Have they lost their minds ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rumor has it that pressure is being exerted at Winged Foot to disfigure the first green on the West course and possibly others in order to accomodate another U.S. Open.

Having putted on the first green recently when the green was at 13, I have to admit that some interesting, strategic hole locations were eliminated due to the high speeds.

I'm sure the same is true on other greens at Winged Foot.

But, why ruin the very essence, the unusual character of the golf course for just four days, once every decade or so, for a bunch of transient out of towners/non-members, irrespective of how well they play golf ?

I believe the previous U.S. Open had the greens stimping at about 9.
Why the need to speed them up to 10, 11, 12 or 13 ?
What's the point when it comes at the expense of ripping up and destroying absolutely phenomenal greens.
Greens that the members and their guests have enjoyed for decades and decades.

Arthur Webber crafted a treatise coralating slope and green speed.

As green speeds are increased to double digits, greens must be flattened to accomodate hole locations, deprived of their unique contouring, contouring that gives them character, they become bland, absent true uniqueness.

Why on earth would a club consider disfiguring their course's greatest asset, the character and uniqueness of their greens.

And, this assault on creativity and character doesn't reside solely in Mamaroneck, NY.

Rumor has it that Ardmore, PA may suffer a similar fate.

If Merion and Winged Foot fall victim to this insanity, who will be next, Shinnecock ?

Will this process continue until all Open venues have greens that resemble table tops ?

What imbiciles are responsible for these attacks on creative architecture ?

[Michael Rossi]

it could be said that players themselves are to blame. As conditions improve or greens speeds increase the players wants them better and faster. The improved conditions become the norm.

I would prefer play or watch:

a wild sweeping putt that utilize the slope as opposed to flat fast putt.

an approach shots that utilize the slope of the green and rolls toward the hole as opposed to a high dart that hits and stops.

Contours let us have fun, be creative, and give us much enjoyment.



 

[Richard Hetzel]

Easily solved.

Ensure that the greens are all DIFFERENT speeds!

[Jaeger Kovich]

Pat - I completely agree and will be very disappointed in the USGA if they do anything to #1 green. That green has some of the wildest contours I have ever seen, and it is a perfect start to the round on the west course. In the 2006 open #18 played the hardest, #1 was the second hardest... Welcome to Winged Foot!!!

I hope WF sticks it to the USGA and doesn't do anything... They have 2 of the best courses in the world, why would they change that just to please the USGA for a week every 8-10 years.

[David Stamm]

So rather than keep the speeds at 9 and accept the fact that the players MIGHT shoot below par, it's "easier" to taker a venerable club like WF and stamp out all the character that lent itself to what made the USGA want to hold their championship their to begin with. Pat, it takes two to tango. The USGA's obsession with protecting par at all costs, and a membership that will not put their foot down and say no. It just proves my point that these tournaments need to be on purpose built courses that they can screw up all they want. It no longer serves a purpose to have them on the great, classic courses.

[Adam Clayman]

It brings into question how good these guys really are. Softening means easier.
WF should tell them to love it or leave it.

[Carl Nichols]

Does the USGA make these kinds of very specific requests in advance of awarding an Open?  I recently saw a powerpoint detailing the various changes and/or maintenance practices that the USGA wants at Congressional for the 2011 Open; it looked like the result of a lot of onsite work and back-and-forth between the Club and the USGA. 

[JC Jones]

How precipitous do such great courses drop in their perception and ratings among the treehouse and other architecture junkies when they lose  their essential character.

There are several courses out there with great routings and uninteresting greens that get panned left and right.  Could you honestly bring yourself to rate a post-renovation WFW or Merion  as NOT a top 100 course based on the fact that all the greens were flat?

[JNC Lyon]

There is discussion of doing something similar to the 13th green at Oak Hill East.   Apparently the back part of the green is too steep for pins in major championships.  Of course, the hole is often cut in the back portion of the green at high green speeds.  It is simply imperative to be below the hole. In my opinion, softening the green would take away much of the strategy and challenge of the approach.  A green with less slope would allow players to fire at the pin without worrying about being above the hole.

The players on tour today are VERY spoiled.  It is understand why they make so many putts.  It's not because they are better putters than the best amateur players.  It's because they play on flat greens that are always in perfect condition.  When the greens are less than absolutely perfect, such as they were at Harding Park last week, the players complain to no end.

