[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Of course I had to come up with a suggested course change that you might like! I needed to get you on the path of accepting some changes to get an Open...  I know you don't want the greens flattened.  (Even though I still think MR 18 is too severe!)

Bill, the interesting thing about your suggestion is that many others have made the same suggestion, indicating that independent of what the USGA might think, there's merit in the idea.

Likewise, the rotation of the 18th green on it's axis or flattening it, has been discussed for years as green speeds have increased.
# 17 has the same issue.

It is just such a tricky business.

Agreed.
Some changes are for the better, some for the worse

With all due respect to membership votes, which I know should be required, such a procedure will do almost NOTHING to preserve the architectural integrity of a golf course.

I'm one of those that don't think that changes to a golf course should be based on membership votes.

In my opinion, THAT will only happen if the club's leaders have that as a main goal and/or they have retained the services of a consulting architect and that is his goal and/or charge.

The problem with goals is:
Who establishes them ?  And why ?

In otherwords, I think 95% or more of club members will look at the proposed changes and ask: "how will affect my game?"

I think the percentage is higher

Throw in enough new Tiger tees, and you'll get the vote of all the young sticks (and maybe their dads.) If you are talking about a US Open, you will automatically get a very significant percentage of yes votes who want the revenue and/or the prestige that comes with hosting an Open.

Consider that 30-50% of the membership won't even both to vote (unless there will be a huge assessment to pay for the changes)... and there will be an insignificant number of members who will "vote for the course" and even care what the ODG might say.

That's why the issue/s shouldn't be determined by membership vote

[Doug Siebert]

Phil,

I recall Larry Nelson commenting that Oak Tree and modern courses of its ilk will be future classics.  We just don't know it yet.

The British Open history suggests that the rotation will evolve over time to modern courses designed for the modern game.

Short version is yes, I think the venues will change over the next 25-50 years.  S L O W L Y.

25 to 50 years?  Well, in that case, no problem!  Guys over 50 today will be dead in 50 years, and you and I will be the old farts talking about the good old days who the young whipper snappers ignore while they use their nanotech shafts to average 400 yard drives on an 8800 yard US Open layout.

You know, sort of like how even those of us here in GCA mostly ignore the few pining away for the good old days of hickory shafts, or even the good less old days of wooden woods and balls full of rubber string.

People will still be able to play the Olympic Clubs and Merions with their fancy modern equipment, but it will be something that hosted championships in the distant past which is obviously ill suited for it in 2062.  Sort of like how we look at Prestwick.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug,

The problem is that high tech has made every classic course a "Prestwick"

[Bill Brightly]

I'm one of those that don't think that changes to a golf course should be based on membership votes.

That's right, I forgot you are in the camp of favoring a wise dictator!

[Phil McDade]

Doug,

The problem is that high tech has made every classic course a "Prestwick"

Patrick:

I'm not sure that's the case. Note some of the early courses that have held Opens in the U.K., vs. the U.S.:

U.K.

St. Andrews (first held the Open Champ. in 1873)
Muirfield (1892)
Sandwich (1894)
Hoylake (1897)

All of those courses, still part of the Open rota, pre-date the Haskell ball (which led to tremendous changes in distance and ability to control the ball).

U.S.

Chicago (first held Open 1897) -- multiple Opens
Myopia (1898) -- multiple Opens
Garden City (1902)
Onwentsia (1906)
Philadelphia Cricket (1907) -- multiple Opens
Englewood (1909)
CC of Buffalo (1912)
Midlothian (1914)
Minikahda (1916)

None of those courses, presumably, are in line to host the U.S. Open, and I'm guessing one (primary?) reason is the inability to lengthen the course to meet the demands of today's technology. Only Shinnecok Hills (1896) and Baltusrol (1903) are courses that held the US Open more than a century and would be capable of holding one today, and both of those courses first held the Open on courses radically different than the current configurations (much more radically redesigned, I'd argue, than any of the U.K. Open courses still in use -- perhaps Colt's Muirfield is an exception here).

So, yes, "high tech" would appear to have made many of the early U.S. Open courses obsolete. Only Prestwick and Mussleburgh (which is only nine holes) have been rendered obsolete in the U.K. due to technology. (Maybe throw in Deal in the discussion.)

Were the U.K. courses built with more elasticity? Were they built on land more suitable for expansion? Or have they simply held up better over the years as championship tests of golf? (the latter being how their hosting organizations -- the R&A, and the USGA -- interpret that.)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()