[Mark Saltzman]

#16 is not really a driveable par-4 by its original design -- it was altered to provide that dimension.

Doral works because of the historic connection in being so long associated with the Tour -- the quality of the holes is not that impressive. No doubt you get big time fanfare with the 18th but there's plenty of other holes that are fairly pedestrian -- unless heavy wind whips up -- but that's the MO for plenty of places in FL -- especially southeast area.

Matt,

Would you mind briefly stating what was changed with 16 (and when was the change made)?  Do you mean the tees are just moved up for tournament play, or was there an actual redesign of the entire hole?  Was the green/bunkering changed? Sorry, but I know very little of the history of Doral Blue.

Mark

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

The tees were moved up and then people can say it's driveable -- the original intent of Wilson didn't really include that option.

It was meant to be a 3-metal or long iron to the turn of the hole and then a short iron to the well-bunkered green.

Mark, the 16th at Doral isn't remotely close to the 10th at Riviera where such an option from the tee was in the original thinking of its creation.

No doubt the driveable feature has become an interesting addition to create added opportunities / burdens for the players but the actual hole itself wasn't designed for what you saw in Saturday's round.

[Mark Saltzman]

Thanks, Matt.  I'm not sure where in your head you store all of this info, but I hope you have room for things other than GCA javascript:void(0);

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

The sad reality is that most tour sites are chosen for a whole host of reasons and architecture is somewhere down the line in terms of the real big time needs involved.

Doral provides the tour with a mainstay presence in southeast FL -- nearest to greater Miami.

[Pat Burke]

Mark:

The sad reality is that most tour sites are chosen for a whole host of reasons and architecture is somewhere down the line in terms of the real big time needs involved.

Doral provides the tour with a mainstay presence in southeast FL -- nearest to greater Miami.

Matt,
One of the first times I was written up (not fined, just written up) was as a rookie, when in an interview I was asked
what the biggest surprise was as a rookie.  I said I was surprised that we played better golf courses and better conditions
on the Australian Tour back then than our tour played.  Went over like a fart in church

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

That's too bad -- unfortunately, many of the really classic courses should not even entertain the thought in hosting such a big time event because of the many disruptions and even possible course changes that must be carried out for one's week of activitity andf fanfare.

It concerns me greatly that Plainfield in NJ will be facing that sort of thing when The Barclays is played there later this year.

Doral / Blue is part and parcel of the Tour's storyline -- players are comfortable as is the sponsor(s). For the PGA Tour and much of professional golf -- those two elements linked together are sufficient.

[Tom Yost]

It looked as if the greens were dormant bermuda?

Certainly not the verdant green I usually associate with a winter rye overseed (tyoical in Arizona). 

[Gary Slatter]

Does anyone have any comment on 16? Personally, I love short/driveable par 4s, but 16 is utterly uninteresting. I think a total of 1 player actually found the green yesterday in 1. It does not seem to me that the Possibility of driving the green was a part of the design consideration as even a tee shot landing on the front portion of the green will usually roll off the back of the shallow green.

Furthermore, the lack of any real risk/reward means that virtually all players will attempt to drive the ball near the green. There is almost no strategy for the players based on what I've seen. The pros seem to be able to get up and down from any of the front bunkers and the rough just over the green equally without problem. To me, any short par four where the tee shot imparts no fear and no real strategy if attempting to drive green, is not a great hole.

Mark

16 isn't supposed to be a driveable par four.  It's an excellent short par four with a challenging green surface.  Tiger made it exciting and showed the possibility to drive it, however more people make 3 from 100 yards out.

Doral is much better now that most of the Floyd andother "improvements" have been voided. 

[Richard Choi]

Matt, why do  you believe that PGA Tour SHOULD host on courses with better architecture? If we have learned anything over recent years that better architecture does not necessarily produce better tournaments. I mean, the US Open at Torrey Pines was as good as it gets and we can all agree that architecture there leaves a lot to be desired.

The tour players do not like "quirky" courses and courses with lots of ponds like Doral looks great on TV.

Why should PGA Tour cater to golf geeks like us when our numbers are so small? Aren't they doing the right thing by catering to the players and viewers?