I hope that none of these greens get changed, and the USGA and PGA of America make concerted efforts to place hole locations at grades greater than 2%.  Then we will really see how good the pros are.

[David Stamm]

How precipitous do such great courses drop in their perception and ratings among the treehouse and other architecture junkies when they lose  their essential character.

There are several courses out there with great routings and uninteresting greens that get panned left and right.  Could you honestly bring yourself to rate a post-renovation WFW or Merion  as NOT a top 100 course based on the fact that all the greens were flat?

It's all about the architecture. The history is simply for some, a bonus. If Merion or WF stamped out everything that made the courses what they are, then would that not mean they are no longer the courses that made them great to beign with? Is ANGC still the MacKenzie/Jones course? In name only. So, to answer your question, and I haven't played either that you mention, I would hope I could look at the courses were/are at that moment and rate them appropriately and not let what had once been infleunce me. Does not a classic course that is restored to it's former greatness usually shoot up the rankings? Engineers, Cal Club recently, and I'm sure LACC North when the work is completed, being examples. It should also work the other way if the course is changed for the worse, IMHO, no matter what pedigree the course has.

[JR Potts]

You're going to see a whole lot more of this in my opinion.  Large, older clubs with a history of hosting events are becoming more and more dependent on said events for capital projects, dues abatement/reduction and overall operating income.  Given the dramatic shift in the economic environment, not as many clubs are going to be able to turn down the financial impact of hosting an Open - even if it means de-figuring a green or two.

[JNC Lyon]

You're going to see a whole lot more of this in my opinion.  Large, older clubs with a history of hosting events are becoming more and more dependent on said events for capital projects, dues abatement/reduction and overall operating income.  Given the dramatic shift in the economic environment, not as many clubs are going to be able to turn down the financial impact of hosting an Open - even if it means de-figuring a green or two.

On the flip side, you could see courses being less willing to make changes due to the extra cost for the membership.  Making changes to your golf course is no guarantee that you will land a major championship, and I'm guessing that memberships will not be interested in paying for renovations.

[JR Potts]

If a bulldozer hits that first green, you can rest assured that a one or two event deal has been cut.

[JC Jones]

How precipitous do such great courses drop in their perception and ratings among the treehouse and other architecture junkies when they lose  their essential character.

There are several courses out there with great routings and uninteresting greens that get panned left and right.  Could you honestly bring yourself to rate a post-renovation WFW or Merion  as NOT a top 100 course based on the fact that all the greens were flat?

It's all about the architecture. The history is simply for some, a bonus. If Merion or WF stamped out everything that made the courses what they are, then would that not mean they are no longer the courses that made them great to beign with? Is ANGC still the MacKenzie/Jones course? In name only. So, to answer your question, and I haven't played either that you mention, I would hope I could look at the courses were/are at that moment and rate them appropriately and not let what had once been infleunce me. Does not a classic course that is restored to it's former greatness usually shoot up the rankings? Engineers, Cal Club recently, and I'm sure LACC North when the work is completed, being examples. It should also work the other way if the course is changed for the worse, IMHO, no matter what pedigree the course has.

The problem is that ANGC has remained among the top 10 courses in the US regardless of whatever bastardization of the original is currently there.  If the work is as bad as some on here suggest (I've never played it) then it shouldnt be in the top 10.  The only reason I can think of that it is would simply be because of its history.

Though I agree with you, when someone rates a course, it should be for as the course is found at that time and not what it used to be.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JC Jones,

Please don't listen to people who declare that they ruined ANGC, especially people who have never played the golf course.

ANGC is a great golf course.
The fairways remain generous, although not to their former widths.
The greens remain mostly intact.

If ANGC has a short coming it's the absence of a set of tees between the Member's tees and the Masters tees.

[jeffwarne]

You're going to see a whole lot more of this in my opinion.  Large, older clubs with a history of hosting events are becoming more and more dependent on said events for capital projects, dues abatement/reduction and overall operating income.  Given the dramatic shift in the economic environment, not as many clubs are going to be able to turn down the financial impact of hosting an Open - even if it means de-figuring a green or two.

So if I have this right, the green's are being softened to accomodate higher speeds, which pleases the players and USGA, which provides more Opens at their course, which brings in revenue to pay for higher maintenance which results in more speed in the first place,, which.......

