Can the 2010 US Open be seen as a victory for today's golf course architects?

[Sam Kestin]

Say what you want about the golf course setup at Pebble Beach...and, quite candidly, it is probably to blame/credit for this...but I was thinking yesterday that there was something noble (in my view) about the fact that a golf course at 7040 yards (not the 7400+ that is starting to become industry standard for the USGA) held up against the best players in the world over the course of four reasonably calm days.

Heck, it was a short 7040 at that given that the ground conditions had the ball running out so much that Phil Mickelson hit a drive on #2 that went (if I remember correctly) some 390 yards. Assuming that the hard and fast turf gave players a 10% bump in distance over the relatively softer conditions usually found at PGA TOUR events, this 7040 yard golf course probably played to an effective yardage around 6500 (or even less).

Does anyone else think this can this be viewed as a win for those architects looking to build the championship golf courses of the future? Am I the only one that feels somewhat content that a challenging test of golf can be given to the world's best without overwhelming length as the primary defense?       

[Jim Hoak]

Yes.  And probably an endorsement for the position of the new USGA President's position that courses need to use less water and be more green (in environmental practice) and less green (in appearance).

[Garland Bayley]

No, it can be seen as a victory for the USGA demonstrating to the players that they need to play a ball with more spin.

[Sam Kestin]

Hahaha, is it possible that I agree with both of you?

[Dean Stokes]

No. You can trick any golf course up. If half the fairways are cantered and rock hard and the rough is thick the score are going to be high. Add to that small, rock hard greens, thick surrounds and tough pin positions what do you expect?

There was no wind and it was cloudy for most of the week or the winning score would have been +15. Very entertaining!

[John Moore II]

Yeah, its a victory if you want to play on goofy golf courses. I mean, at this rate, Tobacco Road could be in the running for a US Open. I mean, you make those greens brick hard and run them at 12 or 13, maybe tighten in the fairways just a touch and grow the rough deep around the greens and that golf course could be so insanely difficult as to be near unplayable. That is the only reason that Pebble played hard, they tricked up the golf course, plain and simple. Near any golf course could hold an Open given that set-up.

[Phil Benedict]

With rock hard greens in (let's face it) less than pristine conditions scores are going to be high.  I'm not sure if this validates any architectural approach.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Would be a NO from me. I dont really see the question link, it was more about the set up than the architecture, with a different set up -20 could have won

[Tom_Doak]

Adrian:

Well, the one thing the Open did demonstrate is the importance of set-up, and the idea that a golf course doesn't have one "ideal maintenance meld" [to borrow a term from an old-timer here] that they ought to try to keep up 365 days a year. 

That USED to be understood by everyone in golf, but in recent years there has been the idea that you should always present championship conditions ... maybe now some more people understand how that is neither necessary nor desirable.

The real reason the scores were so high is that the greens were not just rock hard, they are also 3500 sq ft.  That is hardly a model for new courses.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Tom the rock hard greens was largely the set up. To some degree it was fun for the watcher to watch these pro's struggle to get the ball close and watch the ball feed away from the hole. With a soft green set up I think -20 was maybe the number, a rock hard green set up at TOC is probably the only way you can protect par, with the weather pattern here its likely it could happen this year.

I do think that 14 is way too much and perhaps the rock hard set up borders silly. One day the USGA will push the limits too far and you might just see a hole playing to infinity later in the day if wind got up a bit.

[paul cowley]

Adrian:

Well, the one thing the Open did demonstrate is the importance of set-up, and the idea that a golf course doesn't have one "ideal maintenance meld" [to borrow a term from an old-timer here] that they ought to try to keep up 365 days a year. 

That USED to be understood by everyone in golf, but in recent years there has been the idea that you should always present championship conditions ... maybe now some more people understand how that is neither necessary nor desirable.

The real reason the scores were so high is that the greens were not just rock hard, they are also 3500 sq ft.  That is hardly a model for new courses.

3500 sq'.....maybe that should be more the model....screw length and defend with smaller greens.
I can assure most here that GCArchs don't get their rocks off designing ever longer courses....I would get much more challenge trying to design them shorter.....maybe in this crack it might start to happen....but I doubt it.

[John Moore II]

Adrian:

Well, the one thing the Open did demonstrate is the importance of set-up, and the idea that a golf course doesn't have one "ideal maintenance meld" [to borrow a term from an old-timer here] that they ought to try to keep up 365 days a year. 

That USED to be understood by everyone in golf, but in recent years there has been the idea that you should always present championship conditions ... maybe now some more people understand how that is neither necessary nor desirable.

The real reason the scores were so high is that the greens were not just rock hard, they are also 3500 sq ft.  That is hardly a model for new courses.

3500 sq'.....maybe that should be more the model....screw length and defend with smaller greens.
I can assure most here that GCArchs don't get their rocks off designing ever longer courses....I would get much more challenge trying to design them shorter.....maybe in this crack it might start to happen....but I doubt it.