[Sean Leary]

Matt, why do  you believe that PGA Tour SHOULD host on courses with better architecture? If we have learned anything over recent years that better architecture does not necessarily produce better tournaments. I mean, the US Open at Torrey Pines was as good as it gets and we can all agree that architecture there leaves a lot to be desired.

The tour players do not like "quirky" courses and courses with lots of ponds like Doral looks great on TV.

Why should PGA Tour cater to golf geeks like us when our numbers are so small? Aren't they doing the right thing by catering to the players and viewers?

I agree with you Rich. Shocking, trust me, I know.

[Matt_Ward]

Richard:

TP was simply quite lucky for the alignment of things that happened with that US Open. Plenty of times flat and uninteresting sites produce boring predictable situations of little interest.

Of course, there's no guarantee that the best designs produce stellar golf but the issue is more about general trends when then that happens. Check out the roster of US Open winners at Oakmont -- sure there is a Sam Parks but there is also Tommy Armour, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus and even more recent winners such as Ernie Els and Larry Nelson.

The same can be said for places like Merion over the years -- yes, there's Olin Dutra - but you have Hogan, Trevino and a fantastic ending round by David Graham. Look at Pebble Beach -- Nicklaus, Watson, Woods.

I can go on and on with such situations.

The PGA Tour is about other elements -- first, the sheer logistics of an annual site requires it. Many classic courses can maybe consider a major -- if they are up for it -- but the sheer idea of an annual event would be a major red flag for nearly all of them -- just too much work.

Keep in mind the pull the sponsor(s) have in the overall enterprise -- ditto the player's comfort zone. Doral / Blue is a known entity -- it may not be the best of places architecturally -- but it has enough pizzaz to keep things flowing -- the much ballyhooed 18th hole is clearly a fixture for many.

The other factor is $$. The Tour has gotten into the design business with its own roster of courses -- no need to spread the gravy around when they can keep much of it for themselves.

[Richard Choi]

Meh, the stellar list of winners are really the by-product of stellar field and added pressure of the major. I doubt that you can show statistically that better courses produce better winners.

I bet you you can hold US Open on any muni with enough length and still produce high drama.

[Matt_Ward]

Richard:

Sure it's possble anything can happen.

But the issue is trying to minimize the "chance" factor that can and does happen if so-so sites are thrown into the mix.

Let me ask you this -- would you want to win a US Open at Torrey Pines or Oakmoint ?

The answer is obvious -- if you're truly honest.

[Richard Choi]

Matt, if I was a player, I would want to win the US Open. Period. I don't care if it was played in Podunk National.

No other course in last two decades has better identified the best players of the time than Torrey Pines. Tiger has won six times there and Phil has won 3 times. You add other winners like Daly, Bubba, Olazabal, and O'Meara, no other course has done better rewarding the best players in PGA Tour.

If you truly believe that best architecture finds best players, Torrey Pines would be up there with Oakmont, Pebble Beach, and Shinnecock (and perhaps surpass them).

[Jim Nugent]

Following up on Richard's point, neither Tiger nor Jack ever won at Riviera. 

[Matt_Ward]

Richard:

You are on another planet if you equate Oakmont with TP - the former is in the world's elite of elite courses.

The other is a site that benefits from having had two SoCal guys play well there -- they would do the same if it was at Balboa Park.

In regards to tour courses -- check out Muirfield Village - or the former Westchester CC when the Classic was long held there.

[Richard Choi]

Matt I am not the one equating TP to Oakmont, you are - by implying that great courses produce great champions.

I am under no delusion that course quality has any relation to the quality of the champions that it produces.

[Gary Slatter]

I think DORAL, in any of it's many "states" has produced a great list of champions.   I've played TP almost as much as Doral (we used to do IBM east at Doral and west at TP, for 6 weeks per year).  Doral (except during the Floyd version) is 10 times the course. 

Doral is one of a few courses that I have played around the world where I want to know where the pin is before I tee off.  The shot left to the pin is key at Doral  (DORothy and AL - original owners).  18 is one exception, all I wanted there was to dry.  Even the short first hole had scores from 3 to 7 during the recent WGC. 