[Tom_Doak]

JC Jones,


ANGC is a great golf course.
The fairways remain generous, although not to their former widths.
The greens remain mostly intact.

Um, Patrick, every green at Augusta National has been rebuilt at least once, some of them many times, dating back to the 1930's.

#18 has been softened multiple times, most recently in the early 1980's.  That one would probably make the best parallel with the first green at Winged Foot.

Don't misunderstand me.  I've been saying and writing for years that increased green speeds are putting pressure on clubs to change and potentiallly ruin some great greens contours.  I hate when other architects do it, and I especially hate when it gets to the point that I have to agree to do that work at any of the clubs where we consult.

But when it gets to that point, we have to do it.  We KNOW when we rebuild a set of greens and they plant A-4 bentgrass [usually against our recommendations] that the green is going to be faster on an everyday basis than it used to be.  So if there's a green which is already borderline, that green will be over the line once it's rebuilt, and it will be perceived to be OUR fault, even if we can prove that the contours are exactly the same as before.  It would be malpractice not to address the situation, and every time I've had to bring it up, the club's instructions were to make the change, as subtly as possible.

I try to avoid these situations where I can.  I turned down an opportunity to be the consulting architect for Shinnecock Hills before the last U.S. Open, because I was afraid of getting caught in the middle of this issue, and it's a good thing I did.  If I'd been the consultant, the debacle of #7 green would have been all MY fault, even though I hadn't touched it.  And the memory of that day is one of several reasons why the USGA pressures Winged Foot and Merion to make changes.

Patrick, I agree completely with your sentiment.  No great course should make changes just to host a professional event.  But it happens every year, because even the USGA has gotten to be in the business of giving the players what they want ... and the players want consistent, fast, fair (i.e. flatter) greens.

[SL_Solow]

I think that the comparisons with Augusta are somewhat inappropriate because the changes at Augusta are made by the Club; there is no outside agency like the USGA or the PGA dictating the modifications as a precondition for hosting the tourney.  Moreover, I suggest that if Augusta did not make any changes, the players would still play because it is the Masters and nobody has the ability to move to a new venue.

The USGA issue is not a new one.  When the Open was held at Olympia Fields, the club was required to soften the 3rd green (prhaps the most intersting green on the course) to create more hole locations.  The difference is that Mark Mungeam did a very skillful job so that the basic character was retained.  Contrast that to Rees' work on the 2nd at Medinah.

As to the initial question posed by Pat, from an architectural standpoint I think they are out of their minds.  However, many of these clubs feel that hosting a tournament adds significant prestige which elevates their status and helps them to compete for members.  As Ryan noted, the revenue is an additional attraction.  There may even be a few who feel they have a duty to the game.  I suspect that most of their members don't really have strong feelings about the architecture and may even conclude that the USGA changes are an improvement; after all, it must be good architecture if it can test the pros in a national championship.

[Rick Shefchik]

No great course should make changes just to host a professional event.  But it happens every year, because even the USGA has gotten to be in the business of giving the players what they want ... and the players want consistent, fast, fair (i.e. flatter) greens.

When did the PGA Tour take over the USGA? Doesn't the USGA throw around that phrase "for the good of the game" all the time? There's nothing good for the game here.

I'm guessing Interlachen will be rebuilding the green on #18 (it played as #9 during the Women's Open last year), as well as the greens on 6, 10, 12, and 15.

The problem is not just the pros, however. The better players at most clubs are constantly pressuring the greens committee for faster green speeds.  they'll probably be softening the greens on #18 and #1 at Minneapolis Golf Club, too. If this mania continues to spread, half the greens at White Bear Yacht Club are goners.

[TEPaul]

"Having putted on the first green recently when the green was at 13, I have to admit that some interesting, strategic hole locations were eliminated due to the high speeds."


Pat:

Part of this ongoing increased greenspeed demand I've seen particularly in the last few years is now a pretty good number of clubs are actually running greenspeeds on a regular basis for their members that are in the very close neighborhood to the greenspeeds that the USGA targets for their US Open. I'm talking 12 to 13 and even sometimes a foot higher. It is just remarkably to me that some of these supers can actually do this today on a fairly consistent basis. I know this was the first year our guy was able to do it consistently and without that much danger or stress. I think it's insane and so does he but the fact is for the first time in our club's history it's possible on a fairly consistent basis.