But the only way to make the course a challenge for the best players (assuming that is what we are talking about here) when it is short is to make the playing conditions foolish. Without big time length, courses have to have brick hard greens that are rolling too fast; that is not what these things were designed for. Plain and simple, courses that wish to hold professional tournaments and elite amateur events must have nearly absurd length in order to be relevant. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Fewer greens in regulation and most players, even the best I'd imagine, are going to score worse. (Unless the greens are so large that a green in regulation often times isn't worth it). So the question is, how do you get players to hit less greens? Well, length doesn't work except for those players for whom it's like rubbing salt in the wound. And smaller greens on certain types of course would be great, but then if it was a great course and got a lot of play, the entire surface of every green would have to be pinnable, to avoid wear and tear (or expensive maintenance). So what you have left are the fairways. And unless you want to sandwich those fairways in bunkers (a non-starter for most any architect I'd guess) the only thing left is the cant them.
Peter

[Adrian_Stiff]

Small greens at the 3500 sq ft level are maintenance headaches. When you take a 3 metre perimiter strip away you have litte pinning area, if you have contours its even worse, if you have obique internal contours its easy to have a 2000 sq ft area unpinnable if it gets fast (ie 14). Pebble is breaking the norm, the climate there probaby favours the Poa and the recovery rates.  6000 sq ft is a more realistic modern aim as a standard size. In some climates you probaby cant get under 4500.

[Sean_A]

I think people have gone completely overboard with Pebble's conditions.  Sure, small greens rolling at 13 with f&f conditions is a bit much for a handful of the holes.  Throttle back the green speeds and cut the rough so players can kick balls in EVEN IF KICK INS ARE AIMED AWAY FROM THE HOLE and Bob's yer uncle.  There is no need for wholesale architectural changes, just for the powers that be to learn something from this championship.  Ideally, bigger greens work better with f&f conditions, but Pebble is what it is.  If it was a great course in May then it was a great course for the Open.  On the relative scale of set-ups, this Open was much better than the typical mushy Pebble we see every spring.  What folks must realize is that if f&f is the goal, then there is always the risk of overboard areas.  Sure, if it were me setting up the course I would be more forgiving because weather forecasts aren't always accurate, but we are talking about a very fine line when it comes to challenging these players the way the USGA wants to.  Nobody seems to question that "USGA challenge" when perhaps it is this philosophy which is the real problem and what makes it nearly impossible for the powers that be to get a course in ideal condition to realize this philosophy.  All I know is I am sick of people saying its a shame the weather didn't cooperate because if it were f&f the championship would have been much better.  Well, this is f&f folks - take it or leave it, but stop bitching after you get your wish.  Maintenance is not an exact science and should never be treated as such.

Question - were there any holes which played better than the usual mushy Pebble because of the conditions?


Ciao 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

No I do not think it is a victory for anything architectually. I do think the set up was better and did less to take the architecture away from Pebble than many past opens. Thanking the rough away from trap feeding area and the ocean was incredible. The crazed out of places grasses bordering many taps was equally stupid. I frankly thought the rough was manageble given the size of the greens and firmess. They moved the tees up to change things around from day to day on several hole swhich was wonderful. I wish 17 had been one of them

[Bill Brightly]

I think it was a small victory for fast and firm conditions...but no way they can maintain putting greens like that for more than one week.

[jeffwarne]

Adrian:

Well, the one thing the Open did demonstrate is the importance of set-up, and the idea that a golf course doesn't have one "ideal maintenance meld" [to borrow a term from an old-timer here] that they ought to try to keep up 365 days a year. 

That USED to be understood by everyone in golf, but in recent years there has been the idea that you should always present championship conditions ... maybe now some more people understand how that is neither necessary nor desirable.

The real reason the scores were so high is that the greens were not just rock hard, they are also 3500 sq ft.  That is hardly a model for new courses.

3500 sq'.....maybe that should be more the model....screw length and defend with smaller greens.
I can assure most here that GCArchs don't get their rocks off designing ever longer courses....I would get much more challenge trying to design them shorter.....maybe in this crack it might start to happen....but I doubt it.

The great thing about 3500 square foot greens at a busy course  is you have a better chance to provide US Open conditions (you know --extra bumpy)

[Jim Hoak]

Having played Pebble Beach on the Thursday before the Open, I think the comments about the greens are overdone.  Granted they looked multi-colored on televison, and I don't know why that was--other than they are poanna which comes in many shades when it is lightly watered.  In fact, they were better--and smoother--than I have ever seen them.  All Open greens get bumpy late in the day, and poanna is bumpier than most--but they were pretty good all in all.  They were definitely less bumpy than many writers here have implied.  I think we need to get used to the different coloration, since the USGA is committed--rightfully, in my opinion--to using less water on all courses.  I think those people who were here can attest that the greens in person looked much better than they did on television.

[Carl Rogers]

It was very tedious and predictable for me to watch on the tube.  If it was not our National Open, I would have been turned it off.

The fast, firm & small greens could have been combined with little or no rough around the greens bringing the chip in or hole out from off the green back into the equation.  Rain seems to be the only way to lower scores.

[Jim Hoak]

Carl--Your points are good, but on Pebble the main way to contain scores is wind--and there was very little.