Jeff - I think I remember you during our Doral IBM events.     

[Matt_Ward]

Richard:

Course quality does have a impact -- much more than you suggest. Under your theory -- why not play the US Open at Dyker Beach in Brooklyn and let's see who wins. That is silly.

The better layouts cannot guarantee an all-star roster of champions but the overall proability is there. ANGC has a few Herman Keiser types on its listings -- they also have Nicklaus, Palmer, Woods, Lefty, Hogan, Snead and Demaret many more times over.

[Richard Choi]

Matt, you are still not getting it.

You say ANGC produces great champions because of its architecture (beside some obvious evidence contrary to that argument that you yourself listed). But I have already shown that a course with less than stellar architecture have produced great champions.

So how do you know exactly that ANGC produced great champions because of its architecture when even courses with poor architecture can do the same (and even do it better)?

For your conjecture to be true, the opposite must also be true, the courses lacking architectural merit must not produce a group of great champions. But that is demonstrably false, which makes your entire argument false.

How do you know that US Open at Dyker Beach won't produce a worthy champion?

[Matt_Ward]

Richard:

I get it plenty -- you seem to think just about any golf course will do and whoever wins so be it.

There is no course -- get it -- NO COURSE - that produces a full proof roster of all-time great champs.

The unknowns can win but because of the stellar courses generally involved the architecture demands a certain level of higher quality play and it's the really superb players most capable in doing that.

Richard -- please -- stop with this mindless drivel. I don't doubt the show at TP was quite sensational. But the place has no business hosting a US Open -- it was done there for other reasons ($$$).

Quality courses have the better percentage in identifying the best of the best -- quirks and upsets do happen. They don't happen that often and frankly for the US Open to go to Dyker Beach would be a joke and fail to do what a US Open is meant to be.

[Richard Choi]

Nope, still not getting it.

I am not saying anything. You are. I am only pointing out that your arguments don't hold water.

You say that great architecture identify the best of the best, but I can give you plenty of examples where not-so-great architecture that also identify the best of the best. So how do you know that it was the great architecture that did it and not something else?

You don't.

[Matt_Ward]

Richard:

Let me try to help you out again ...

If you take a solid design like an Oakmont the history has clearly shown it identifies the best players -- in most of the occassions (save for Sam Parks).

How do I know?

Check out the history that has happened there and in most other notable places.

The top players prefer to play those places that weed out the lesser ranks. Upsets and quirks happen in all sports -- including golf.

The high pedigree of the design forces such players to play the widest and deepest array of shots.

[Richard Choi]

That is not how logic works.

If the statement "great architecture weed out lesser ranks" is true, then the opposite MUST BE true. This means that "poor architecture does not weed out lesser ranks".

But this last statement is not true when you look at places like Torrey Pines or Doral. Logic says that in that case, the first statement cannot be true.

Put it another way, it does not matter if EVERY great course has a great list of winners, if every other course also has a great list of winners. That just means that every course has a great list of winners regardless of architecture.

For the statement that "great architecture weed out lesser ranks" to be true, there has to be evidence of poor architecture rewarding poor players, but the evidence does not show that. The evidence pretty much says that if you have an elite field, you are going to have elite list of winners. The course does not matter as much.

Just because you keep saying that it is, does not make it so.

[Matt_Ward]

Richard:

English must not be your primary language.

Great players can win at all places -- the reverse that weak players can win at the most architecturally sound doesn't flow in the same manner. No doubt upsets happen -- as they do in ALL sports.

Richard smell the coffee -- it's been brewing for some time -- probabiltiies are what is being discussed here. It is more probable that as the quality of the design goes up the better players will only be served in a higher percentage of times than playing a weaker design which permits even more broader array of players to challenge for the title. Numerous examples can be provided.

The odds that weaker players can win at the lesser quality layouts simply goes up because such courses do not have the high bar requirements that only serve to separate the elite players from the others.

By the way -- check out the comments of the elite players who have always relished such strong and architecturally sound courses to test them. Of course, under your reasoning (shall I call it that) they are flawed in their thimking as I am.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()