courses aren't significantly better than your average town muni, but rather that GCA is well down the list of importance in choosing an open venue....

I agree Jed,

And to take it one step further...I'd bet dollars to donuts a home town muni, (that had long tees) could easily be converted to a "US Open" type track and would provide just as much a compelling tournament as any of the other tracks that are setup with a typical Open maintainence meld.  However its unlikely we will ever see this due to majors typically being played at well known tracks.

Kalen me friend, I have to disagree. Even with long tees, most muni courses couldn't hold any professional event, let alone a major championship. Well, unless the city also had some huge soccer park nearby or something like that. Good, not great, golf courses are a requirement, but having enough space to handle the corporate stuff is of even greater importance. I mean, even if they wanted to host one, some place like Fisher's Island (I only mention that because there is another thread on it in the first page) could never host a major, or any other large event because of logistics. Thats the key, courses need a large space of land in order to handle the tents and all that stuff. Thats also why there are a select few courses that hold majors and just rotate around every 10 or so years.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the point is not that all these courses aren't significantly better than your average town muni, but rather that GCA is well down the list of importance in choosing an open venue....

I agree Jed,

And to take it one step further...I'd bet dollars to donuts a home town muni, (that had long tees) could easily be converted to a "US Open" type track and would provide just as much a compelling tournament as any of the other tracks that are setup with a typical Open maintainence meld.  However its unlikely we will ever see this due to majors typically being played at well known tracks.

Kalen me friend, I have to disagree. Even with long tees, most muni courses couldn't hold any professional event, let alone a major championship. Well, unless the city also had some huge soccer park nearby or something like that. Good, not great, golf courses are a requirement, but having enough space to handle the corporate stuff is of even greater importance. I mean, even if they wanted to host one, some place like Fisher's Island (I only mention that because there is another thread on it in the first page) could never host a major, or any other large event because of logistics. Thats the key, courses need a large space of land in order to handle the tents and all that stuff. Thats also why there are a select few courses that hold majors and just rotate around every 10 or so years.

John,

Thats actually kind of funny because in essence thats what I've been saying during this entire thread.  Which is...

The majors don't care about the actual tourney anymore, they just care about stuffing in tents and fans so they can maximize thier $$$$.  So I agree with most of what you said...the only real requirement these days is space, not an interesting golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Richard Choi,

What is "GREAT architecture" in the context of challenging the greatest players in the world, the PGA Tour Pros ?

Once you define it, we can debate it.

Pat, that is what I am trying to find out. Many people define great architecture as "a course that can host a major". I am trying to find out exactly what that means as from the left field out here (it is actually pretty nice here with a lawn chair watching the crowd), to me, almost any course of length and rough can host a major.

I am trying to figure out if we can take out "can't it host a major?" as one of the qualifier for judging GCA on any golf course.

Richard,

Unfortunately, I think the critical factor in not architectural, in terms of features.

The primary qualifier for hosting a major seems to be ............. LENGTH.

Without length, I don't believe that a course can host a major.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The primary qualifier for hosting a major seems to be ............. LENGTH.

Without length, I don't believe that a course can host a major.

Pat,
I think we'll have to wait until 2013 to see if you're right.