Somehow I think there just might be a silver lining in this recent phenomenon even if I haven't quite figured out what it is yet. I know one thing----eg if the USGA decided to cap their target speed at say 13 for the rest of time we all (and our greens) may have a chance of surviving with the contuors and slopes some of them have now but if they decided to ratchet up their target for the US Open from here (or 13) they will just be contributing to upsetting the apple cart all over again.

We are now in the world of real physics and ain't none of us ever gonna change THAT!! The PHYSICS of this is really talking to us now BIGTIME with some of these greens at 13 on the Stimp. Let's hope more people learn how to listen, at least to physics of it!

[JMEvensky]

TEP,the silver lining will be that : A) clubs will tire of the extra expense involved in tuning their course to such a level daily, B) Supers will educate the members that the arms race for the fastest greens in town is folly,and C) the members themselves will realize that putting US Open-type greens on a daily basis isn't as much fun as they thought it would be.

Regarding WFW,wouldn't a decision such as rebuilding a green be subject to a vote of the entire membership?If so,and they vote to do so,how can anyone blame them?It's their course to alter as they please.

[DMoriarty]

Rumor has it that pressure is being exerted at Winged Foot to disfigure the first green on the West course and possibly others in order to accomodate another U.S. Open.

Having putted on the first green recently when the green was at 13, I have to admit that some interesting, strategic hole locations were eliminated due to the high speeds.

I'm sure the same is true on other greens at Winged Foot.

But, why ruin the very essence, the unusual character of the golf course for just four days, once every decade or so, for a bunch of transient out of towners/non-members, irrespective of how well they play golf ?

I believe the previous U.S. Open had the greens stimping at about 9.
Why the need to speed them up to 10, 11, 12 or 13 ?
What's the point when it comes at the expense of ripping up and destroying absolutely phenomenal greens.
Greens that the members and their guests have enjoyed for decades and decades.

Is there any other possible answer explanation except for vanity of the memberships?  And the insecure need to be seen as a great course, able to challenge the best in the world?   Why else would these places compromise the quality and character of their courses?

If Merion and Winged Foot fall victim to this insanity, who will be next, Shinnecock ?

What imbiciles are responsible for these attacks on creative architecture ?  

U S G A.   And the egos at these clubs.   Who else?   The USGA apologists like the ones we see around here certainly don't help, but I put most of the blame with the USGA and the clubs. The USGA has sold out golf's greatest assets to try and cover for their own unwillingness and inability to stand up to the equipment manufacturers.   All they have left is their willingness to trick up those few courses that have stood the test of time without trickery.   Because of the USGA's failures we get to witness our greatest courses bastardized beyond recognition.  Imagine, the 3rd at Merion a 279 yard par three?   They are willing to turn our great courses into absolute jokes and these clubs are apparently in on it.  

It concerns me that the next to Walker Cups in the US are scheduled at NGLA and LACC.  I sure hope the USGA doesnt get any ideas for these places.   They seem to ruin everything they touch.

"For the good of the game" my arse.  

The great clubs ought to dump the USGA and start their own organization, one actually interested in promoting "the good of the game."   Unfortunately I know this wont happen because of the incestuous relationship between the two.    What a sad legacy these men will leave.

[TEPaul]

"TEP,the silver lining will be that : A) clubs will tire of the extra expense involved in tuning their course to such a level daily, B) Supers will educate the members that the arms race for the fastest greens in town is folly,and C) the members themselves will realize that putting US Open-type greens on a daily basis isn't as much fun as they thought it would be."


Jeff:

I'd pretty much agree with all that. I think the interesting thing (perhaps the silver lining) with what is possible to do recently and consistently is that a whole lot more people are going to see first hand and regularly that at these kinds of speeds on a whole lot of existing greens (particularly on the older courses) even Tiger Woods could not two putt a ton of these greens at these speeds if he was putting from the wrong place to various pins. That alone may start to convince a lot more people that on some courses we just don't need to have speeds like this and not for anyone!

[JMEvensky]

TEP,this is kind of what I wanted to discuss a couple of weeks ago with my topic of trading lowered maintenance budget for lower member expectations.

[Tom_Doak]

JME:  I'd agree with your first and third points but not necessarily your second point.  How many examples can you cite of a golf course superintendent that tried to convince the membership to slow down the greens?

Crystal Downs had a couple of years with the greens at the "optimum" speed of 11 every day, before the membership finally relented and backed it off a bit this year.